Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and ...

Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Methodology and Assumptions August 2014

Technical Report: 2014/009

Auckland Council Technical Report 2014/009 ISSN 2230-4525 (Print) ISSN 2230-4533 (Online) ISBN 978-1-927302-03-3 (Print) ISBN 978-1-927302-04-0 (PDF)

This report has been peer reviewed by the Peer Review Panel using the Panel’s terms of reference Submitted for review on 28 April 2014 Review completed on 4 August 2014 Reviewed by one reviewer Approved for Auckland Council publication by:

Name: Regan Solomon

Position: Manager, Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit

Date: 18 August 2014

Recommended citation: Balderston, K. and Fredrickson, C. (2014). Capacity for growth study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): methodology and assumptions. Auckland Council technical report, TR2014/009

© 2014 Auckland Council

This publication is provided strictly subject to Auckland Council’s copyright and other intellectual property rights (if any) in the publication. Users of the publication may only access, reproduce and use the publication, in a secure digital medium or hard copy, for responsible genuine non-commercial purposes relating to personal, public service or educational purposes, provided that the publication is only ever accurately reproduced and proper attribution of its source, publication date and authorship is attached to any use or reproduction. This publication must not be used in any way for any commercial purpose without the prior written consent of Auckland Council. Auckland Council does not give any warranty whatsoever, including without limitation, as to the availability, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the information or data (including third party data) made available via the publication and expressly disclaim (to the maximum extent permitted in law) all liability for any damage or loss resulting from your use of, or reliance on the publication or the information and data provided via the publication. The publication, information, and data contained within it are provided on an "as is" basis.

Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Methodology and Assumptions

Kyle Balderston, Growth Analyst, and Craig Fredrickson, Growth Analyst Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit.

Disclaimer While every care has been taken to ensure that the outputs of the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) study are accurate within the limitations of the assumptions and limitations outlined elsewhere in this document, Auckland Council disclaims any liability whatsoever in connection with any action taken in reliance of this document or for any error, deficiency, flaw or omission contained in it. The authors welcome any comment, suggestion or correction. The purpose of this study is to determine the capability of Auckland to accommodate additional growth, (including dwellings) based on a subset of selected rules from the provisions published in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, as at 30 September 2013. This study has been undertaken through a computer based geospatial desktop modelling exercise, carried out at parcel or title level. This process necessarily involves the simplification, modification, or omission of some planning provisions that may impact on the real world ability to consent and/or realise capacity identified. It should also be noted that all subdivision is subject to individual consent assessment on a case by case basis on its merits. Accordingly the outputs of this modelling exercise and subsequent reported results of this study in no way imply that subdivision, or the subsequent construction of a dwelling or structure may take place on a parcel or title without fulfilling all of the necessary requirements of the plan applying at the time of application. The results of this study are designed to be reported at a large-scale level and while the results of the study are presented in parts of this report at the level they were modelled, the use of study outputs at an individual parcel or title scale is not recommended. As assessments in this study are based on the rules contained within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and cadastral boundaries that were in place at the time the plan was notified, it does not account for the many applications for non-compliant activities that council could receive, nor for future possible changes to planning provisions, which are highly likely to occur though public submissions and Hearings Panel process. The study does not assess the potential for site amalgamations or multi-parcel applications, all of which would potentially and substantially increase yields indicated. This study is a measure of 'plan enabled capacity' as facilitated by an interpretation of the rules of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and is not a prediction of future growth. For more information on study outputs, results, possible future updates and improvements, or further advice on how the results can be used or analysed, please contact the Research Investigations and Monitoring Unit at the Auckland Council.

Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

1

Acknowledgements Capacity for Growth Study team: Auckland Council

Critchlow Ltd

Kyle Balderston Craig Fredrickson

Mike Oberdries

With thanks to: Regan Solomon Paul Owen Nick Pollard Jeremy Wyatt Alina Wilmer Bain Cross Ruth Andrews

Team Leader, Land Use Infrastructure and Built Environment Research Growth Analyst, Land Use Infrastructure and Built Environment Research Principal Planner, Unitary Plan Principal Planner, Unitary Plan Principal Planner, Unitary Plan Principal Planner, Unitary Plan Principal Planner, Unitary Plan

We would also like to acknowledge the advice, feedback, encouragement and constructive comments from across Auckland Council and the wider planning and development community in the undertaking of this project.


2

Contents Disclaimer

............................................................................................................................................ 1

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. 2 Contents

............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.0

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5

2.0

Background.................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1

Why did we undertake the study?.......................................................................................... 6

2.2

What will study results be used for? ...................................................................................... 6

3.0

Assessing capacity ...................................................................................................................... 8

4.0

Study wide assumptions and limitations.................................................................................... 13

5.0

Capacity types ........................................................................................................................... 16

6.0

Modelling process ...................................................................................................................... 19

6.1

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) .................................................................... 19

6.2

Conversion of the PAUP zones, precincts and overlays to 'CfGS zones' ........................... 20

7.0

Residential capacity (urban and rural towns) methodology ...................................................... 28

7.1

Residential capacity assessment – global assumptions ..................................................... 28

7.2

Residential vacant ............................................................................................................... 31

7.3

Residential infill (including vacant potential) ........................................................................ 35

7.4

Residential redevelopment .................................................................................................. 49

7.5

Intensive development in residential zones: capacity calculation methodology.................. 54

7.6

Residential conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings ...................................................... 71

7.7

Amalgamation of residential parcels .................................................................................... 76

8.0

Business land capacity methodology ........................................................................................ 78

8.1

Global business land capacity assumptions ........................................................................ 78

8.2

Total business land .............................................................................................................. 79

8.3

Business vacant land ........................................................................................................... 81

8.4

Business vacant potential land ............................................................................................ 85

9.0

Business redevelopment (floor space) capacity methodology .................................................. 93

9.1

Background to business redevelopment (floor space) capacity .......................................... 93

9.2

Defining business areas and business area types .............................................................. 96

9.3

Business redevelopment (floor space) capacity measures ................................................. 97

9.4

Business redevelopment (floor space) scenarios ................................................................ 98

9.5

Business redevelopment (floor space) capacity calculation methodology ........................ 102

9.6

Conversion of business redevelopment floor space to dwellings and employees ............ 131

10.0

Rural residential capacity methodology...................................................................................142

10.1

Background ........................................................................................................................ 142

10.2

Rural residential assumptions and limitations ................................................................... 144

10.3

Calculating rural residential capacity ................................................................................. 145

11.0

Modified capacity: site shape factor ........................................................................................180


3

11.1

Background ........................................................................................................................ 180

11.2

Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 183

12.0

Special areas (including structure plan areas) ........................................................................188

12.1

Why don’t we model these areas? .................................................................................... 189

13.0

Using capacity results as inputs into the Auckland Residential Futures Model ......................192

13.1

Background ........................................................................................................................ 192

13.2

ARFM input creation methodology .................................................................................... 192

13.3

ARFM input creation: Results ............................................................................................ 196

14.0

Glossary...................................................................................................................................200

15.0

References ..............................................................................................................................202

16.0

Appendices ..............................................................................................................................204

Appendix A: Map showing the location and extent of rural towns ......................................................205 Appendix B: Maps showing the location of business areas (including business area type) ..............207 Appendix C: Map of location and extent of special areas ...................................................................215 Appendix D: Map and list of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan designations (as used in the modelling process) ..................................................................................................................................217 Appendix E: Modelling rules for apportioning dwelling count from the rates assessment polygon to parcel polygon ..................................................................................................................................219 Appendix F: Data and sources utilised in study, with description and source....................................221 Appendix G: FME workbench processing inventory ...........................................................................224 Appendix H: FME workbench schematics ..........................................................................................235 Appendix I:

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan residential zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions ....264

Appendix J: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions ......268 Appendix K: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rural zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions .............271 Appendix L: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan special zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions .........276 Appendix M: Rural zone processing guide ..........................................................................................283 Appendix N: List of rural towns ...........................................................................................................287 Appendix O: Special areas with type, location and expected future development yields ...................290 Appendix P: Business areas and centres with classifications including scenario assumptions .........297 Appendix Q: Local board groups.........................................................................................................309 Appendix R: THAB zone modelling code ............................................................................................310 Appendix S: Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones modelling code ................314 Appendix T: Rural zones modelling code ...........................................................................................317 Appendix U: Investigating potential for amalgamation of parcels located in the Mixed Housing zone of the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan.........................................................................................................330


4

1.0

Introduction

The Capacity for Growth Study assesses the ability of residential and business land within Auckland to accommodate growth. The capacity assessment undertaken in this study is based on geo-spatial datasets and the provisions set out in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) (as notified on 30 September 2013) and determines the amount of possible development on every parcel/title in Auckland. This report summarises the methodology and assumptions used to develop and process the PAUP version of the ‘capacity model’. The purpose of this technical publication is two-fold: to summarise the methodologies undertaken to produce the reported capacity yields, and to provide documentation of the assumptions used in the capacity calculation process. This is done so that users of the information contained in the accompanying Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report can understand the methodologies and assumptions employed as part of the study. The Capacity for Growth Study is a quantitative assessment of capacity at a point in time, based on the provisions of the PAUP. It measures whether each site has the potential for more development under a selected set of rules (specifically subdivision, and some bulk and location provisions) – essentially providing a ‘census’ or a ‘stock take’ of the land and its potential development capacity, across all of Auckland. The primary objective of this study is to identify capacity for growth, and it is with this base that further assessment on the possibility of uptake of this capacity can be made; such analysis has been undertaken and the results are reported as part of this publication. The outputs from the Capacity for Growth Study creates a base from which further work can, and will be undertaken to try and help answer many of the pressing questions facing Auckland relating to land supply. This report has been written with a number of disparate audiences in mind, including but not limited to the general public, planners and policy makers, but also modellers and geospatial analysts who may be tasked with replicating, modifying or maintaining a Capacity for Growth Study type model, or perhaps undertaking a similar exercise in other jurisdictions. The plan and the model developed to assess it is complex – there is no avoiding this. Accordingly there is an embarrassment of detail included on the mechanics of what has been undertaken and how, including ‘code’ and logic test statements that may mean little to the lay reader, but are the key to facilitating the effective translation of the plans rules and spatial data into outputs of utility to a wider audience via spatial analysis. We hope that this technical detail does not distract too much from the usefulness of this document to less technically inclined readers, but is a necessary inclusion for the repeatability of this approach into the future. This report is to be read in conjunction with the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results (TR2014/010) technical report, which presents the results of the study.


5

2.0

Background

2.1 Why did we undertake the study? This study measures the potential capacity enabled by provisions published in the PAUP. Some of the reasons why this is study is relevant, required and is useful include: 

To provide a comparison of capacity enabled under the PAUP when compared to Auckland region's legacy district plans. This enables us to compare areas of change in capacity provision (either increased or decreased)



A test to see whether the PAUP provides the necessary development capacity for the 30 year period outlined in the High-Level Development Strategy of The Auckland Plan



A base on which to make assessments and comparisons during the upcoming panel hearings for the PAUP; enabling the testing of scenarios and possible effects of changes to the levels of development capacity enabled by the proposed plan



Continuation of longitudinal research exploring the development capacity of Auckland over time



Informing and supporting ongoing modelling and monitoring (see section 2.2 below).

 Currently Auckland region’s legacy district plans are in effect – they control what can happen today, and will continue to impact on future development potential by facilitating development and cadastral patterns that will persist for many years after they are eventually replaced with the PAUP. The modelling processes undertaken as part of the 2012 study, as well as the results that were produced, has provided both an excellent baseline for comparing change, but also enabled us to build a PAUP based model and generate outputs in a shorter period of time than would have otherwise occurred. The 2013 study will be the fifth iteration of the Capacity for Growth Study; with previous studies being undertaken in 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2012. Many aspects of the study have been undertaken to preserve characteristics of the series, allowing some longitudinal comparisons to be made 1, but due to continuous improvement in approaches between studies, some care is required in making direct comparisons.

2.2 What will study results be used for? The study analyses the plan enabled capacity of every parcel and title across the Auckland region. The results of this analysis will be used for: 

Inputting into the Auckland Residential Futures Model (ARFM) (council's growth model) and the Auckland Strategic Planning Model (ASP). The results will act as the baseline land supply for model operations



Inputting to other assessments including projections of growth, realisable development potential and market assessments, generally as a base set of potentially developable sites for further filtering



Implementation monitoring of The Auckland Plan. The plan requires that land and dwelling supply be monitored: “…ensure that there is at all times 20 years’ forward supply of development capacity, and an average of seven years (with a minimum of five and maximum of 10 years) of unconstrained, ‘ready to go’ land supply” (Auckland Council, 2012a).

1

Although we have cautioned against making some direct comparisons between different iterations of the Capacity for Growth Study due to both changes in modelling techniques used and the reporting of results, comparisons can be made be made between development capacity yields. For information and advice on this, please contact the authors of this report.


6



Monitoring the provisions in the current Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the provisions enabled through Change 6 (refer Policy 2.6.3 Methods - Urban Containment and Policy 2.6.18 Methods - Rural Areas) (Auckland Regional Council, 1999). The RPS requires that Auckland Council undertakes surveys every five years to determine the provision and uptake of residential and business urban development opportunities, as well as the provision and uptake of countryside living opportunities available in rural areas.



Monitoring the provisions in the proposed Regional Policy Statement section of the PAUP: Part 1 (Introduction and Strategic Direction), Chapter B (Regional Policy Statement), Section 2.3 (Development capacity and supply of land for urban development) outlines 1) objectives, 2) policies and 3) the requirement for monitoring, of "sufficient development capacity in the urban area and sufficient land for new housing and businesses over the next 30 years, to support population and business growth within the Rural Urban Boundary" (Auckland Council, 2013a).



Research and analysis through the comparison of the development capacity currently enabled through Auckland's operative district plans compared to that potentially enabled through the PAUP.


7

3.0

Assessing capacity This section provides an overview of the processes that were undertaken to calculate the capacity presented in the companion results report and expanded on in detail in this report. As this study is a quantitative assessment of plan enabled capacity, understanding and interpreting the rules and provisions governing subdivision (and some bulk and location requirements) of the PAUP was the first step undertaken. In order to correctly interpret the rules, we engaged with planners that were principally involved with writing the rules and provisions of the PAUP. The approach taken to the interpretation of the plan was a literal one, with the rules utilised as they have been written, rather than an intention based interpretation. This provided a test run of the rules of the plan on every parcel in the region, which in and of itself highlighted a number of minor issues with the plan's text and supporting spatial data which have informed aspects of the council's submission, to align the plan more closely with its intended outcomes. The study primarily used a software programme called FME 2 to undertake the modelling process required to calculate capacity. For the purposes of calculating capacity, the study was broken down into five components: residential, business, rural residential, business redevelopment and special areas. Each of these five components utilised different methods (outlined in this report). By constructing a series of geo-spatial queries and assessments (known collectively as a ‘model’) for each of the components, using the rules outlined in the PAUP we were able to calculate the proposed potential capacity of Auckland to accommodate growth. The ‘model’ used to calculate capacity is not a truly integrated single model, but rather a set of sub-models; each sub-model undertakes calculations relating to each capacity type. All capacity calculations, (except the business redevelopment capacity assessment and the special areas assessment), were undertaken using FME. The business redevelopment capacity assessment uses results from a newly developed three-dimensional FME spatial assessment as inputs into a one-dimensional model, which was constructed in Microsoft Excel. Special areas (including some structure plan areas) have not been assessed by our parcel based modelling process, and information provided in this report has for these areas has been primarily drawn from the PAUP, as well as other sources. This is because: 

Modelling is unnecessary as area specific information is often very clear on capacity expectations



Parcel based modelling will not result in modelling outputs consistent with area specific information based on landscape, archaeological, infrastructure constraints or other matters.

For some special areas specified in the PAUP we have not been able to estimate/calculate or report on the capacity due to: 

A lack of suitable information



The special area not having any capacity for dwellings or business land



The capacity of these areas is dependent on the outcome of future planning processes



Some special areas being undefined, for example Future Urban zoned areas (FUZ) around many rural towns

Locations within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) identified as falling within the Future Urban zone (FUZ) have a PAUP enabled capacity of effectively nil. The purpose of the FUZ is as a 'holding zone', to preclude urban development prior to more detailed structure planning. These provisions are what 2

FME is a an integrated collection of tools for spatial data transformation and data translation produced by Safe Software Inc. of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada. FME is considered to be a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) utility that enables conversion between data formats and processes and is able to manipulate and generate data geometry and attributes. ESRI ArcGIS remains the primary display and map generation tool for the study.


8

our PAUP sourced assessment indicates. However, information on the expected longer term outcomes in these major urban expansion areas is sourced from existing publicly available information. We expect information on these areas change as more detailed structure planning processes take place, public consultation occurs and eventually development advances over the next 30 years. Where possible, we have reflected some of this information in reported capacity as 'special area (pipeline)' capacity (i.e. capacity that is not currently plan enabled but expected to be at some future date). While the outputs from many of the modelling processes are at the parcel or title level, some are not. For example the business redevelopment component and the special areas assessments are generated for an entire business area or special area. As such we have chosen to report the results of the study primarily at the regional and local board levels. For analysis and reporting purposes, this study breaks the region into five distinct location types. These are outlined below in Table 1, which describes the location types, the method used to calculate capacity and the geographic unit of analysis; the geographic extents of these location types are shown in Figure 1. Important assumptions and limitations relevant to understanding and interpreting both the calculation method and the results of this study are detailed in section 4.0, with further more specific assumptions being found within the relevant sections of this report. Readers should be aware that the ‘rural’ area extent and ‘business’ area extent may not reflect any existing extent or future definition of these locations, they are primarily modelling constructs; mechanisms for us to load data into the model based on the plan being modelled. However, the modelled results can be aggregated into different spatial extents, provided those extents are consistent with the smallest geographic unit analysed. That is, areas smaller than this cannot be provided. This is an issue that affects business and special areas in particular as these sometimes large areas share a single capacity figure that cannot be disaggregated further. Table 1: Geographic location types used in study and their corresponding capacity calculation method Location type

Urban area

Rural towns

Description

Assessment method

Large contiguous areas of properties that have a proposed 'urban type' zone (including residential and business zones from the Zone LUT 3) and are within the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) (Auckland Regional 4,5 Council, 1999) .

Residential: application of district plan subdivision and bulk and location rules via FME spatial model

Clusters of properties that have a proposed 'urban type' zone (including residential and business zones from the Zone LUT) and are outside of the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limits.

Business: assessment of vacancy or potential vacancy via FME spatial model

Residential and business, as per urban area

Smallest geographic unit analysed

Parcel (land assessment and maximum theoretical floor space assessment) Business area (all other floor space assessments)

As per urban area

3

A LUT is a 'look up table' which contains the simplified parameters of the zoning provisions of the PAUP which are used as an input into the modelling process. 4

The Rural Urban Boundary (RUB), as defined in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) section of the PAUP is not used as an urban/rural definition as the area inside the proposed RUB includes land that is zoned 'future urban' and has effectively unknown in its planning outcomes at this point in time. 5

The 2010 MUL used in this study is based on the extents as at 1 November 2010. This MUL extent has been used as it is the basis on which monitoring of both The Auckland Plan and the PAUP will take place, and there is no other consistent and formalised definition of Auckland's urban area.


9

Location type

Business areas and centres

Rural area

Special areas

Description

Assessment method


The geographic extents of these areas are largely defined by PAUP 6 zoning . The large contiguous areas of business zoning (from Zone LUTs) that have a similar typology and are considered to be significant areas of employment 7, including urban and rural centres. This layer largely forms a naming function for the location and also used to allocate other non-parcel data sources to the business area. These areas are a subset of the urban area and rural towns.

Business redevelopment component – a spreadsheet based model utilising some parcel analysis and assumptions, to identify vacant and potentially vacant land within a business area. Most business areas and centres fall within the urban area or rural towns.

Overall assessment at business area (i.e. multiple parcels analysed as one geography) Note: inputs used in this model can be collected and applied at a smaller level i.e. parcel or mesh block.

Properties with a rural zoning (from Zone LUTs) that are outside of the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Area and those properties that are within the Metropolitan Urban Area that are zoned for rural use, excluding areas that have been identified as forming part of a rural town, or zoned Future Urban.

Rural residential component – titles analysed for subdivision potential to Title derive a net dwelling potential.

Areas spread across the locations above that are not suitable for analysis by the other methods. In many cases these are structure plans, where an overall yield figure is provided for the structure plan area based on published information, and no modelling is required or it is not possible. Special areas include locations of particular activities that are not modelled (e.g. hospitals, quarries, ports etc.)

Spreadsheet to aggregate information gathered from published sources and subject-matter experts. Note: no additional analysis has been undertaken in these areas other than calculation of a net yield (i.e. maximum expected total from special areas, less current take up).

Special area extent. (i.e. figure shared by all parcels/titles making up location, e.g. 12 large rural parcels will deliver 1000 new dwellings once rezoned, serviced and developed in accordance with structure plan)

6

PAUP business zoning is used to define the extent of ‘centres’ and other business areas in this study. It should be noted that these are not the same as centres or business areas defined for other purposes, e.g. The Auckland Plan, Auckland Economic Development Strategy etc. 7

Note that these business areas do not include small areas of business zoning, like those that contain corner dairies, generally in predominantly residential areas.


10

Location type

Description

Assessment method


Future urban zoned areas

This extent is based on the zoning layer from the PAUP and is a new zoning encompassing 'unzoned' locations between the MUL and the RUB. Note that the PAUP Future Urban zoning does not permit subdivision (it is prohibited) and otherwise the Rural Production rules apply, effectively to maintain the areas potential for comprehensive redevelopment, accordingly PAUP enabled capacity in these locations is zero. Future plan changes and structure planning is required to be undertaken before the PAUP Future Urban zoning is changed (by plan change/variation) to a yet to be determined zoning pattern that enables development to occur in accordance with any yet to be determined structure plan. Existing high level assumptions about what this future structure planning might enable have been used where known to indicate 'pipeline capacity' for these areas as available at the time of writing.

As per special areas Known assumptions from RUB work available at time of writing collated to specific locations or groups of locations depending on source data. We expect these assumptions to vary considerably as planning progresses in these locations from high level desktop assumptions, to detailed structure planning and design, to plan changes, to build out over the next 30 years and beyond, and figures used in this report should be considered indicative of information available at the time of writing only. Readers interested in the detail of the planning/expected outcomes for these areas should contact the relevant team(s) responsible for the planning and development of these locations for the latest information.

As per special areas

Figure 1 below illustrates the locations of the areas referred to above. Maps showing the extents and locations of rural towns, business areas and centres and special areas are located in appendices A-C of this report. Note there are a number of overlaps between types (e.g. business zones in rural towns, special areas in FUZ etc.), and the map is therefore indicative of these locations.


11

Figure 1: Indicative extents of geographic location types used in study

°

Great Barrier Island

2010 Metropolitan Urban Area Business Area Rural Town Rural Area Special Areas Special Areas (Rollover) Future Urban Zone Rural Urban Boundary [rps]


12

4.0

Study wide assumptions and limitations Major study wide assumptions are listed below 8; component specific assumptions can be found in their relevant section or sub-section of this report. 

The provisions outlined in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), as notified on 30 September 2013, have formed the basis for this study.



In this study we have primarily utilised the PAUP rules as they are outlined in the subdivision, residential, business, rural, precincts and relevant overlays sections/parts/chapters of the plan. We have explicitly assumed that these provisions as written 'give effect' Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and Regional Plan aspects of the Unitary Plan and make no differentiation between District Plan (DP) and RPS provisions even where noted in the rule text. Where a conflict exists (if any) between RPS and DP provisions, we have assumed that this will be noted and resolved via the hearings process. In effect, we have taken the plan as it has been written and where some uncertainty exists in interpretation generally taken the most conservative (i.e. precautionary) approach based on the words of the Plan, not the ‘intended wording’. Details of the rules interpretation are encapsulated in the code, methods and assumptions used at each component.



The capacity results are a measure of plan enabled capacity, or 'what does the proposed planning system allow'. Whether this capacity will be realised (or not) has not been a consideration, nor is it implied that because the plan enables a certain kind of development that it will necessarily occur, or because a development has not been identified that it will not. These issues are however better informed by the information contained in this study, as market feasibility is influenced to a greater or lesser degree by planning provisions.



Capacity is reported in terms of net opportunities for additional dwellings, hectares of land or additional floor space (in square metres), by geographic area and type, depending on the capacity modelled.



Capacity is calculated under a subset of the PAUP planning provisions, which were discussed, agreed upon and approved by the Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan teams. The study utilised the highest activity threshold in cases where the plan provides clear parameters for modelling (i.e. the highest consent category for which modellable parameters are stated). For most bulk and location parameters this is the Permitted Activity standard, (buildings within are permitted, buildings beyond require consent) however subdivision and building development per se is rarely Permitted, and requires resource consent of some sort. No Prohibited or Non-Complying Activity parameters have been used.



The PAUP study is a ‘zero-based’ assessment. Zero-based means this study is not limited to assessing those parcels identified in previous studies as having capacity. A zero based approach was taken as the PAUP rules are in many cases different to those that existed for the same locations under the legacy district plans. Subdivision of parcels, demolition and amalgamation can lead to new opportunities being created.



The ‘strike date’ for this study is 30 September 2013. PAUP planning rules that were notified at this time are a basis for this study and the data used to undertake the modelling was extracted from council sources. The exceptions to this general principle are:



Dwelling counts and 'best assessment' dwelling age information used in the study were provided by PropertyIQ Ltd., as at July 2013.



Title information was sourced from Land Information New Zealand's LandOnline service, as at July 2013.



Each PAUP zone was classified as either being residential, business, rural, special or other. This classification is an objective assessment based on the modelling approaches used and does not infer any classification for land use planning purposes, though for the most part

8

Some processes and data manipulation undertaken to generate useable base datasets for modelling have not been included as part of this methodological documentation for brevity.


13

these categories are interchangeable (special areas can be residential, business, rural or other for example). 

Capacity for residential dwellings and business land in special areas was identified from information on planned outcomes in published material or from precinct plans identified within the PAUP.



Where capacity has been assessed at the individual parcel/title level no account has been made for the potential of amalgamations of the parcels/titles assessed. Different cadastral arrangements (or 'sites' presented for consent) will produce different outcomes form those modelled. In certain zones (e.g. Mixed Housing zone and Terraced Housing and Apartment Building zone) amalgamation or parcels/titles will significantly increase redevelopment potential.



Special areas listed in this report are based on the special areas identified (through precincts and otherwise) in the PAUP.



Where capacity has been assessed at the individual parcel/title level (refer Table 1) no accounting has been made for the potential of amalgamations of the parcels/titles assessed. Different cadastral arrangements (or 'sites' presented for consent) will produce different outcomes form those modelled. In certain zones (e.g. Mixed Housing and THAB) amalgamation or parcels/titles will significantly increase redevelopment potential.



9 Designations – parcels or titles identified as having a district plan designation on them that would severely restrict or prevent development of the parcel or title have been excluded from assessment for potential capacity. A map showing the location of district plan designations that were used can be found in Appendix D: Map and list of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan designations (as used in the modelling process).



Parcels or titles that fall within identified special area have been excluded from site-by-site assessment, with potential and capacity reported for the entire special area (refer to Appendix O: Special areas with type, location and expected future development yields).



Dwelling counts used in the study were provided by PropertyIQ Ltd. and are based on the data collected as part of the 2011 property valuations. The dwelling counts were provided per valuation assessment which was then translated to parcel/title level using an allocation method. A schematic of this method can be found in the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Methodology and Assumptions technical report.



Building footprint capture from the 2010 aerial imagery was completed by Auckland Council’s Geospatial Service Delivery teams in October 2012 this and some additional 10 building foot print data has been used as the base data for the modelling process .



Capacity for minor residential units (MRU) 11 was not assessed as part of this study. The residential zoning rules of the PAUP does not include provisions for MRU, but in some cases are allowed in precincts. This is not the same as the conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings provision allowed under the PAUP.



The PAUP includes provisions for "the conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings" in certain residential zones (Auckland Council, 2013a). We have taken account of this provision in our modelling process and while this capacity has not been reported in the main results section

9

District plan designations are granted under section 166 of the Resource Management Act 1991. A designation is a provision in a district plan which provides notice to the community that a requiring authority intends to use land in the future for a particular work or project MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. 2008. Designations and requiring authorities [Online]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment. Available: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/central/designations/ [Accessed 8 April 2014].. 10

Auckland Council's Geospatial team was requested by the Research Investigations and Monitoring Unit to digitise further building footprints for several rural towns that had been omitted in the original data capture process; this was completed 14/08/2013. After running the model for the first time we noted that several of the rural towns assessed as part of the study had produced anomalous results due to the lack of building footprints. This is due to the fact that the town fell outside the area of data capture undertaken by the Geospatial teams. In order to correct this the Research Investigations and Monitoring Unit manually captured the building footprints for these areas - this data while not accurate (due to the resolution of the aerial imagery used to capture the footprints) allows the model to produce more truthful results for these areas. 11

A ‘Minor Residential Unit’ (MRU) is a residential unit on a site in addition to another larger residential unit on the same site. Typically a MRU cannot be disposed of separately to the main house (i.e. it cannot be given a separate title) and usually includes a maximum floor space limit. A minor residential unit is sometimes referred to as a “granny flat”.


14

of this report, results on this provisions can be found in section 7.6. Also, "second and third dwellings" (Auckland Council, 2013a) allowed for in certain rural zones are calculated as a separate yield. 

Capacity in the urban area and rural towns (residential and business) has been assessed at the parcel level. Rural residential capacity has been assessed at the title level. A significant amount of data that has been used as part of the modelling process is only available for 'rates assessment areas' (RAA). Other data is only available at larger geographies such as meshblock, local board or region. Accounting for these varying geographies means that care should be taken utilising ‘property’ level results, and results figures are for this reason generally provided at an aggregated level.



All reported yields are rounded down to the nearest whole integer, for example if capacity for a parcel or title is calculated at 1.01 or 1.99 dwellings, then both would be reported as a potential yield of one (1). Residential zone decimal yields have been maintained for future analysis (e.g. assessment of potential future 'consentable' developments).



There are expected to be a number of changes made to the provisions of the PAUP as it moves though the participatory hearings and appeals process, and a number of plan changes (to existing operative plans) and plan variations (to proposed or non-operative plans) would also be expected to occur as part of the continual evolution of the planning systems. As these plan changes were not operative at the time of the study, outcomes from these provisions have not been included.

Note: Comparisons between the reported results of this study and previous iterations of the study should be undertaken carefully as differing geographies, modelling techniques and assumptions employed in each individual study make comparisons problematic. Contact the Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit for assistance and information on comparing results.


15

5.0

Capacity types This study calculates and reports capacity as being in either one of two categories; residential or business. Each of these categories is divided further in order to calculate and report capacity across the Auckland region. Residential capacity measures the number of additional dwelling units that could be built under the rules as published in the PAUP, with business land capacity measured by area of land (in hectares). Floor space and dwellings are also reported in other study components (see below for business redevelopment). A list of these capacity types and a description is found in Table 2. Table 2: Types of capacity Capacity type

Definition of capacity type

Residential vacant

Capacity for dwelling units on residential zoned parcels that are currently wholly vacant (no dwellings or buildings), either via further subdivision or construction of a dwelling as of right.

Residential infill

Net capacity for additional dwelling units on residential zoned parcels that are partially vacant and have subdivision potential (based on the modelled consent category from PAUP rules) and are less than 2000 m2.

Residential vacant potential

Net capacity for additional dwelling units on residential zoned parcels that are partially vacant and have subdivision potential (based on the modelled consent category from PAUP rules) and are equal to or greater than 2000 m2.

Residential redevelopment

Net capacity for additional dwellings on residential zoned parcels presuming that all dwellings/structures are removed and the sites are redeveloped to yield the maximum number of dwellings permitted (based on the modelled consent category from district planning rules), less the existing number of dwellings, providing a net yield.

Rural residential

Net capacity for additional dwelling units on rural zoned titles, either through titles being currently vacant or through subdivision (based on the modelled consent category from district planning rules). Note that rural capacity now includes the potential for TRSS, significantly increasing the range of potential spatial outcomes possible in rural zones.

Dwellings in business areas and centres (business redevelopment)

Capacity for additional dwellings provided by development and/or redevelopment of parcels in business areas and centres. Capacity in this category is calculated as part of the business redevelopment component (refer section 9.0)

Business vacant land

Capacity (in hectares) of business zoned parcels that are currently wholly vacant (no buildings/structures).

Business vacant potential land

Capacity (in hectares) of the potentially vacant portion of those business 12 zoned parcels that are not wholly vacant.

Business area redevelopment capacity

Net capacity generated from the redevelopment of business land. Sub-types of business redevelopment capacity calculated include: total floor space, business floor space, residential floor space, estimated employees and estimated dwellings.

12

It should be noted that almost all business zoned sites have a portion of the site which is not covered by building/structure. Our modelling and methodological approach takes this into account and assesses vacant potential capacity based on a site’s size and the proportion of site that is vacant (within a population of sites within the district plan area). Refer to the Business Redevelopment section for further details.


16

Capacity type


Special areas (other)

This category of capacity relates to capacity sourced from non-modelled outputs. The two categories relate to the type of future expected - special areas relate to particular activities, such as hospitals or quarries, and are generally not modelled in any way, and are assumed to provide no additional capacity though are often important features in enabling capacity to be delivered sustainably. Structure plan areas relate to locations where modelling is unnecessary, inappropriate or impossible, and data has been sourced from elsewhere, usually the published structure planning information.

Special areas (pipeline capacity)

Future capacity that has been identified the longer term strategic planning processes at the time of notification of the PAUP (30 September 2013) but not necessarily zoned in a way that facilitates that capacity to be realised. Examples include capacity in the Future Urban zones and locations identified in other strategic growth management documents. Counted for both residential and business categories. Pipeline capacity is a subset of special areas. All figures represent current publicly available information and are therefore subject to change without notice

Special Areas

Below, Table 3 shows what outputs are generated by each type of capacity assessment. Table 3: Types of capacity and primary outputs generated

Land (by area)

Dwellings (by count)

Residential vacant





Residential infill (incl. vacant potential)





Residential redevelopment





Rural residential





Capacity type

Dwellings in Business Areas and Centres (as a subset of Business

for conversion to dwellings and or employment

Employment (by count)

*

Redevelopment Capacity)

Business vacant land



Business vacant potential land



Total business land



Business redevelopment capacity



Special areas

Business floor space (by area)

See business redevelopment capacity

* 



**

Dependent on information provided in available documentation

* Dwelling count is a function of floor space allocated to residential in the business redevelopment capacity process. ** Employment is a function of floor space allocated to non-residential use in the business redevelopment capacity process.


17

The business redevelopment component of this study estimates the likely total floor space area of a business area or centre. Total floor space area is determined and subsequently apportioned to business and residential purposes, from which potential employees and dwellings are calculated. The business redevelopment component capacity types are described in Table 4. Table 4: Types of business redevelopment capacity Business redevelopment capacity type


Total floor space

Total amount of floor space (square meters) possible in a business area or centre calculated using three-dimensional modelling techniques

Business (non-residential) floor space

Amount of business (non-residential) floor space (square meters) likely to be yielded from a business area or centre's total floor space.

Residential floor space

Amount of residential floor space (square meters) likely to be yielded from a business area or centre's total floor space.

Estimated employees

Estimated number of employees likely to be accommodated in a centre or business area, based on the amount of business (non-residential) floor space yielded and a floor area per employee ratio.

Estimated dwellings

Estimated number of dwellings likely to be accommodated in a centre or business area, based on the amount of residential floor space yielded and a floor area per dwelling ratio.


18

6.0

Modelling process This section of the report outlines the process undertaken to calculate both the residential and business capacity results. The modelling process has been broken down into sub-sections, including an overview of the process, formatting of data and the undertaking of spatial queries. The modelling approach used in this iteration of the study is very similar to that used in the 2012 study, with the basic process being as follows: 

Review rules to be applied



Review data available



Create process to model rules against relevant properties using available data



Run model, revise/refine model, repeat



Calculate, confirm and report results



Post study work

Decisions made in the conversion of the plan’s text to a computer algorithm, including which aspects of the rules will be included or excluded, and the quality and availability of data to represent factors mentioned (or implied) in the rules, are key aspects which will influence the resulting capacity. In many cases there are multiple ways in which capacity can be calculated, additional factors which can be considered or excluded, and new data that becomes available that was not at the time. For these reasons and others we have been as clear as possible with the approach we have used, so that users of the results are aware of these conversions and the limitations they introduce and future modellers can make improvements or corrections as required. The following section looks at how the modelling process has evolved since the 2012 study, specifically looking at changes and improvements that were made in the process.

6.1 The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) The PAUP is different in many ways from the legacy plans it replaces. This has meant we have had to generate new ways of importing data, interpreting the rules, and creating new ways of calculating capacity. However, many of the methods and processes developed through the 2012 study have been able to be utilised in this new set of modelling, with minor tweaks required to reflect new rule parameters. Key areas of change include the new Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone, the Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone, and the Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) zone (urban residential capacity calculations), and the consideration of Transferable Rural Site Subdivision (TRSS) (rural residential capacity calculations). Each of these provisions is a significant departure from approaches used in the region previously. In addition, we expect them to evolve further through the Unitary Plan hearings process. The creation of the new, single, Unitary Plan for Auckland has for the first time bought a consistency to the zoning provisions across the region. In tandem with this has been the improvement of the quality of the spatial data supporting the plan, which has enabled us to be innovative in the calculation and methodology. Examples of this include the ability to now model three-dimensionally business areas. Undertaking such modelling under the variable approaches provided across the region's legacy district plans, while possible, was so time consuming that it was impractical. During the first half of 2013, a bespoke model was created to calculate the capacity enabled under the provisions of the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan (DAUP) (as published in March 2013). The creation of this model allowed us to develop a model and processes to calculate and test many of the concepts that are now contained in the PAUP, prior to its notification. Despite this 'practice run', the large number of changes between the DAUP and the PAUP has meant that while we were able to have a head start (particularly with the data conversion process), many of the provisions had been changed significantly enough that a complete redevelopment of the model components was required to enable Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

19

calculation of capacity that best reflected the updated PAUP provisions. The modelling of the PAUP could not be commenced until after both the rules had been finally determined (the part of the plan that tells us 'what is allowed to happen'), and accurate spatial data developed to support them (the part of the plan that tells us 'where it is allowed to happen'. This section expands significantly on the information presented in the equivalent section of the methodology and assumptions report of the 2012 study. Significant discussion on the data conversion process has been included to allow better understanding by users of the results on how they were derived. A significant amount of detail on the model's coding has also been included. It is hoped that this will assist readers to understand the key variables or parameters that influence the outcomes of the modelling, and in turn this will improve the utility of the model, including undertaking future investigations and improvements.

6.2 Conversion of the PAUP zones, precincts and overlays to 'CfGS zones' The PAUP proposes a wholly new approach to 'zoning' in Auckland when compared to the nine legacy district plans it largely replaces and/or updates 13. A small number of base zones (47) in the PAUP is complemented with a larger number of precincts (379), and an even larger number of overlays (in excess of 100,000 features), all of which can vary the provisions of the base zones on an exceptions basis 14 A significant number of 'map diagrams' (more than 400) are also included in the text of the PAUP sometimes illustrating site specific details and exceptions. In this study we have primarily utilised the PAUP rules as they are outlined in the subdivision, residential, business, rural, precincts and relevant overlays sections/parts/chapters of the plan. We have explicitly assumed that these provisions as written 'give effect' to the RPS and Regional Plan aspects of the Unitary Plan and make no differentiations between district plan (DP) and higher-level provisions. Where a conflict exists (if any) between RPS and DP provisions, we have assumed that this will be noted and resolved via the hearings process. We have taken the plan as written. As noted above the PAUP proposes a very limited number of ‘base zones’ in order to reduce the complexity of the region's planning system. While this is true, the potential numerical combinations of these base zones with a larger number of precincts and overlays means that the actual set of potential iterations of rules that apply to any given parcel is far greater than the small number of base zones suggests 15. This in turn has complicated the modelling process. A number of ‘diagrams’ and additional policy and detail maps (generally included as small inset maps in the planning text itself but not the maps volumes) not available to us as spatial data sets add further site specific detail and nuance to the planning provisions, which for practical considerations have had to be disregarded. To deal with the complexity of the plan and to be able to instruct the model what to do with each parcel based on its location, we have 'boiled down' the various overlapping aspects of the PAUP into a single layer called 'CFGS_zoning' 16. The particular rules and combinations of the plan need to be applied to any given parcel, but also as a matter of practical modelling requirements (essentially to avoid double counting), each given parcel can be in only one zone; this is entirely dependent on where the parcel is in relation to the base zone, precinct and overlays. The following section outlines this PAUP zones, precincts and overlays to 'CfGS_zone' conversion process.

13

A significant portion of the precincts section is a PAUP look-and-feel 'translation' of legacy zoning provisions)

14

Base zone rules apply unless varied by the precinct or overlay - the amount of variation from base zone provisions varies between minor to significant.

15 The actual number of potential iterations is (𝑧 + 𝑝)𝑂 , where z = number of zones, p = number of precincts and o = number of overlays (this is a very large number). Thankfully the actual iterations (ignoring overlays that are not zones) is much less than this and is Z+P+ 'zonelike' O. These can be further iterated by the remaining overlays but for the purposes of calculating 'raw' capacity these remaining overlays have been largely ignored. 16

'CFGS_zoning' and 'CFGS_zone' refers to zoning data created as inputs into the capacity model from the raw Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan data


20

6.2.1 Conversion of PAUP zones, precincts and overlays to CfGS_zones As noted above, the PAUP has a small number of base zones. However these can be varied by the presence of precincts (which act effectively as zones) overlays (which identify various spatial features, usually non-parcel linked, but some of which also act in effect as zones) and map diagrams (inset maps which provide explanatory detail in the text). These four separate layers (zones, precincts, overlays and diagrams) each needs to be taken into account when assessing capacity potential of the PAUP. This potentially results in an n4 scalar problem, which extends beyond the scope of our modelling process. This we believe, is also well beyond the intention of the plan to provide this much scope for variation (or is unnecessary for us to dig that deep for the purposes of this study) so we were able to make some decisions to keep the plan's potential iterations for modelling purposes within a reasonable framework. Zones and precincts are largely parcel based (except where a parcel is split by a zone) and overlays are largely non-parcel based, reflecting such non-cadastral features as historic heritage features, significant environmental areas, and volcanic view shafts. There are also a small number of overlays, which effectively act as zones. The following series of diagrams (Figure 2 to Figure 5) illustrate the concept of the conversion of zones, precincts and overlays into a single, flattened Capacity for Growth Study zoning base, which we have called 'CfGS_ zones'. Note that ‘diagrams’ included in the PAUP are not considered at all in this conversion process. Figure 2: Base zone layers

Existing base zone layers from the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. (UP_BASEZONE)


21

Figure 3: Base zone layers with precincts and overlays added

Zones with precincts and overlays added (which act to vary or replace the base zoning provisions) Figure 4: Zones, precincts and overlays resolved to their functional land uses (CFGS_zones)

Zones, precincts and overlays resolved to functional land use classes (only the Volcanic View Shaft remains as an ‘overlay’), all the others become ‘CfGS_zones’.


22

Figure 5: Post-processing example of where original or underlying base zone provisions remain unmodified by precincts and overlays (for initial capacity modelling purposes only)

Locations where standard ‘base zone’ rules apply without modification. Note that the Volcanic View Shaft overlay may impact on building height, bulk, location or design within the 'CFGS_zone'. Effectively, all PAUP base zones are 'zones', all precincts are 'zones', and some overlays are 'zones' (the remaining overlays remain as overlays). Using the concept outlined in the figures above, a single CFGS_zone layer was created using the following order of priority rules (effectively the reverse of the way the plan is written), such that the detailed overlays end up on the top, with base zones at the 'base': 

Overlays that act as zones (zone-like)



Precincts



Base zones

Based on this, zone-like overlay features clip precincts features, and precinct features clip PAUP base zone features, as shown in below in Table 5. Table 5: Conversion of PAUP features to Capacity for Growth Study features PAUP feature type

Converted to Capacity for Growth Study feature type(s)

Zone (ZO)

Zone (ZO)

Precinct (PR)

Zone (ZO)

Overlay (OV)

Zone-like are zone (ZO) Rest are overlay (OV) Some are not used

Diagram

Not used


23

So instead of the (mathematically possible, but overstated in this case) scenario of: nrules

= (Base zones × precincts × overlays) = (47 × 369 × 105,542) = 1,830,414,906 Rules to model

We instead have a much more manageable data set: nrules

= (Base zones + precincts + zone-like overlays) × selected other overlays = (47 + 369 + 55) x selected other overlays) = (471) Rules to model x selected other overlays

This approach requires the review and consideration of the text relating to all the zones, precincts and overlays prior to determining which overlays are zone-like, which remain to be used in the modelling, and which will be overlooked. Only base zone areas without a precinct or zone-like overlay remain to be modelled as per the base rules of the base zone. For residential areas this is approximately 80 per cent of the total area, with the Single House zone being the base zone most ‘modified’ (by area) by precincts and overlays. Overlays that are not considered zone-like, are put aside from initial capacity modelling, except where they are specifically mentioned in zone rules or where they are grouped together to represent a building platform requirement (which is used in testing for residential and business infill calculations and rural subdivision). Most overlays are constraints to development rather than yes/no exclusions. These features are often combined into aggregate features for processing (i.e. ‘hazards’ or ‘heritage features’ made up of numerous overlays and additional corporate spatial data) rather than treated separately, and some are not used at all, especially those that were initially assessed as not materially impacting on capacity, such as ‘retail frontage requirements’ or ‘aquifer loading areas’. This is not to say that these are not important for other reasons (such as the use the ground floor might be put, or the impact on aquifer recharge rates), just that in terms of the built environment anticipated by the plan, they are considered to make little or no material or practical difference. Designations are treated as a special overlay group. They are first filtered so only those assessed as having ‘significantly precluding zoned capacity realisation’ are considered (e.g. airspace restrictions, road widening and pipelines removed, schools, motorway and rail designations retained) and all parcels are assessed, but tagged with a ‘designation count’ (number of ‘significant’ designations the parcel intersects) and designation schedule (PAUP reference number) of those designations. All reported capacity is based on results from parcels where a filter of “count of designation is equal to zero” has been applied. A summary of PAUP input and processed features are contained in Table 6. It should be noted that in some instances, some precincts have a 'base zone' assessment type, where the precinct requirements were determined to be not relevant for capacity assessment as the precinct varied the base zones insufficiently in terms of the built environment anticipated by the base zone, they are considered to make little or no material difference and that it was more efficient to process them as the base zone rather than create an additional modelling process.


24

Table 6: PAUP to Capacity for Growth Study data conversion schematic PAUP data type

Base zones (47)

Precincts (369)

Unique overlay features (105,542)

UP_ZONECLASS

CFGS_ZONECLASS

ZO (47)

PR (369)

OV (5,352) Unique overlay groups

MODEL_TYPE

ASSESSMENT_TYPE

Residential (76)

Infill Frontage Sub-precinct* Special

Business (45)

Commercial Industrial

City centre Metropolitan centre Town centre Local centre Neighbourhood centre Mixed use Business park General business Light industry Heavy industry

Rural (35)

Custom CSL Minimum site area

Note: TRSS and subdivision calculated separately.

Special (176)

Special activity Structure plan Rollover ()**

* Special areas that are also business areas have been assessed for vacant and vacant potential land.

Base zone (81)

Base zone features are precincts where insufficient variance exists to require separate modelling and are assessed against the underlying base zone rules as if the precinct does not apply. In effect the precinct or overlay is ignored.

Other (69)

'Other' zones are not modelled (roads, sea, public open space etc.)

Overlays

Overlays are used in model where appropriate, also post processing. CFGS_GROUPCODE (8) used to classify into capacity impacts. Also grouped for various processes (e.g. rural and urban building platforms, and post- filtering) Designations are a special overlay group and tagged against each parcel.

ZO (471) All zones (47) All precincts, (369) Some zone-like overlays (55)

OV (4,580)

ASSESSMENT_SUBTYPE

Unused overlays (717) (diagrams, various non-capacity related spatial datasets, and non-polygon features) * Where Assessment_Type = Sub-precinct the requisite spatial data required for modelling does not exist in the zone, precinct or overlay feature, and needs to be manually created from diagrams **Where Assessment_Type = Rollover locations are where the provisions are exactly as per legacy rules and CfGS_2012 results and/or modelling will be reused. contains the legacy TA from which the rules and results (CfGS 2012) have been rolled over from.


25

6.2.2 Modelling of CFGS_zones The process for calculating the capacity for each parcel, title or area within a particular study component is conceptually the same irrespective of the component; calculate the net potential for additional development under the relevant rules applying. What differs between each zones assessment is the assumptions that are used. The CFGS_Zone process above, is simply the process by which it is determined what rules will be applied to each assessment area (be that parcel, title or area). This section describes how those rules are ‘converted’ into model inputs, tested against assessment areas and output as capacity information. Figure 6 below provides a legend to Figure 7 (and subsequent process diagrams). Figure 7 illustrates, at a high conceptual level, the modelling process for the entire Capacity for Growth Study with each of the study components highlighted. Capacity calculation methods for each of the components are outlined in the following sections of this report, with each containing a process diagram that illustrates the procedure taken to calculate capacity. Further component specific assumptions are also outlined. Figure 6: Modelling process diagrams legend

Each component’s process diagram is an illustrative representation of the actual modelling process undertaken in FME. Full and detailed examples of the modelling schematics can be found in Appendix H: FME workbench schematics. Data sets sourced to undertake the capacity modelling can be found listed in Appendix F: Data and sources utilised in study, with description and source.


26

Figure 7: Overview of Capacity for Growth modelling process (geo-processing modelling schematic) Key

UP Capacity for Growth Study 2013 Data Inputs and/or Intermediate Outputs METROPOLITAN AND RURAL TOWN

Model Type Filtering

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

Geoprocessing (FME) Assessment Type Filtering

Rural Settlement Area

Metropolitan Area

Filter Criteria and/or Lookup Table Values

Data Mappings Lookups

Configurable Published Parameters Explanatory Notes

Data Mappings Lookup

Rates Assessment PIQ Dwelling Count

Parcel

Local Boards

UP Zoning (Zones | Precincts | Overlays)

CfGS Zoning

Designations


Title

Local Boards


CfGS Zoning

Designations

Residential and business capacity of structure plans and special activity zones are obtained from published documentation

Classical Subdivision / TRS Subdivision / Vacant Assessment

Model Yield Outputs

Building Envelope Constraints

Vacant / Vacant Potential Assessment

Generate Ziggurats

Excludes Vacant and Vacant Potential parcels but assumes a vacant site

Total Land Assessment

Building Footprints

tower area max (x)

Vacant Assessment

tower site area max (x)

FME Geoprocessing

Building Footprint

FME Geoprocessing building area min (x)

Dwelling Count > 0 OR Building Count > 0

parcel area min (x) Road Casing

Total parcel area (with dwelling)

assumed level 3 dwelling area (x)

bldg. plat. min (x)

SEA bldg. plat. min (x)

vacant(D) title area min (x)

vacant(D) bldg. plat. min (x)

vacant(R) title area qual. (x)

vacant(R) title area min (x)

vacant(R) bldg. plat. min (x)

SEA(D) bldg. plat. min (x)

OTHER overlay area mins

shape factor (x)

Large parcel min road frontage qualifiers lookup for THAB and MHZ zones

Building Count = 0

Total storey area (Ziggurat Models)

Infill / Vacant Potential / Vacant Assessment

Building Count > 0

** Inspect Designation Count on outputs

Total Land Assessment parcel area min (x) FME Geoprocessing

Redevelopment Assessment


CfGS Name Data Mapping Filter

SPECIAL

RESIDENTIAL

Building Count = 0 AND Dwelling Count = 0

FME Geoprocessing Classical Subdivision (Custom and Other) Classical Subdivision (Minimum Site Area) TRS Subdivision (Vacant Donors and Receivers) TRS Subdivision (SEA Donors and Receivers) Vacant Assessment (Dwelling Count = 0)

(D) denotes Donor

Max Floor Space Assessment

Business Areas

(R) denotes Receiver

BUSINESS (Building Count centric modelling)

assessment area threshold (x) Total parcel area

Title Yield (dwellings)

FME Geoprocessing

Parcel Yield (hectares)


Floor Space Assessment

Total parcel area Vacant Potential Assessment

For Infill parcels < 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area / parcel area min infill

Redevelopment Candidate Filter

For parcels >= 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area (less 25%) / parcel area min infill

Parcel Yield (dwellings)

Vacant Assessment Infill Assessment

Rural Residential Assessment ** Inspect Designation Count on outputs

Vacant Potential Assessment

Vacant Assessment Parcel Yield (hectares)

** Inspect Designation Count on outputs Infill parcels < 2000 m2

FME Geoprocessing Infill / Vacant Potential

parcel area min (x)

Vacant Assessment

building area min (x)

shape factor (x) FME Geoprocessing building area min (x)

net parcel area min (x)

building area min (x)

Infill candidates

Vacant potential candidates

Total parcel area (without dwelling)



Road Casing

shape factor (x)

Parcel area min qualifier lookup COMMERCIAL

FME Geoprocessing


For parcels < 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area / parcel area min infill



INDUSTRIAL Building setback min lookup Infill candidates with access

Building Count > 0

Building Count > 0

FME Geoprocessing

FME Geoprocessing

VP parcels >= 2000 m2

Access width min lookup Assess candidate accessibility – Front / Middle / Rear

parcel area min (x) building area min (x)

Road Casing


Commercial Vacant Potential Assessment

Industrial Vacant Potential Assessment



Net parcel area vacant potential

Infill Assessment

Net parcel area vacant potential Net parcel area percentage vacant bounds

Standard deviation thresholds (x3)

Vacant Potential Candidate Filter

Net parcel area percentage vacant bounds


Aggregate vacant potential candidates by parcel identifier

Parcel area bounds


Check parcel area > (dwelling count + candidate count) x (parcel area min infill)

Vacant Potential Candidate Filter Parcel area bounds






** Inspect Designation Count on outputs FME Geoprocessing

FME Geoprocessing

Infill Candidate Filter





Unitary Plan Capacity for Growth Study 2013 : Geoprocessing Modelling Schematic U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth UP 2013\FME_Documentation\CfGS_UP_2013_Process_Diagram_v1.1.vsd


Mike Oberdries | 29 July 2013

27

7.0

Residential capacity (urban and rural towns) methodology Residential capacity is the measure of the net number of additional dwelling units that could be built under PAUP provisions, as modelled (i.e. based mainly on total land area and land shape factors). Results for residential capacity results can be found in the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report. Capacity is calculated under four typologies, which represent different levels of change to the existing situation, these are: 

Residential vacant - being the development of sites without current dwellings or buildings



Residential infill - being the development of land on sites smaller than 2000 square metres, with dwellings or buildings without removing those existing dwellings or buildings



Residential vacant potential - being the development of land on sites larger than 2000 square metres, with dwellings or buildings without removing those existing dwellings or buildings



Residential redevelopment - being the (re)development of land on sites with dwellings or buildings after removing those existing dwellings or buildings.

An overview of the methods used to calculate these capacity types are outlined in the sections below. Note that residential capacity in business areas (including centres) is calculated as part of the business redevelopment component, the methodology for which is reported in section 9.0.

7.1 Residential capacity assessment – global assumptions This section details assumptions that apply to all parcels that were assessed as part of residential modelling. These assumptions are listed in Table 7. Other assumptions that are specific to a single capacity calculation type are included in the relevant sub-section of this report. Zone specific assumptions, such as minimum lot sizes can be found in Appendix I: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan residential zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions, that contains the look-up tables (LUTs) directly utilised by the model. Table 7: Residential capacity global modelling assumptions Assumption name

Minimum valid parcel size

Assumption Value

Description

Components assumption used in

100 m²

There are many small parcels across the region; these can include the likes of small parcels adjoining larger ones, vehicle access ways, pedestrian accesses etc. Such parcels are considered too small to realise any form of capacity as such parcels 2 that are smaller than 100 m were excluded from the modelling process. A further 'shape test' and some parcel attribute queries are also undertaken to remove access lots and the like with an area greater than the minimum valid parcel size.

All residential components


28

Assumption name

Assumption Value

Description

Components assumption used in

2000 m²

A threshold of 2,000 m2 was used as a demarcation point between infill and vacant potential. This allowed for the application of different densities on larger parcels. The 2000 m² demarcation threshold is consistent with previous studies.

Infill Vacant potential Redevelopment

50 m²

Buildings that are small, and therefore easily moved or removed should not be considered as a constraint to realising capacity; as such buildings that had a 2 foot print that were smaller than 50 m were excluded from the modelling process.

All residential components

11 m x 11 m (120 m²)

The plan specifies that each new vacant site be capable of containing a rectangle of eight metres by 15 metres (total of 120 m²). Note: Due to the practicality of geospatial modelling, we use a representation of a regular polygon (a square) of the same area (roughly 11 metres by 11 metres). This may result in some candidate areas with ‘narrow’ platforms failing to qualify that may otherwise pass a manual assessment, potentially balanced by ‘squat’ dwelling platforms that do pass that shouldn’t have.

Infill

Parcel area minimum qualifier

Varies, refer LUT

Minimum size of the residential parcel to be assessed for infill type capacity. This is calculated as parcel area minimum plus the balance area minimum. However, under the PAUP this is always twice the minimum infill area, as both the infill candidate and the balance must meet the minimum parcel area requirements.

All residential components, but assumptions are zone specific. Refer LUT.

Parcel area minimum

Varies, refer LUT

Minimum size of the resultant residential parcel infill candidates

Infill, but assumptions are zone specific, Refer LUT

Parcel vehicle access width minimum

Varies, refer LUT, never less than minimum 2.5 m formed carriageway.

Minimum width between any existing building footprints (larger than the minimum building footprint area) and the parcel boundary, which would allow a vehicle to pass from the road to a non-frontage infill candidate.

Infill, but assumptions are zone specific, Refer LUT

Refer LUT

Minimum (average) distance from any existing building footprint (larger than the minimum building footprint area) that infill development candidate areas can occur. Infill, but assumptions This effectively operates as a yard from existing are zone specific, building footprints to ensure the new boundary is set Refer LUT. back an appropriate distance (obviously impacting on the area that is available). Where no yards are required this can be set to zero. Where yards vary by boundary, an 'average' is created.

Infill and vacant potential demarcation threshold

Minimum building footprint area

Minimum dimension for a building/dwelling platform

Parcel building setback minimum

7.1.1 Net and gross parcel area minimums The residential and residential subdivision rules refer to “net site area” for the application of the relevant density rules.


29

Net site area (and other related terms) is defined in the PAUP (refer to Part 4: Definitions in the PAUP; note that underlined words are also defined terms in the plan) as: 

Net site area: The total area of a site, excluding any area owned in common, any area subject to a road widening designation, any part of an entrance strip and any private ways.



Entrance strip: The narrower part of a rear site extending back from a road to provide access to the principal part of the site.



Rear site: A site with frontage of less than 10 metres to a legal road, except that a site served by a service lane is not a rear site.

The application or consideration of this rule set in every situation in the modelling process is very difficult as we do not actually create a model scheme plan from which future areas “owned in common or private ways” can be netted from the site area. For consideration of entrance strips, the definition is too subjective to apply in a computer model, as it does not define what is ‘narrower’, or the ‘principal part’, and while it may be discerned what is intended, for sites that might be irregular in shape, and for those sites that will become rear sites after development (almost all of them, given minimum driveway widths are less than 10 metres), application of the ‘assumed intent’ of the rule ‘accurately’ in an automated process is not possible. In addition, we have assumed that modelled development will be arranged to maximise returns, such that sites may be ultimately arranged to minimise vehicle access requirement net area losses. Accordingly, where the minimum net site area has been applied, this represents a maximum possible yield within the rule parameters, but actual layout and future development may not meet these assumptions. For infill and vacant potential assessments, net site area requirements are however implicitly provisioned for within the method, though the spatial candidate finding process (which ignores narrow areas between existing development and the site boundaries) and in vacant potential sites (greater than 2000 square metres) where multiple dwelling developments will be more common), an additional 25 per cent reduction in candidate area is allowed for, including for access/net site areas. Vacant site and redevelopment calculations (on sites less than 2000 square metres) do not allow for this spatial reduction, but it could be assumed that such sites are more likely to maximise dwelling yield given the greater freedom to arrange layout without constraint from existing buildings. For those larger than 2000 square metres the 25 per cent site area (versus candidate area) reduction also applies. In the more intensive development typologies (THAB and MHU; ‘unlimited density’ in particular) the use of worked examples to derive density implicitly considers the requirements for net access and common areas. Therefore, while net site area rules are not directly applied, the methodology makes sufficient provision for this requirement, that at the global level, any difference will likely be self-compensating. At progressively smaller scales, especially individual parcels, some care should however be used.

7.1.2 A note on the variability of input parameters and scenario testing The ability to vary the parameter values contained within the LUTs (and indeed some of the global parameters) has been a key model development consideration. We are aware that the PAUP is likely to change through the Unitary Plan hearings process, and ongoing plan variations and changes after the plan is operative are a normal function of planning in a rapidly evolving city. The ability to accurately investigate the effects of these potential changes is a powerful addition to the evidentiary basis of the planning system. As such we have developed the model as a mechanism by which different scenarios can be tested, such as the variation of minimum infill site sizes or yard setbacks (or whatever parameters are in the relevant LUT) by variation of those LUT values and rerunning the model. The other mechanism of testing changes, though considerably more involved, is via the variation of spatial inputs, such as the extent of zones, or various other spatial inputs as used in the workbench(s). There are also a limited number of more general, global settings that can be changed (known in the model as 'published parameters'). These values are outlined in Table 7, and are built into the FME


30

workbenches. These global settings and the more specific values in the LUT can both be varied in order to undertake scenario testing. Potential changes to provisions of the plan that require considerations outside of this in-built variability are considered to be an 'architecture' change. These changes are considerably more complex (depending on the scale of change from the PAUP) essentially requiring the development or amendment of the way the model operates.

7.2 Residential vacant Residential vacant capacity is the number of dwellings that can be yielded from residential zoned parcels that are currently 'vacant'. Vacant residential parcels occur across the region; not just in areas that have been newly developed, but also in existing suburbs. Conceptually, there are four main types of residential vacant parcels in Auckland, these are detailed below (and illustrated in Figure 8). These categories have been used for descriptive rather than analytical purposes, and require an aspect of subjective judgement on a per parcel basis. Therefore vacant land in this study has not been classified into these categories, however they may be useful framework for future investigations and classifications as the likelihood of development and the tools to unlock this latent potential may vary accordingly. A number of critiques have also raised issues in that sites in some of these categories are not actually ‘vacant’ and may never be developed. While this may be at least partially correct (in that not all development potential is likely to be realised) the latent potential of these sites for development is not extinguished by present use, the length of time a parcel has been vacant, or the parcels size. This debate conflates the separate but interrelated issues of zoned ‘potential for development’ and the ‘likelihood of that development occurring’. This study is primarily concerned with the accurate measurement of plan enabled potential, such that more subjective debates about likelihood (including consideration of ‘market potential’) are able to be much better informed. 

Small scale subdivision: New parcels that have been created through a small scale subdivision, and have yet to have a dwelling constructed on them (they just happened to be 'caught' by our study between title being granted and the immanent construction of a dwelling - these type of parcels are being created and consumed around the region more or less constantly).



Long term vacant: Parcels that have been vacant for a long period of time – their owner(s) has chosen not to construct a dwelling on them to date for a range of reasons, not all of 17 which are immediately obvious or discernable .



Other use: Parcels that are used for other purposes, such as amenity value (a larger back yard or garden), recreation (have a swimming pool or tennis court), parking for adjoining parcels etc. These can readily be converted from their existing use should the owner desire and such 'other uses' are considered 'temporary' with temporary meaning they will be 'one day' be replaced with zoned development. These other uses can and do pose an impediment to development largely related to the owners appreciation/enjoyment of them relative to some other, potentially more productive use, and as such can generally change at a moment’s notice.



Large scale subdivision: Parcels that have been created through large scale subdivision (greenfield developments, often via a structure plan) and have yet to have a dwelling constructed on them. Note that most of these vacant parcels have not been measured

17

Forthcoming work from RIMU Long term vacant residential land in Auckland on long term vacant sites based on qualitative analysis including discussions with land owners of long term vacant parcels should shed more light on the ownership of these parcels and their reasons for long term vacancy. Initial findings suggest that all owners interviewed anticipate the sites will eventually be developed 'one day', but not necessarily by them.


31

through the residential vacant component of the study due to these parcels falling within structure plan and special areas. Capacity in structure plan and special areas are reported separately (refer Table 2). Despite some of the issues raised above, vacant residential land provides a good indication of how much land is potentially readily available for development. As vacant residential land is zoned, and almost all of it is already serviced or within serviced areas, this land provides opportunities for dwellings that are “ready to go” (or classified as “unconstrained” in The Auckland Plan Addendum (Auckland Council, 2012b)). Note that this definition does not account for factors other than zoning and the availability of services. Figure 8: Examples of vacant residential parcels

Vacant means a parcel has neither (known) dwelling(s) (from parcel dwelling count information) nor (known) buildings (from building footprints, less those smaller than the minimum building area) located on it. Vacant residential parcels must meet all of the following tests: 𝑍𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒 = 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑁𝐷 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 = 0 𝐴𝑁𝐷 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 0

All valid vacant parcels (i.e. those passing all tests above) are then run though the model (as per section 7.2.1: Calculating residential vacant capacity below) and assessed against the relevant rules Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

32

applying to find the maximum number of dwellings the rules enable the site to contain. The key difference from other assessments is the treatment of parcels that are smaller than the zones minimum lot size requirements but larger than the minimum valid parcel size, in that the minimum yield is set to one, rather than zero. All valid vacant parcels therefore are assumed to have the potential capacity for at least one dwelling irrespective of possible subdivision potential or planning rules applying - one residential title equals one dwelling. This is because such parcels are assumed to have an underlying property right for 'reasonable use'. For residentially zoned parcels this means residential occupation which reasonably necessitates a dwelling. The consent category for obtaining consent for dwellings on vacant residential sites is not assessed or noted, and would note that while the plan may modify the design, style, size, shape or consent category (and potentially the likelihood of a dwelling being constructed) it does not extinguish this underlying ‘right’. Many of these smaller vacant parcels are in fact ‘small scale’ subdivision sites that were granted resource consent to go below the minimum tested for by the model (or smaller) Note that the approach to vacant parcels taken in rural areas is slightly modified (by the addition of an extra assessment type) to account for specific rural zone rules modifying the consent category for dwellings on certain parcel types and in certain zones.


33

7.2.1 Calculating residential vacant capacity Vacant residential capacity is calculated through a modelling process, which can be seen in Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagram of residential vacant capacity calculation

RESIDENTIAL


Building Footprint

Building Count = 0 AND Dwelling Count = 0

Vacant Assessment

Vacant Assessment ** Inspect Designation Count on outputs shape factor (x) FME Geoprocessing building area min (x) Total parcel area (without dwelling)



Road Casing


For parcels < 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area / parcel area min infill




34

Residential parcels identified by the model as being vacant are selected, and the capacity for these parcels is calculated in one of two methods depending on the parcels size. For parcels that are less than 2000 square metres; the district plan zoning density was applied: 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 𝑅𝑂𝑈𝑁𝐷𝐷𝑂𝑊𝑁 �

𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 � 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

For parcels that are equal to, or are larger than 2000 square meters 25 per cent of the parcel area was removed from the calculation to allow for reserve contribution, access lots/vested roads etc.; for the remaining area, the district plan zoning density (as for smaller parcels) was applied: 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 𝑅𝑂𝑈𝑁𝐷𝐷𝑂𝑊𝑁 �

𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 0.75 � 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

A detailed diagram of each of the spatial modelling and yield calculation processes (undertaken in our modelling software, FME) can be found in Appendix H: FME workbench schematics.

7.3 Residential infill (including vacant potential) Residential infill capacity (including vacant potential capacity) is the number of additional dwellings that can be yielded from residential zoned parcels that are partially vacant and have subdivision potential (based on the highest consent category from the relevant PAUP rules that contains modellable parameters), presuming that any existing dwellings or structures greater than the minimum valid building area (50 square metres) stay in place. Below Figure 10 shows an example of where infill type development has previously taken place. The existing dwelling on the parcel has remained in place and in this case, the property has been subdivided allowing for two new parcels each with a new dwelling. Figure 10: Example of infill on a residential parcel


35

While the residential infill and residential vacant potential capacity is very similar in typology (i.e. they are both calculated on parcels that currently have a building and/or a dwelling located on them), calculations to determine each parcel’s capacity is modelled using differing calculation methods. Parcels considered for infill are less than 2000 square metres, while parcels that are measured for vacant potential are equal to or larger than 2000 square meters. The reason we make this distinction is to enable us to use and apply slightly different assumptions to the larger sites (vacant potential); this distinction is primarily for modelling purposes, and exists to account for the slightly different development process typically undertaken. While the 2000 square metres area threshold is relatively arbitrary, it is consistent with prior studies and real world examples and can be varied if required in further modelling runs. The different approaches for calculating yields are listed below (Table 8). The process for calculating yields from both of these capacity types can be seen in Figure 11 below. The application of the yield calculations shown are detailed in section Appendix I: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan residential zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions. Table 8: Residential parcel size subdivision assumptions Subdivision type

Parcel size threshold

Description

Small (infill)

Less than 2,000 m2

Standard infill approach from relevant PAUP district plan rules

Greater than 2,000 m

As per the small subdivision, but the candidate site area is reduced by 25 per cent to allow for reserve contribution, vested roads etc. before the yield calculation is undertaken. No access test is applied (this is assumed to be met through the use of the 25 per cent deducted)

Large (vacant potential)

2

As part of this process, a spatial model was constructed to enable us to determine the part(s) of residential parcels that would be suitable to accommodate additional dwelling(s) in accordance with the PAUP district planning rules. This model used the digital cadastral database (property boundaries) and building footprint outlines in order to make the assessment. The following section briefly outlines this modelling process.


36

Figure 11: Diagram of residential infill (incl. vacant potential) capacity calculation

RESIDENTIAL


Building Footprint Dwelling Count > 0 OR Building Count > 0 assessment area threshold (x)

Infill parcels < 2000 m2

Infill Assessment


VP parcels >= 2000 m2

building area min (x) shape factor (x)

FME Geoprocessing Infill / Vacant Potential

Parcel area min qualifier lookup Infill candidates

Vacant potential candidates

Building setback min lookup

Access width min lookup Assess candidate accessibility – Front / Middle / Rear

FME Geoprocessing

Vacant Potential Assessment FME Geoprocessing


Road Casing Infill candidates with access Vacant Potential Candidate Filter



Infill Assessment ** Inspect Designation Count on outputs FME Geoprocessing Aggregate vacant potential candidates by parcel identifier

Check parcel area > (dwelling count + candidate count) x (parcel area min infill)

Infill Candidate Filter



37

7.3.1 Overview of infill and vacant potential modelling process Residential parcels that are assessed for infill and vacant potential must first meet the various global residential parameters outlined in section 7.1 (Residential capacity assessment – global assumptions). The next test is a minimum qualifying parcel area test (see formula below), requiring parcels, typically, to be twice the minimum lot size for the zone in which it is located

For example if the minimum lot size is 400 square meters the minimum parcel size for assessment would need to be at least 800 square meters (as the new parcel and the existing parcel would both need to meet the minimum lot size requirements of the rules, in most situations18). The next steps are a series of complex spatial and mathematical calculations to calculate infill potential accounting for the spatial arrangement of existing buildings and development on the existing parcel. This infill process varies from the simple mathematical potential (albeit supported by spatial tests) undertaken on vacant parcels (or in redevelopment scenarios) where existing parcel development does not need to be built around. The following sub-sections (7.3.1.1 to 7.3.1.7) outline the infill and vacant potential modelling steps and have been illustrated with figures. A key to these figures is shown below in Figure 12. Figure 12: Key to modelling process figures (Figure 13 to Figure 18)

Parcel boundaries Building footprint Footprint bounding box Footprint bounding box setback buffer Modelled candidate area Minimum site area for existing dwelling Link from road to infill candidate area Vehicle accessway width test

7.3.1.1 Selection of parcel for infill testing Below Figure 13 shows an example residential parcel that meets the minimum lot size test for the zone.

18

Two variables are given in the LUT which allow for variation from this simple/common approach _PARCEL_AREA_MIN_QUALIFIER and _PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL. _QUALIFIER is the minimum lot size to be considered for subdivision, and _INFILL is the lot size used to calculate capacity. In the PAUP these values are exactly double, but variation can allow allowance for net site areas, existing dwellings to be on smaller (or larger) lots and so on.


38

Figure 13: Selection of parcel for infill testing

7.3.1.2 Application of building bounding box Once the parcel has been selected, a bounding box is generated on any buildings (as represented by polygons in the building footprint layer, which have been digitised from the aerial photography) that are greater in area than the pre-set building size minimum. This test is intended to filter out garages and other smaller buildings 19 that would not reasonably foreclose infill development. This is shown below in Figure 14. Figure 14: Application of building bounding box

19

It is considered that small buildings such as garages and sheds would be of low cost and low effort to move or remove from a parcel.


39

7.3.1.3 Application of building setbacks The bounding box is generated to allow us to create a rectangular buffer around the building in order for us illustrate the minimum building setbacks required under the planning rules; this is demonstrated in Figure 15 below. The width of this setback is controlled by ‘parcel building minimum setback’ variable in the LUT. The setbacks are usually a function of the yard rules, but in this case are only applied to the existing buildings, to ensure the new boundary is set back the appropriate distance to comply. Figure 15: Application of building setbacks

7.3.1.4 Generation of infill candidate area on candidate parcel Once the setback from existing buildings has been confirmed the spatial model then generates the potential infill area of a parcel. Below Figure 16 shows an infill candidate area that the modelling has generated on the example parcel. Further detail on the spatial infill candidate creation process is included in section 7.3.2. Figure 16: Generation of infill candidate area on candidate parcel


40

It should be noted that at this point, the hatched infill candidate area illustrated in 7.3.2. Figure 16 is the modelled vacant area of the parcel where additional dwellings could be located. It does not indicate the extent of a potential new lot to contain the building, which would be net of the required area for any existing dwelling(s). Further discussion of the actual process used to find and define the infill candidate area from the candidate area and parcel area is given below in relation to Figure 17, and is discussed in some technical detail in section 7.3.2.

7.3.1.5 Check of remaining infill candidate area on candidate parcel accounting for existing dwelling(s) A check of the remaining infill candidate area on a candidate parcel to account for a minimum site area required for the existing dwellings is now undertaken. This is done mathematically, but is illustrated visually in Figure 17 where a portion of the candidate is removed as it is required for the existing dwelling. If the remaining unallocated area is still larger than the ‘area parcel minimum’ variable then the candidate moves onto the next step. Figure 17: Check of remaining infill candidate area on candidate parcel accounting for existing dwelling(s)

This is the final candidate area available for new dwellings and must be larger than the zone minimum (‘area parcel minimum’ variable)

7.3.1.6 Test for minimum access width on infill model candidates Once suitable candidates for compliant infill have been determined a final test is undertaken to check whether there is sufficient room for vehicle access from the road to the infill candidate area of the parcel. This is displayed in Figure 18.


41

Figure 18: Test for minimum access width on infill model candidates

This example shows that the vehicle access minimum width requirement is met between the existing dwelling and the boundary of the parcel. If this test fails, the parcel is considered unsuitable for infill development (‘access test failed’). Note that vacant potential parcels are not subjected to the access test as: 

The access width is generally specified to be wider than the minimum used in the LUT for the higher number of dwellings that would be expected on larger parcels, but also



Because this latent potential is expected to be sufficient motivation to overcome such 'minor' constraints.

The parcels that fail the access test are saved as a unique dataset for future analysis, as there is a lot of 'land' that is locked up but could be used if access rules were relaxed, buildings were moved, or neighbours get together to undertaken more innovative approaches or sites amalgamated. Examples of where candidates have passed and failed the access test are shown in Figure 19, illustrating the impact of vehicular access on development potential, and the capacity that could be unlocked. This also highlights the degree to which future outcomes of rules based planning are highly interdependent on and with the outcomes of previous rule based planning, which is reflected in the existing built form and cadastral pattern of an area.

7.3.1.7 Calculation of potential capacity yields Once all of these tests have taken place to filter suitable residential parcels, the infill and vacant potential capacity yields are calculated. Parcels that are less than 2000 square meters are classified as 'infill capacity', while those equal to and larger than this size are classed as vacant potential capacity. Like residential vacant, parcels smaller than 2000 square metres (refer section 7.2) have their yield calculations generated by using the minimum lot size; 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = �

𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 � 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

Yield calculation for residential vacant potential is the same as used for residential vacant parcels greater than 2000 square meters, and uses the same demarcation between parcel sizes to make the calculation. For candidate areas that are equal to, or are larger than 2000 square meters, 25 per cent Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

42

of the candidate area was removed from the parcel area calculation to allow for reserve contributions, vested roads etc. and for the remaining area (75 per cent) the district plan zoning density was applied: 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = �

𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 0.75 � 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

It should be noted that the testing for infill and vacant potential is the same, except the access test is not run on final candidate areas on vacant potential parcels (i.e. parcels over 2000 square metres), and 25 per cent of the site is excluded from the developable area before calculating the dwelling capacity for the site. A detailed diagram of each of the spatial modelling and yield calculation processes (undertaken in our modelling software, FME) can be found Appendix H: FME workbench schematics.


43

Figure 19: Residential infill candidates that have passed and failed the access test


44

7.3.2 Calculating a parcel’s infill candidate area: spatial generation process This section outlines in some detail the spatial processing undertaken to find the infill candidate areas on parcels also taking account of existing buildings, as described conceptually in the preceding section particularly 7.3.1.4 above. This section is included as to allow the reader to understand the spatial analysis involved in generating the outputs for this capacity type. We believe this is a significant advance on previous approaches undertaken to assess the area of a parcel available for possible infill development, and an improvement on previous capacity studies. While the diagrams below in Table 9 show the outcomes of the spatial processing and conceptual basis, the undertaking of the modelling behind these diagrams is considerably more intricate. Table 9: Conceptual visualisation of outcomes of spatial processing for infill candidate area assessment Step

Image

Step 1: 'Real world' represented by cadastral property boundaries aerial photography and building footprints.

Step 2: Triangulate the vacant space (between building platforms and parcel boundaries) Note that not all parcels get triangulated – they are too small to subdivide according to the minimum parcel area rules applying to them (i.e. parcel area calculated < parcel area minimum) and are excluded to reduce the significant geoprocessing overhead inherent in this intensive spatial assessment.


45

Step

Image

Step 3: Triangles are filtered by area and shape, leaving only the larger, and 'less pointy' ones (select top three ranked triangles on each parcel using area and circularity test). Note also that the triangulation process ignores buildings less than a certain size (i.e. building footprint area calculated > building footprint min (50 m2)) – which is also configurable.

Step 4: Expand the three top ranked triangles to gain more coverage using circles (a circle can be defined by any three points on its circumference).

Step 5: Clip the circles to the parcel their instantiating triangle relates to.


46

Step

Image

Step 6a: Replace clipped circles with a geometry orientated bounding box to further extend candidate coverage.

Step 6b: Clip the bounding boxes to the parcel their instantiating triangle/circle relates to.

Step 6c: Buffer buildings (> building footprint min (50 m2)) by the required setbacks (building_setback_min) to ensure compliant separation of the candidate area from the existing building(s) Step 7: Filter out the candidate areas that are not large enough to contain a new site (> parcel area min) after also allowing for the existing dwelling count to occupy any required area of the parcel (as both existing AND new lots must meet the minimum site area tests)


47

Step

Image

Step 8: Then test that those with sufficient remaining candidate area can also contain a building platform (in this case a 120 m² square (converted from 8 x 15 m rectangle referred to in rules for processing requirements)), and the remaining ones are then passed on to the next step. Step 9: Access tester for width (> access width min) by creating a shortest path between the candidate parcel and the road parcel casing, while avoiding any buildings in the way, and use of buffering Parcels in yellow have passed all tests; parcels in pink have passed all tests except 'access'. Step 10: Back to the 'real world' showing passed candidate areas on parcel geography. In reporting we show the whole parcel as having capacity rather than the modelled candidate area for both visibility on the large scale maps we produce, and also to avoid ‘over-analysis’ of the candidate areas/shapes rather than a focus on the message that it is the whole site that carries the potential as the development does not necessarily need to be located within the candidate area. The candidate area testing is a means to determine site potential, not (necessarily) a guide to determine the future development form on that parcel.


48

7.4 Residential redevelopment Residential redevelopment capacity is the number of additional dwellings that can be yielded from residential zoned parcels, presuming that all existing dwellings/structures are removed and the parcels are redeveloped to yield the maximum number of dwellings permitted (based on the modelled consent category from PAUP district planning rules). Examples of this kind of development are shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21 below. In both these examples, the site area is sufficient for additional dwellings under the applicable rules, but the locations of the existing buildings preclude (compliant) infill development. That is, these parcels would fail the infill modelling assessment as described in the previous section. We note that two types of redevelopment are most prevalent; redevelopment through the removal of the existing dwellings or buildings and building to a higher density or, redevelopment through the relocation of an existing dwelling on a parcel to allow for additional dwellings (examples of which are shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21). Both of these potential development approaches are valid outcomes under the method used to calculate capacity, which calculates a net increase in dwellings irrespective of the actual mechanism used when they are developed, two examples using these figures are: 



Using Figure 20 

Three new dwellings less one existing dwelling (in this instance removed offsite)



Results in a net increase of two additional dwellings.

Using Figure 21 

Two 'new' dwellings less one existing dwelling (in this instance relocated onsite)



Results in a net increase of one additional dwelling.

Figure 20: Example of redevelopment through the removal of an existing dwelling*

* Also note infill on adjacent parcel


49

Figure 21: Example of redevelopment through the relocation of an existing dwelling

Redevelopment is an important measure of the theoretical capacity of the PAUP. It is critical that we understand the maximum number of dwellings that the plan has enabled in various areas, because although it is highly unlikely that all of these opportunities will be taken up, it is probable that at least some could be. It is important to be able to accurately capture the degree of maximum theoretical change the plan enables as a best (or worst) case scenario to determine what the maximum level of change that the plan allows is, based on the existing level of development, current cadastre and generally compliant future development. Like the other forms of residential capacity, residential redevelopment capacity is calculated through a spatial modelling process, which is outlined in Figure 22 below. The gross area of each residential parcel is calculated as part of the model, after which the redevelopment capacity yield is calculated. Like the process for calculating yield in the residential vacant and residential infill components, the calculation varies based on the size of the gross parcel area, and whether it is smaller than, or greater than or equal to the infill/vacant potential demarcation threshold - in this case 2000 square metres. As each parcel is ‘assumed to be vacant’ or effectively cleared of development before redevelopment occurs, no spatial candidate area or access test is undertaken. The existing legal parcel is assumed to have existing road access, and is a suitable shape to accommodate residential development. For residential redevelopment, calculations are almost entirely mathematical. Yield net calculations are undertaken to only report the net increase in dwellings (that is we report the potential for growth, rather than change in itself), and the existing dwelling count is removed from the gross parcel yield (all negatives are reset to zero), and reported as parcel yield. Thus only parcels with plan facilitated redevelopment potential for additional dwellings under the rules being assessed are captured in the output dataset. Alternatively, parcels with a number of existing dwellings greater than the tested rules allow are not assumed to be 'redeveloped' to this new lower density – while certainly possible, we consider this scenario to be highly unlikely. For parcels that are less than 2000 square metres; the district plan zoning density was applied:


50

𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑠 < 2,000 m² = �

𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 � − 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

For parcels that are equal to, or are larger than 2000 square meters square meters; 25 per cent of the parcel area was removed from the calculation to allow for reserve contribution, vested roads etc. and for the remaining area the unitary plan zoning density was applied: 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑠 ≥ 2000 m² = �

𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 0.75 � − 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

A detailed diagram of each of the spatial modelling and yield calculation processes (undertaken in FME) can be found in Appendix H: FME workbench schematics. Results for residential redevelopment capacity can be found in the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report. Figure 22: Diagram of residential redevelopment capacity

RESIDENTIAL

Excludes Vacant and Vacant Potential parcels but assumes a vacant site


Building Count > 0

** Inspect Designation Count on outputs Large parcel min road frontage qualifiers lookup for THAB and MHZ zones Road Casing


shape factor (x) FME Geoprocessing building area min (x)


Total parcel area (with dwelling)

For Infill parcels < 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area / parcel area min infill




Under residential redevelopment modelling, if the assessed capacity is greater than what is currently on site, then the parcel is reported as residential redevelopment candidate. Further work is recommended to better understand the relationships between the plan enabled potential for redevelopment identified using the simple spatial factors utilised in this study, and the Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

51

many other factors that influence redevelopment activities. The results of this study (being a reflection of what the plan allows to happen) are only one aspect of the likelihood of development occurring equation. Residential redevelopment capacity is not calculated on parcels that are ‘vacant’, or have been identified as having 'vacant potential', as the development potential of these parcels is already captured using a similar assessment methodology; this is outlined in Table 10. Table 10: Redevelopment and relationship to other capacity assessments Capacity assessment type

Also assessed for redevelopment capacity

Notes

Vacant

No

Site is already 'redeveloped'

Infill

Yes

Removal of existing dwelling and redevelopment to maximum permitted density may result in higher yield than infill method due to location of buildings etc.

Vacant potential (infill on sites larger than 2 2,000 m )

No

‘Redevelopment style’ modelling approach already taken via vacant potential assessment. Location of existing development is not explicitly considered in vacant potential modelling (e.g. access test, building buffer etc. accounted for by 25% net site area reduction), net yield results of both calculations will be the same.

All other parcels without yield under other capacity assessment

Yes

Removal of existing buildings and redevelopment to maximum permitted density may result in a yield not identified by other approaches due to location of buildings etc.

A clarification also needs to be made between the assessment of redevelopment capacity on a parcel level and the reported capacity using redevelopment. The two are used as upper and lower ranges for capacity reporting and are based on different combinations of capacity types as indicated in Table 11 below. Table 11: Constituents of residential capacity totals Capacity utilising infill

Capacity utilising redevelopment

Vacant





Infill





Vacant potential (infill on sites larger than 2,000 m2)





(THAB and MHZ intensive development parcels only)



Capacity type

Redevelopment

Accordingly, the reported 'capacity using infill' calculation is: 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑁𝐹𝐼𝐿𝐿 = (𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 + 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 + 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙)

Whereas the reported 'capacity using redevelopment' calculation is:

𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝐸𝐷𝐸𝑉𝐸𝐿𝑂𝑃𝑀𝐸𝑁𝑇 = (𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 + 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 + 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡) Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

52

Our primary interest in this study is not to measure or forecast 'all new development' or ‘change’ but to find the plan enabled potential for development that could increase the net total stock of dwellings in plan compliant way. The capacity calculations should not be used as a forecast of total dwelling construction activity, because they will be somewhat higher than net increase in dwellings (capacity) as existing dwellings must be at least numerically replaced before additional stock is created, and upgrade and/or replacement of existing stock without increasing the total number of dwellings is also very common. It should be noted that there are cases where redevelopment of a site does not yield additional dwellings and in fact reduces the overall number of dwellings. Often this reduction in the number of dwellings also occurs through the amalgamation of parcels, as demonstrated in Figure 23. Figure 23: Example of redevelopment yielding fewer dwellings

The example seen in Figure 23 shows three parcels that have been amalgamated into one parcel in order to build a large residence on the parcel, thus reducing capacity potential. The Capacity for Growth Study 2006 recorded a capacity potential of three additional dwellings across the parcels (a possibility for two dwellings on the then vacant parcel and one dwelling on one of the then occupied parcels). With the amalgamation, site clearance and subsequent new dwelling construction the infill potential of the parcel has been reduced to zero, both in an infill modelling sense and in a practical one - who would demolish such recent high value improvements to replace them in the short term? This type of 'redevelopment' has not been assessed as part of the study, as it is relatively rare, and effectively impossible to forecast. Potential for the single large dwelling already existing on a site to be (internally) converted into a number of smaller ones however does exist; both in a planning rules sense and a practical one, and this would still be captured by the redevelopment calculation which works on the land area / minimum dwelling area less existing dwellings. Because the number of existing dwellings is one, but the parcel is large enough to contain many more under the minimum site areas applying in the zone, this parcel will still have a calculated redevelopment yield. Again it is the net potential for additional plan compliant 'dwellings' we are trying to capture, not just 'new build houses'. Filtering work post study can be used to exclude examples of this type from the overall figures, using such metrics as estimated age Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

53

of dwelling (it’s too new to be economically converted or demolished), or improvement value to capital value ratios (it’s too valuable to be converted or demolished), should these examples be required to be excluded. As the study’s results are expected to be used for a very wide range of uses, some of which are unknown, we have captured everything, for filtering later, that filtering depending on the end use.

7.5 Intensive development in residential zones: capacity calculation methodology The PAUP proposes a number of zones (Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS), Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) and Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB)) where more intensive, generally attached 20 styles of residential development is enabled, but only on sites that meet a certain criteria. In the two Mixed Housing zones, detached development is enabled on sites not meeting these criteria; in the THAB zone only sites meeting the criteria are developable. For these more intensive development opportunity sites, the 'traditional' infill approach as outlined above is not the best method to identify potential capacity under these new planning provisions; it being more suited to detached style dwelling assessment. This is because not only are the site and space criteria for multiple dwellings often quite different from those for single detached ones, but also the role of volume (i.e. width, depth and height) starts to play a role, rather than just land area (width and depth). Development of a number of new approaches to calculate potential for residential development have been created incorporating key rule/zone parameters and enabling them to be varied if required. This section outlines approaches taken to calculating capacity in these zones, from most to least intensive. Illustrated in Table 12 below are the categories of assessment that these intensive residential zones fall into. Note in particular that the THAB and 'large parcel' mixed housing options are undertaken as redevelopment and vacant site assessments only. This is for two main reasons: 

Modelling process constraints and practicality: The nature of the infill candidate shapes created are such that they will never pass the road frontage test even if otherwise their shape and area is sufficient - the shapes have non-linear (or jagged) edges (from the iterative expansion and clipping process used to generate them), so their road frontage (if any - most will be to the rear of existing buildings) will be small at the GIS measurable scale even if to the eye they look to be likely candidates.



Rule intentions: THAB and mixed housing large parcel developments are intended as a comprehensive full site redevelopment type approach in most cases. It is not intended that existing standalone dwellings should remain on the site to be 'built around' potentially compromising design outcomes - thus our capacity assessment is undertaken only on 21 vacant parcels or as a full site redevelopment option, not as infill .

Care therefore needs to be made in comparing 'capacity utilising infill' and 'capacity utilising redevelopment' in these zones and between these zones and other zones. ‘Standard’ and ‘intensive’ development type in the table below refers to relative intensity of development enabled on those parcels by the respective zoning rules interfacing with their site area and frontage. Refer to respective parcel area/frontage diagrams in the following sections.

20

Attached dwellings are houses that share at least one common wall; these include townhouses, apartments and 'sausage' flats/units.

21

Reiterating that 'non-large parcel' MHZ developments (for developments of less than four dwellings on sites not meeting the unlimited density criteria) are assessed in the infill/vacant potential category


54

Table 12: Assessment categories for development in intensive residential zones PAUP Zone

Mixed House Suburban

Mixed House Urban

Terraced House and Apartment Buildings

Vacant assessment

Infill/vacant potential assessment

Redevelopment assessment

All excl. green







MHS ‘Intensive’ development candidate parcels

Green



N/A



‘Standard’ development candidate parcels

All excl. green







MHU ‘Intensive’ development candidate parcels

Green



N/A



THAB single dwelling candidate parcels

White section only



N/A

N/A

THAB ‘Intensive’ development candidate parcels

All parcels excepting white



N/A



Development type

Area/ frontage diagram colour

‘Standard’ development candidate parcels

7.5.1 Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone The Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone provides for attached residential dwelling developments that can be constructed on parcels that meet certain size and shape rules, up to a certain number of levels (as determined by the base zone rules and overlays, if present). The rules relating to the THAB zone do not state nor directly control dwelling density within the building. A number of bulk and location requirements also apply which are allowed for in the modelling (site coverage in particular, but also various setbacks). Other, more subjective urban design criteria also apply; it is assumed all modelled developments will conform to these criteria 22. In effect the THAB zone rules control the bulk, location and form of buildings, and the sites on which they can be constructed, within the confines of which, residential dwellings may exist. Lower density developments are not encouraged, though there is a provision allowing single dwellings (one dwelling is permitted, developments of two to four dwellings are discretionary, and developments of five or more are a restricted discretionary activity). We have interpreted this new 'single dwelling' provision (after discussion with the Unitary Plan residential team) to mean that a single dwelling is enabled as a permitted activity only where one does not currently exist, rather than an open ended provision allowing iterative additions of infinitely more dwellings, so long as they are added one at a time. (Both of these approaches are arguable interpretations of the rules as written). If this is not the case (and single dwellings are permitted to be added iteratively as permitted activities, without limit), then the potential for dwellings in the THAB zone could be considerably higher than we have calculated. This ‘single dwelling’ provision, as we have interpreted it, and the Unitary Plan team advise they believe it is intended it to be read, also has the potential to decrease potential redevelopment uptake in the THAB zone by allowing potentially very low density developments on currently vacant (or occupied by non-residential activity) parcels, potentially precluding THAB style redevelopment in the short to

22

As we are modelling potential based on building bulk alone, we assume that detail of the design, layout and etc is of relatively minor effect on overall yield in aggregate, though there will obviously be instances on a site specific basis where such matters could result in large variation from modelled outcomes, but such issues apply to a greater of lesser degree to all modelling.


55

medium term and/or reducing potential scope for future parcel amalgamation necessary to create the site requirements for THAB development by increasing the improvement value on the site. This is because while the THAB zone allows significantly more intensive development than is current in most locations where this zone applies; it is heavily reliant in change (via site amalgamation) to the existing cadastral pattern to create the site characteristics required to trigger the application of the rules. Amalgamation is rare in Auckland context historically, but anecdotal discussions suggest that it is most likely to occur where improvement value is low and land values are high. Any interim low density improvements therefore reduce the stock of potential amalgamation candidates and foreclose more intensive development intended by the THAB zone provisions (see also section 7.7: Amalgamation of residential parcels). Like all the other zones, parcels are assessed for capacity as they exist at the time of the study. The THAB zone requires that sites have a minimum road frontage length and that length be present for 80 per cent of the site depth. In relation to the modelling, only the first requirement is tested (road frontage length), meaning that a large number of parcels meeting this test are corner sites. This means that if a corner site's two road frontages together exceed the minimum length development could be 'consentable', subject to specific design/context considerations, despite not strictly meet the "frontage 23 is 80 per cent of depth" requirement . Modelled development potential in the THAB zones has been limited to those sites that currently have sufficient frontage. This is a small proportion of the total number THAB sites, as well as a small proportion of the THAB zoned area. The THAB zone rules are implicitly encouraging of, and reliant on the amalgamation of parcels within the zone in order for more comprehensive redevelopment opportunities to be realised. The potential for the THAB zone to deliver significantly more capacity for additional dwellings exists if parcel amalgamation is undertaken. The calculation of capacity for additional dwellings on parcels within the THAB zone is split into two main steps, these are: 

Site selection criteria: selection of sites on which THAB development can occur



Development criteria: development criteria to apply to sites that pass the site selection criteria.

These steps are explained and expanded upon in the following sections.

7.5.1.1 THAB site selection criteria There is no size constraint on the site selection for the THAB zone, only a requirement for a minimum length of road frontage. The road frontage needs to be greater than 25 metres, or greater than 30 metres if bonus floor levels (plus any additional height overlay) are to be used. Note that volcanic viewshaft constraints may apply where these are less than the available height limits. Sites that are larger in size than 1200 square metres and have more than 20 metres, but less than 25 metres of road frontage are not specifically mentioned in the THAB residential rules, but are outlined in the subdivision section of the plan. Therefore minimum vacant site parameters are able to be created. Discussions with the Unitary Plan team suggests that given that the subdivision rules allow the creation of sites that cannot be developed in strict accordance with the zone rules, that an assumed 'consentable' development opportunity would be best modelled. We have therefore added a category of development where sites meeting the subdivision criteria (parcels greater than 1200 square metres, with a frontage between 20 metres and 25 metres would be modelled as a three level Mixed House

23

The rules are not clear on this point, and informal discussions with the Built Environment Unit of Auckland Council suggest such corner sites would likely have the higher-density development consented due to the ability for development to front the street and be setback from adjoining properties. Stricter interpretation of this rule (one frontage only) would reduce valid THAB candidates to near zero also reducing reported capacity further. Addtionally on corner sites the depth to frontage requirement applies either as the whole frontage (to which no part of a standard parel would be equal to or greater in width) or a diagonal accrss the parel, and only the diagonal section will meet the width to depth ratio, either way in each approach the portion of the site equal to or greater than the frontage is near 0, certainly nowhere near the required 80%.


56

Urban (MHU) style, rather than assuming no development (or a single dwelling). Single dwellings are allowed for if a site currently has no dwelling(s) 24. Considering the above, we have developed frontage/area rule diagram, as shown in Figure 24. Arranging the site selection data in this way (representing the rules through the coloured 'boxes') has allowed us to create a modelling process with parameters that could be adjusted or amended if necessary. This is also useful for manually testing an individual parcel's capacity results by being able to quickly see what potential a site might have when looking at its frontage and site size on the graph. Figure 24: Terraced Housing and Apartment Building zone frontage/area rule diagram

24

Note this is different from vacant assessment, which requires there to be no dwellings and no buildings larger than 50 square metres. This is because while all dwellings are buildings, not all buildings are dwellings.


57

7.5.1.2 THAB development criteria The second stage in calculating capacity on a parcel in the THAB zone takes into account development criteria. These provisions include: 

Height: to a maximum of four levels (unless five or six levels are enabled by an additional building height overlay); see also minimum 30 metre frontage requirements, less any volcanic viewshaft limitations.



Building setbacks: three to five metres from site boundaries depending on the adjoining zone and level. Common wall provisions may also apply. Larger lake and riparian setbacks also apply. These setbacks were not built into the modelling process as they do not cover more than 40 per cent of any parcel in the THAB zone. Because of this, these limitations are avoidable by locating the building footprint elsewhere on the site. In addition, the rules themselves state that the control "does not apply on boundaries where a common wall exists or is proposed" (Auckland Council, 2013a). We can therefore assume that a common wall is proposed. This means that yards and setbacks have little practical impact on the modelled capacity, given the considerable constraint imposed by the 40 per cent building coverage maximum.



Yards: the same as for building setbacks, a 2.5 metre road frontage exists - this is easily encompassed within the 60 per cent area of a site not otherwise covered by buildings. Other water based yards are considered to be avoidable or 'consentable' and are of limited 25 relevance in the highly urbanised locations the THAB zone applies .



Minimum site frontage: 25 metres for up to four levels, 30 metres for greater than four levels, also dependent on presence of additional building height overlay allowing for this 26.



Building coverage: maximum of 40 per cent.



Minimum gross dwelling floor area: minimum of 40 square metres for a studio style dwelling, 45 square metres for a one bedroom dwelling. A minimum storage area and minimum outdoor space is also required, including eight square metres for balconies which will be part of building coverage, yards and etc.) 27.



Dwelling mix: If the development is to have more than 20 dwellings, then no more than 70 per cent can be studio/one bedroom. This aspect has been incorporated into the average gross dwelling floor area.

The next section outlines how these assumptions have been translated into modelling.

7.5.1.3 Description of THAB development calculations on intensive development sites Sites that meet the criteria for intensive THAB (re)development are covered here. For single dwelling candidate sites (those vacant sites that do not meet multi-unit development criteria), all relevant design and bulk and location criteria are simply assumed to be met (for example if a parcels attributes means that it falls within the ‘white’ area of the graph, and its dwelling count is equal to zero, they its capacity yield would be equal to one (1)). The process is as follows: 1. Development parcels selected 2. Calculate maximum building coverage area. This also equals the maximum ground floor area. 3. Apply formula: Maximum building coverage area = area of selected parcel × building coverage maximum (Maximum building coverage area = 0.4 or 40%)

25

Future improvements to the model could incorporate building setbacks and yards as cross checks to ensure that the calculated area of each floor is less than the net area after these factors have been considered, particularly if the building coverage limitation were to be relaxed from 40 per cent.

26

Note: no minimum site area applies.

27

See comments on average gross apartment floor area below (See section 7.5.1.5: Gross apartment floor area (THAB)).


58

4. Calculate maximum number of levels, based on site frontage and the presence of certain overlays. A custom THAB height overlay layer is used, which combines PAUP additional height overlays (allowing bonus levels and height restrictions) and volcanic viewshaft (converted to storeys and used as a restriction only), to calculate the maximum number of levels per parcel. This is done on a point on polygon basis, where a parcels maximum height in storeys is determined by the max storey height overlay value at the parcel centroid. This is both simple to model but also appropriate given the THAB building could be any location on the site and the building is imputed mathematically rather than physically 28. This is based on a combination of site frontage length and overlays as per Table 13 and Figure 24. Table 13: THAB Site Type and Maximum Height relationships Site frontage type (Colours reflect frontage diagram Figure 24)

Height overlays considered

Maximum modelled potential number of levels

(bonus and constraints)

No

N/A (Only a single dwelling permitted, so height of that dwelling is not considered relevant for this calculation).

No

3* (*As per MHU style development)

> 25 metres frontage (Blue)

Yes

4 (Additional height overlay does not enable additional height if site has < 30 metres frontage)

> 30 metres (Orange)

Yes

4, 5 or 6, (dependent on presence of and height value in additional height overlay)

Single dwelling sites (White)

> 20 metres, < 25 metres frontage and > 1200 m² area (Green)

5. Calculate the parcels maximum gross building floor area Maximum building gross floor area = maximum building coverage area × maximum number of levels

6. Calculate potential additional number of dwellings

Potential additional number of dwellings Maximum building gross floor area = � � − existing dwellings Gross apartment floor area

7.5.1.4 Visual representation of THAB development calculations on intensive development sites The series of diagrams in Table 14 below illustrates visually the modelling of THAB development used in the model on sites with over 25 metres in frontage and assists to explain the steps outlined mathematically above. The images below are conceptual process guides rather than model outputs. The model does not actually 'draw' or 'design' the development, but uses spatial relationships between parcel size, frontage and overlays to discern which combination of these values are relevant then undertakes the development calculations mathematically to produce a numerical dwelling yield rather than graphical outputs. 28

Compared with business parcel developments which are physically modelled and vary across the parcel in response to various constraints


59

Table 14: Visualisation of the THAB development modelling process Step

Image

Step 1: Select sites based on road frontage and area requirements

Step 2: Calculate maximum building coverage

𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 % × 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎

Step 3: Resulting building footprint area Note: this can theoretically be any shape or location (except within yard Setbacks) on the site, as the calculation is done mathematically.


60

Step

Image

Step 4: Find maximum number of levels from additional building height overlay. Road frontage length will determine if the additional height Ooverlay 'bonus height' is useable, or the standard THAB zone four storey's limit applies.

Step 5: Add number of storeys permitted from height overlay, with area based on ground floor area. Sum of storeys equals total gross building floor area. Note: no allowance for setbacks has been made at this stage. Future model improvements will be made to ensure the maximum ground floor area is greater than the net area available at each level. Given the nature of the setbacks and constraint on building coverage we have assumed compliance.

7.5.1.5 Gross apartment floor area (THAB) Assumption Once gross floor area has been determined, as illustrated above, the floor area figure is then converted to an estimated of the number of dwellings. For the calculation of dwelling capacity from the plan controlled floor space generated, a conversion factor has been created. The conversion factor used is a regional average, and should be considered as a placeholder for a range of outcomes, and a tool for calculating regional capacity, rather than indicating a maximum or likely number of dwellings on a parcel by parcel basis. Individual developments will likely have very different dwelling mixes but these cannot be known until real world applications have been made, and approved. The only guidance provided in the plan is that dwellings are required to be larger than a certain size, and where there are more than a certain number in a single development that they should be mixed ratio of apartments based on bedroom count. This number of dwellings trigger has not been incorporated, as floor space is the primary modelled output, and the area of the dwelling assumed drives the resulting dwelling yield. There are potential infinite loop issues with assuming larger dwelling areas where the count is over 20, as this may result in the dwellings being less than 20, and so on. We have therefore used a single fixed average area, effectively allowing for a mix in all given situations. Accordingly we have used this information, along with feedback and a review of existing developments to develop a placeholder proxy. Floor space is the primary value that is calculated based on the rules, but this is not a particularly useful metric for reporting capacity. Conversion of the rules based floor space into dwellings requires application of an average gross dwelling area, which is a variable assumption. The simplified calculation below shows the key role that the dwelling size assumption plays in converting the plan


61

controlled limits as applied to buildings in the THAB zone into dwellings that may exist in those buildings: 𝑇𝐻𝐴𝐵 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = �

𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝐻𝐴𝐵 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 � 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒

The above equation converts total building floor space into a number of dwellings. The ‘gross average apartment size’ is the total amount of gross building area per dwelling and this includes all nondwelling space in the theoretical building as well as the physical floor space of the dwelling. Accommodation for common areas, parking (both ground level and 'inside the building'), balconies for dwellings above ground level (which are required to 'fit' within the building envelope), servicing and waste, storage, building circulation areas, walls, services and other all need to be taken into account as part of the gross average apartment size. The rules for dwelling sizes and mix are not definitive in the plan, with only minimum dwelling size and a desired mix of sizes stipulated. Because of this we have had to create and use a regional average for calculations. What we do know from the rules is that the minimum THAB dwelling can be no smaller than: 40 m2 net internal area (for studio dwellings) + 8 m² balcony + (0.3 m² service and waste + 30%) = 0.39 m² + (4 m³ Storage / 2.55 m floor height) = 1.56 m² = 49.95 m2

Therefore, a minimum area of just under 50 square metres for the absolute minimum net internal floor area per dwelling permitted under the rules. This absolute minimum net floor space figure does not include (by definition) any provision for access (stars/lifts/corridors), walls, common areas (if any), parking within the building above ground level (if any), services etc. An example of an attached type development floor plan can be seen in Figure 25. This plan illustrates how the total floor area of this particular storey in this particular building is split between 'dwelling' and 'non-dwelling' floor space, in this example around 40 per cent of the building coverage of the building is not 'net dwelling area', indicating that considerable allowance for this additional space needs to be made. This practical requirement for non-dwelling space within an intensive residential development is also a major contributor to the cost and price differential between attached development and detached dwellings of the same floor area as it is required to be paid for but purchasers don't necessarily 'own' it in more intensive developments.


62

Figure 25: Example of an apartment floor plan illustrating ratio between building footprint and net dwelling area (floor plan image source: Meridian Hill Neighborhood Association (2011))

Based on the above examples, the PAUP minimum (considered as an absolute minimum) discussions with the Unitary Plan Residential team, the Built Environment Unit and anecdotal evidence, a figure of 110 square metres of gross floor area per dwelling has been used as the assumption in the model. The figure allows for a mix of dwelling types (equal to or potentially wider than specified in the dwelling mix rule), the presumption that many dwellings in THAB zones will be larger than the minimum size required, and adding an allowance for additional floor space required for the likes of access, common areas, building parking, walls and services. The average floor space per dwelling assumption is easily varied either in the model for the entire THAB zone by amending the ‘THAB dwelling size’ parameter built into the model, or by taking the generated floor space and using an individualised figure at any chosen geography from the parcel scale up. This would require the creation of further dwelling size assumptions to apply, which would not necessarily infer predictive accuracy to a certainty greater or less than a single regional average figure 29 but it is possible to do. It should be noted that the assumption requires that the net floor area of the average dwelling will be less than this average gross floor area assumption figure; the internal floor space of the 'average' THAB dwelling is assumed to be somewhat less than 110 square metres, but the form that that floor space is arranged within the building is not constrained. The average floor space approach allows the floor space for dwellings to be conceived in multiple ways, such as split across multiple levels (e.g. as a three level terrace style), or have the dwelling on a single level, or any mix thereof. Further details on the THAB modelling approach are contained within Appendix R: THAB zone modelling code.

7.5.2 Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone The Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone was created from the splitting and refinement of the Mixed Housing zone as it was presented in the DAUP into two new zones (Mixed Housing Urban and Suburban). The Mixed Housing Urban zone contains a very similar set of provisions to the original Mixed Housing zone, but with the important addition of a permitted three storey height limitation throughout the zone, compared to two levels in the Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) zone (PAUP) and the Mixed Housing zone as provisioned in the DAUP. 29

The average allows for a wide range of potential combination of sizes to be possible, while still summing to the total generated.


63

The clarification of height limits in this zone only has relevance to capacity calculation on the so called 'unlimited density' sites (parcels greater than 1200 square metres in area and greater than 20 metres of road frontage). On the remainder of parcels in this zone the 'traditional' infill type modelling provides all the necessary parameters as a maximum density (or dwellings per land area) is specified, so height is not incorporated as a parameter on these ‘standard’ sites (i.e. irrespective of the number of levels, dwellings cannot exist on these sites at a density greater than stated (without consent and therefore falling outside the scope of our study)). In effect height on sites controlled by a density rule may be a relevant consideration for the ultimate arrangement or form, (or economic viability) of any development on those sites, but it does not affect the calculation of plan enabled capacity for development. On 'unlimited density' sites, a new approach was required to be developed on the basis of site criteria which determines the sites potential for development by development typology, but also to the modelling of the development on those sites once they are classified. The modelling is undertaken on existing cadastre, and amalgamation has not been considered or factored in. The potential for amalgamation should be considered in much the same way as developments that are consented beyond what we have modelled; as possible and welcome, but outside of scope of this study. For further discussion of amalgamation see Appendix U. Calculation of capacity for parcels within the MHU zone can be split into two main components: 

Site selection criteria: selection of existing parcels on which MHU development can occur in various site categories



Development criteria: application of the relevant rules to those sites that pass the site selection criteria categories.

This approach to capacity calculation has proved to be an efficient mechanism in the management of our modelling resources, with the process being very resource intensive.

7.5.2.1 MHU site selection criteria The Mixed Housing Urban zone provides for a number of site 'categories' when the rules are resolved down to the two key criteria: 1) site area, and 2) road frontage length. These two criteria are contained in both the Mixed Housing Urban zone rules, and in the subdivision rules, with the latter only applying as a filter post capacity calculations as a building platform constraint. The key provisions applying to the site selection criteria in the MHU zone are (paraphrased from PUAP, Auckland Council (2013a)) are: 

One dwelling per 300 square metres, or



One dwelling per 250 square metres, if the site is a front site and each dwelling has a minimum frontage of 7.5 metres, or



Unlimited density if the site size is greater than 1200 square metres and has a frontage greater than 20 metres and four or more dwellings are proposed.

The plan notes exceptions for developments on front sites where three or four dwellings are proposed, these sites must have greater than 15 metres of road frontage. Sites with less than 15 metres of road frontage are capped at a maximum of two dwellings irrespective of area. Discussions with Unitary Plan teams and the Built Environment Unit indicate that a sites potential for dwellings is 'capped' at two dwellings unless the road frontage is 15 metres or greater. Where the frontage is greater than 15 metres, the number of dwellings permitted will be limited by either road frontage (allowing one dwelling per 250 square metres) or site area (allowing one dwelling per 300 square metres), based on which ever provides the greatest number of dwellings. These rules have been categorised and are represented in Figure 26. This diagram enables any site to be classified into the modelling process, based on frontage and area, and enables the model to classify (and subsequently model) sites in the same way. Using the colours indicated on the graph in Figure 26, the capacity of blue (two dwellings maximum), orange (three dwellings maximum) and red (four dwellings maximum) sites, are constrained by frontage not by area. This is a key change from legacy planning provisions, and will mean some large sites are no longer developable. However increased development potential on other smaller sites may Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

64

offset this loss of potential. Note also the grey boxes (dwelling 1: 𝑥 m2 ) in theory continue to the right of the graph, however the more intensive rules, supersede the ability or likelihood respectively of the 1: 𝑥 m2 option from being utilised as they deliver greater yield, which we assume will be utilised in preference to a lower yielding option. In effect a site’s density is a function of road frontage, with ultimate yield controlled by site area that that density can be applied to. To put it another way, front sites are highly developable, but rear sites are not. Figure 26: Mixed Housing Urban zone frontage/area rule diagram

7.5.2.2 MHU development criteria Once sites are classified into their development categories using the rules illustrated in Figure 26, development opportunities are calculated using the limits also summarised on Figure 26 (see text Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

65

notes in each coloured section). Capacity for dwellings in the grey, orange, red and blue development categories (all except green; "unlimited density") are modelled as an 'infill' option, in addition to redevelopment, as this development approach lends itself to this type of assessment, and is facilitated by the rules. While the infill test is used to find land suitable for an additional dwellings (for infill candidates less than 2000 square metres) and a test is undertaken on the site frontage to ensure the site complies with the rules, there is no guarantee that the additional dwelling will be ‘at’ the street frontage, as the rules encourage (but do not require). Instead, in our view, new PAUP controlled development that fronts and addresses the street is more likely to result when an existing site is redeveloped rather than when retrofitting ad hoc new ‘infill’ development in and around existing development, particularly in lower density infill type developments, mainly as the majority of infill candidate areas are towards the rear of most existing properties (i.e. to the rear of the existing dwelling). The assessment of parcels for capacity in the MHU zone is similar to that undertaken for the plan's lower density zones, although slightly complicated by the frontage and area considerations. The key variation from most other zones and the rest of development within the zone are the 'unlimited density' sites, where a new approach has been developed to reflect the new opportunities for development this option provides. Essentially, these larger, long frontage sites are managed by a 'zone within a zone' provision and have a significant 'density bonus' compared to the rest of the zone. This potential provides a significant incentive for the aggregation of land to meet these criteria, as in effect this allows an 'automatic rezoning' to take advantage of this increased potential, triggered by right based on the site's characteristics. Modelling of land aggregation under such open ended opportunities raises significant practical issues, particularly for objective and repeatable analysis. Therefore the potential resulting from future aggregation and amalgamation is not included in the results of this study, although it is considered to be (theoretically) significant. Capacity under an 'unlimited density' approach is only calculated as a redevelopment or vacant site option on sites that are larger than 1200 square metres and have a road frontage that is greater than 20 metres (as per THAB zone modelling, the rules infer full site redevelopment rather than building in and around existing development), and other assessments are undertaken as outlined in Table 15 below. This 'redevelopment only' approach is: 

For practical modelling reasons (the nature of the infill candidate geometry generated by the model would be non-compliant as road frontage would never comply due to the nature of the shapes generated in the model), and



Because it would be unlikely and/or undesirable in most instances for an existing dwelling to be 'built around' while also achieving the intentions of the rules.


66

Table 15: Mixed Housing Urban zone capacity assessment Vacant assessment

Infill/vacant potential assessment

Redevelopment assessment

Grey(s) (area/frontage limited)







Blue (two dwellings max area/frontage limited)







Orange (three dwellings max area/frontage limited)







Red (four dwellings max area/frontage limited)







Green ("unlimited density")







Frontage/size rule

7.5.2.3 Calculating MHU 'unlimited density' using gross dwelling land area Calculation of capacity on 'unlimited density' sites requires the use of a reasonable proxy for the likely plan enabled outcomes, based on compliance with design rules and reasonable expectations of developable typologies in accordance with these rules. As discussed above, 'unlimited density' is an unfortunate terminology as density is in practical effect limited by the site development controls and the more detailed design criteria. This is a new approach for many parts of Auckland, however some legacy councils had very similar provisions in certain zones, for example the Medium Density Housing options in the Living Environment (zone) in Waitakere City. The provisions in this legacy zone focussed on design criteria to drive quality built outcomes rather than relying on a blunt density limitation, so long as they fit within a density limitation and/or bulk and location envelope. Despite the well-known limitations of density rules as a very blunt tool to achieve 'good outcomes', such rules do facilitate simple and accurate modelling, and provide certainly for communities, as density can be used as a clear parameter to calculate the maximum number of dwellings on any given land area and has a strong history and wide public understanding. The ‘unlimited density’ provision required the creation of a proxy density value, so that the capacity for dwellings under these new provisions can be calculated. The proxy used for the density value has been taken from working drafts developed by Jasmax during the plan development process, as shown in the description and images included in Table 16 in below. With three levels now permitted in the MHU zone, three level developments are assumed to occur, particularly on the 'unlimited density' sites where full site redevelopment is also presumed. The work by Jasmax established a proxy density 2 value of one dwelling per 103 square metres of land area (1:103 m ); this assumption has been used in our modelling. A series of worked design examples of a potential built-form using this assumption can be seen in Table 16 below.


67

Table 16: Mixed Housing Urban zone, worked examples of three level developments (Jasmax and Auckland Council, 2012) Development description

Artists Impression

Three levels, 14 units @ 1:103 m² land area




68

Development description

Artists Impression



Based on this proxy value, capacity on the ‘unlimited density large sites’ is now easily calculated: 𝑀𝐻𝑈 ‘𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒’ 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = (_

𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ) – 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑀𝐻𝑈 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦

Note that in contrast to the approach in the THAB zone, the floor area of these theoretical MHU ‘unlimited density large site dwellings’ may be greater than (as well as equal to or less than) the proxy land area, depending on the design and layout of the development.

7.5.3 Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) zone The Mixed Housing Suburban zone was created as a result of the splitting of the Mixed Housing Zone from the DAUP into Urban and Suburban portions. The MHS zone contains the same 'style' of provisions as the MHU zone, but with lower density and height permitted in all cases. The key provisions applying to the site selection criteria in the MHS zone are: 

One dwelling per 400 square metres


69



Maximum two level height limit (with the potential for three levels as a Discretionary Activity), and



Maximum density of one dwelling per 200 square metres on large sites (greater than 1200 square metres and more than 20 metres of frontage)

Other than the numerical site area minimum differences the MHU and MHS zones are similar enough that the modelling methodology used is the same. The same FME modelling workbench is used, but with variance in the parameters used to drive the model (note the difference in the VAR_x values in the LUTs Appendix I: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan residential zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions). Despite this methodological similarity, outcomes in the two zones will be quite different, as while attached dwelling development is anticipated (such as terraced housing or duplexes), in MHS with a maximum density of 400 square metres, or 300 square metres where frontage allows or one dwelling per 200 square metres at the maximum end, most development will be detached in look and feel, even 30 if the dwellings happen to share the odd wall to provide a more efficient layout . There is a discernable capacity effect under infill conditions from the reduction in setback for MHS as the models functions in finding space is not trimmed by a buffer around existing buildings. This reveals the implicit assumption in our modelling, that 'the neighbours agree'. We consider this a reasonable assumption given that the infill candidate function reacts to buildings on the candidate parcel (internal boundaries), and assumed side parcel boundaries (external boundaries) are dealt with at design stage within the sites area as per all infill type calculations. This small change to allow common walls may help reduce the largely wasted and wasteful 'separation strip' found under the eaves and between the close-boarded fences typical in many recent infill developments, with this land being able to be used more effectively and efficiently for improved outdoor space and/or internal dwelling layouts and increased privacy.

7.5.3.1 MHS Site Selection Criteria The approach used to model the Mixed Housing Suburban zone is the same as the Mixed Housing Urban zone, with minor variations. In particular, applied densities are lower in all situations, and there is no 'unlimited density' on the larger sites, as it is specified as being 200 square metres by the rules so a proxy was not needed to be developed. However the densities are applied in exactly the same way as MHU. The other main difference is the potential height is limited to two levels, though this is not a relevant criterion for capacity calculation in density controlled zones, it may result in different built forms. Much of the MHU Site selection criteria discussion therefore relates equally to MHU and so is not repeated. The MHS rules have been represented as a Frontage/Area Diagram in Figure 27. This diagram enables any site to be classified into the modelling process, based on frontage and area, and enables the model to classify sites in the same way. Comparison with Figure 26 also illustrates the differences between the two zones approaches.

30

Common (shared) walls are permitted "where the neighbours agree" (Auckland Council, 2013a). On sites where infill development occurs, the owner/developer is the neighbour for the existing and future buildings on the site and is therefore more likely scenario that dwellings will abut the 'neighbours' under infill conditions rather than the perimeter of the original parcel. This allows much more efficient layouts, and therefore more useable/useful outdoor space for example.


70

Figure 27: Mixed Housing Suburban zone frontage/area rule diagram

7.6 Residential conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings Provisions in the residential zones of the PAUP allow for an existing dwelling to be converted into two. The rule requires a dwelling to exist at the time of notification of the PAUP. The rule as published states (Auckland Council, 2013a): 3.3 The conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings: 1. Where a dwelling is proposed to be converted into two dwellings each dwelling must have a net internal floor area of at least 40 m². 2. The second dwelling must: Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

71

a.

have direct access to an outdoor living space. This space may be exclusive to the dwelling or shared with the primary dwelling b. have a common wall with the primary dwelling of no less than 3 m in length or share a ceiling and/or floor with the primary dwelling c. comply with the daylight and minimum dimension of principal living rooms and principal bedrooms development controls. 3. The primary dwelling must exist on the date of notification of this Unitary Plan. 4. Parking is not required for the second dwelling. The rules require a dwelling to exist at time of notification that is, new developments post notification (30 September 2013), or developed under the provisions of the PAUP are not eligible for conversion and first and second dwellings are to be equal to larger than 40 square metres, and be attached to the existing dwelling. No parking or additional criteria are required to be met that are not otherwise reasonably assumed to be compliable with on any site with an existing dwelling. All 'existing' dwellings in the relevant zones are assumed to have the potential for conversion into a second dwelling. The residential assessment LUT contains a 'second dwelling' field, by which parcels are tagged with either 'yes' or 'no' based on whether potential for a second dwelling conversion exists within the zone. The various sub-precincts and overlays have been assessed by the Unitary Plan team as having the potential for conversion or not, with a number of points of clarification raised that we anticipate will be raised in submissions. Outlined in Table 17 below is a list of the 'Capacity for Growth Study' zones in which conversion is Permitted, Controlled or Restricted Discretionary Activity under the PAUP, based on discussions with the Unitary Plan Residential team. This discussion and the requirement to accurately reflect what the plans intentions (or wording) with respect to this provision indicated that, with respect to the large number of precincts and overlays (as opposed to base zones) it is not totally clear what the intention with respect to this option is. The spatial extent of these areas based on Table 17 is shown in Figure 28. Note that all business zones (including town centres) and the THAB residential zone are specifically excluded, as are rural zones (which have their own zone specific approach to second and third dwellings). Table 17: Table of Capacity for Growth Study zones where conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings is permitted CFGS_Zone name

PAUP Type

Mixed Housing Urban

Zone

Mixed Housing Suburban

Zone

Single House

Zone

Rural and Coastal settlement

Zone

Large Lot

Zone

Residential precinct|Mangere 2|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Rosella Road|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Mangere Bridge|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct C|Karaka South

Precinct

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct F|Matakawau Point

Precinct

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct H|Te Toro

Precinct

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct I|Waiau Pa

Precinct

Residential precinc|Huapai North sub-precinct A|

Precinct


72

CFGS_Zone name

PAUP Type

Residential precinct|Huapai North sub-precinct B|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Huapai North sub-precinct C|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Pukekohe Hill sub-precinct A|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Pukekohe Hill sub-precinct B|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Penihana North sub-precinct A|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Penihana North sub-precinct B|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Penihana North sub-precinct C|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Babich sub-precinct A|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Babich sub-precinct B|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Babich sub-precinct C|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Greenhithe sub-precinct B|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Albany 3 sub-precinct A|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Albany 3 sub-precinct B|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Albany 3 sub-precinct C|

Precinct

Residential precinct|Puhoi|

Precinct

Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 1A|

Precinct

Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 1B|

Precinct

Comprehensive precinct|Whitford Village sub-precinct B|

Precinct

Comprehensive precinct|Silverdale North sub-precinct B|

Precinct

Comprehensive precinct|Matakana 1 sub-precinct B|

Precinct

SpecialCharacter|Residential Helensville|||

Overlay

SpecialCharacter|Residential - North Shore A|||

Overlay

SpecialCharacter|Residential - North Shore B|||

Overlay

SpecialCharacter|Residential - North Shore C|||

Overlay

For purposes of capacity calculations, any site that has a dwelling (or dwellings), where the age of the dwelling (or dwellings) is older than that of the date of plan notification (30 September 2013) is used. Based on this the total potential for plan enabled capacity for a second dwelling is: IF (𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑔𝑒 < 30/09/2013) THEN, (𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑖𝑙𝑑 = 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠)

Following discussions with senior leadership teams on preliminary results of the PAUP modelling, it was agreed that in the reporting of capacity results for the second dwelling conversion capacity would only be reported for only those sites that did not have an alternative development opportunity. The reported potential for second dwellings is therefore: IF (𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0)𝑎𝑛𝑑 (𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑔𝑒 < 30/09/2013) THEN, (𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑖𝑙𝑑 = 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠) Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

73

While the provisions to convert an existing dwelling (or dwellings) into two are new, the concept of an allowance for second dwellings on an existing residential parcel is not. Many of Auckland's legacy district plans provided opportunities for secondary dwellings. However in all instances, these dwellings were intended to be subsidiary or subservient to the main dwelling, which the dwelling conversion provisions do not require (the rules only require that the second dwelling be larger than 40 square metres in area – there is no upper size limit). Previous capacity studies have not included calculation of the potential for 'minor household units', subsidiary/secondary dwellings or 'granny flats' as they have been variously termed though the legacy planning system (Gamble, 2010) despite this being a common recommendation for further work. Often the approach was applied to parcels smaller than the minimum qualifying size for vacant site subdivision but larger than the minimum lot size. For example in the Waitakere City District Plan’s Living Environment the minimum net site area for a parcel to have a Minor Household Unit (MHU) was 600 square metres, and the maximum floor area of the MHU was capped at 65 square metres but the minimum site size was between 350 square metres and 450 square metres, requiring 700 square metres to 900 square metres qualifying area to achieve. There were also considerable concerns with the built form and housing suitability outcomes resulting from such development but they also played an important role in allowing greater housing choice, supply and affordability, particularly for smaller households and extended family situations.


74

Figure 28: Map of the extent of residential CfGS_zones where conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings is permitted (note: map extent focussed on Auckland's main urban area)

°

Conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings is permitted Conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings is not permitted 2010 Metropolitan Urban Area

We would expect this new provision to significantly widen the coverage for this type of development, compared to the legacy district plans, given the permissive nature of the controls applying. Direct comparison between plans is not possible due to the lack of historic data/information and the second dwelling provision in the PAUP being very different to the legacy minor household unit policies.


75

Discussions with the Unitary Plan team responsible for the provision suggest that their expected outcomes for uptake of this rule will largely result in smaller, high amenity and 'invisible' dwellings carefully and sensitively inserted into existing dwellings and neighbourhoods. However, there are no plan provisions that provide a basis for this assumption; given that the only effective control is that the second dwelling must be equal to or larger than 40 square metres. The creation of a second tenantable dwelling is a major building project, as such we have assumed that the few situations where an existing dwelling is less than 80 square metres, that the necessary extensions or alterations would be undertaken as part of any required inter-tenancy building works as required by the New Zealand Building Code. Given the cost of inter-tenancy fire rating (as required under the code, which would trigger both a development contribution and a new rateable unit) we expect that the majority of (consented) uptake of this provision will result in an increase in building bulk and floor space to cover the cost of building works/loss of privacy/consenting costs, and maximise rental/resale return, or will be retrospective approval for existing 'illegal' conversion. We note that a resource consent is generally not required (the activity is permitted unless otherwise noted), and monitoring uptake will be difficult via the building consent process as it will potentially be an application for an addition and alteration to an existing dwelling rather than an application for a new dwelling. As such our modelling has not included a test to verify whether existing dwelling sizes are large enough to accommodate two dwellings (a second dwelling of at least 40 square metres and the existing dwelling no smaller than 40 square metres being the minimum dwelling size) and only considers that the dwelling ‘exists’ and is in the appropriate zone. All other bulk, location and design requirements (which are minimal, particularly in contrast to the requirements applying to completely new dwellings in the same zones) are assumed to be met.

7.7 Amalgamation of residential parcels Both the THAB and the MHU zone (and to a lesser degree the MHS zone) could provide for significantly more development than has been modelled, if a different cadastral pattern was created through site amalgamation to permit it. Modelling in this study has used the existing property boundary patterns (also known as the cadastre), and as such has not explored the possible implications of the amalgamation of properties. The potential amalgamation of sites to gain the 'bonus' density (from having a sufficiently large and/or wide site) will depend on the relative difference between what can be achieved on the sites individually and what can be achieved separately. If the step-change in development potential is sufficiently great, and the developer is able to overcome the time, risk and costs involved, then such amalgamation may be more likely to occur than it has historically. There is a significant density bonus now available, for MHU and THAB large parcels in particular, providing a strong planning signal to encourage amalgamation. Anecdotal indications from the development community suggest that the market has already moved to secure opportunities, particularly in higher value locations, and that the amalgamation of two sites is difficult but not insurmountable for the average small scale developer typical of Auckland development market. This suggests that the step-change in density may be, at least in some locations, sufficient to bridge the ‘amalgamation gap’. Amalgamation will be driven by the intersection of economic considerations (which can be modelled) and happy coincidence (which cannot). Despite these positive market signals, actually modelling the possibility of amalgamation, and the resulting capacity for additional dwellings is difficult, and efforts in undertaking this modelling to date have produced results that are questionable in their 'realiseability' (Fredrickson, 2013a). Modelling of amalgamation and the resultant change in potential capacity for additional dwellings has not been undertaken. Initial attempts to model potential amalgamation found problems in selection of potential sites to be amalgamated. Outputs generated included a large number of candidates, created parcel shapes that were unsuitable for large scale development, and in many cases presenting an array of properties which could potentially be amalgamated in a large number of potential combinations.


76

This work does however suggest that the 'real world' potential for amalgamation is high, and could provide a wide range of opportunities (plentiful supply) for amalgamation to occur. This in turn means that even assuming a small proportion of these opportunities are taken up, there could be an increase the amount of potential for new dwellings. A copy of the report outlining our initial investigations on amalgamation possibilities is included in Appendix U. Given the opportunities created by rules in the PAUP, it is likely that amalgamation of parcels will become more common than it has been to date. Indications from the development community suggest that the provisions are generally considered relatively favourably, provided the site assembly requirements do not exceed two 'standard' parcels, as beyond two parcels the likelihood of aggregation is low and, aggregation and holding costs increase exponentially (Fontein et al., 2011, Fontein, 2012). Amalgamation will most likely be driven by demand, particularly in desirable living locations such on the Auckland Isthmus. The investigation of the conditions, criteria and motivations for amalgamation given the 'density bonus' the THAB and MHU and MHS zones provide will be a key research question for the Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit after the completion of this study as the provision rolls out and the conditions of the sites that have been amalgamated are revealed.


77

8.0

Business land capacity methodology This section of the report only addresses business land capacity, assessed against a limited number of land capacity categories, reported as ‘land area’, and is related to the relative presence or absence of existing buildings. The business redevelopment component (refer section 9.0: Business redevelopment (floor space) capacity methodology), calculates capacity for development on that land, and looks at other measures including floor space, and potential accommodation of residential dwellings and employees on buildings that may exist on business land (i.e. what do the rules enable to happen on business land?). The business land capacity component of the study seeks to identify parcels of land that have a proposed zoned for business use and are either wholly vacant or have a 'statistically significant' or noteworthy portion of land onsite that is not covered by buildings ('vacant potential') and report the results as land in hectares. The PAUP business zones that were surveyed are listed in Appendix J: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions and Appendix L: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan special zones (CfGS zones) and assumption. Note parcels with a PAUP base zone that fell within special areas that was determined to be primarily 'business' have been included in this business land modelling portion of this study, (i.e. special area business parcels are assessed as being vacant or vacant potential) but have not been included in the business redevelopment (floor space) portion of the study.

8.1 Global business land capacity assumptions This section details assumptions that apply to all parcels that were assessed as part of the business modelling. Table 18 below identifies additional assumptions in relation to minimum building footprint and parcel area parameters. Table 18: Business total land capacity assumptions Assumption name

Minimum valid parcel size

Minimum valid building footprint area

Assumption Value

Description

Components where assumption used

100 m²

There are many small parcels across the region; these can include the likes of small parcels adjoining larger ones, vehicle access ways, pedestrian accesses etc. Such parcels are considered too small to realise any form of capacity as such parcels that are smaller than 100 m2 were excluded from the modelling process. Note: Additional spatial testing for removing slivers is also undertaken.

Vacant land Vacant potential land

50 m²

Buildings that are small, and therefore easily moved or removed should not be considered as a constraint to realising capacity; as such buildings that had a foot print that were smaller than 50 m2 were excluded from the modelling process. Note: Where building footprints cross parcel boundaries, they are clipped to the underlying parcel small portions of large buildings that lay across parcel boundaries may therefore be removed from assessment.

Vacant land Vacant potential land


78

8.2 Total business land This portion of the study calculates the area of all business zoned parcels in Auckland, as defined by the Business LUT: Appendix J: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions and Appendix L: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan special zones (CfGS zones) and assumption. These calculations are undertaken mainly to allow us to determine the proportion of business land that is either vacant or has vacant potential, but is also used to show change in the area of business zoned land over time. The assessment is undertaken on every business parcel regardless of its location and current use 31.

8.2.1 Calculating total business land Total business land is simply a sum of the calculated land areas of valid business zoned parcels. The outputs from the business land total calculations are used as an input for all subsequent business capacity calculations of the study. The process by which the total business land is calculated is illustrated in Figure 29. Figure 29: Diagram of total business land calculation BUSINESS (Building Count centric modelling)

Total Land Assessment

Total Land Assessment ** Inspect Designation Count on outputs

FME Geoprocessing

parcel area min (x)

Total parcel area


A detailed diagram of each of the spatial modelling and yield calculation processes (undertaken in our modelling software, FME) can be found in Appendix H: FME workbench schematics. Results for total business land can be found in the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report.

31

Note that only parcels that are equal to or above the minimum parcel size assumption parameter are assessed. Land Use is not the same as PAUP zoning.


79

8.2.2 A note on building footprints The use of digitised building footprints allows us to determine quickly and relatively accurately how much of a parcel is covered by buildings. The age of the building footprints dataset is older (2010/2011) compared to other available data (most being as at 2013). As such we note there are likely to be errors where buildings have been constructed since the footprints were captured (2010/2011 to 2013). Somewhat fortuitously this period coincides with a record slowdown in nonresidential (and residential) construction, and errors are minimised at a regional scale, but may be significant at more local scales. Further analysis (using building consents data, rating improvements etc.) post reporting can be used to refine this issue but is not part of the scope of this study. Because of the heavy reliance on building footprint layers as the key determinant of business land having vacant or vacant potential land, the quality of this input dataset is a key driver of the quality of the outputs. Indeed this principle applies to all spatial and non-spatial data used in the study; as the building footprints are essential to the business land capacity assessments, a particular mention is required, so that users are aware of these issues and can account for them if required. The 2008 building footprints layer was updated by the GIS department as the study was getting underway, however the layer was updated from 2010 aerial ortho-photography (the latest available full regional ortho-photography coverage), and only on those photographic ‘tiles’ where buildings had been digitised in the 2008 version. RIMU undertook further work from the lower resolution rural ortho-photo series to update rural towns (building footprints are also used in residential infill modelling, but dwelling count information can correct for many inaccuracies in that process). The building footprint creation process is manual, and building footprints are digitised from these aerial photos, as a very labour intensive and subjective analysis process. Subsequent to completion of the study we have noted many examples where the building footprints were not updated correctly (i.e. buildings visible on the 2010 aerials not captured). Additionally, while the period since 2010 has been one of unusually low building activity, significant commercial building activity has occurred in some locations (such as Highbrook Industrial Estate in East Tamaki), and there is a surprising amount of minor extensions and alterations across the region. Accordingly, the results of the business land component are reduced in accuracy, and a programme is underway to identify additional data sources that can be used in the absence of regularly updated building footprints to improve this approach. Users may also consider the application of these approaches necessary prior to use of the output data: These data sources may include 

Use of building consent data to remove parcels subsequently consented for buildings



Consideration of improvement value and improvement descriptions (both from the District Valuation Roll) to remove parcels with non-building improvements of significant value, or building like improvements missed by the building footprint coverage



Ground truthing

All of these options are also labour intensive and require a level of subjective analysis and manual intervention. The updating of aerial ortho-photography to the high standard expected is a remarkably expensive exercise (some $15 million for a single year (multiple clear day flights required), high resolution, accurately rectified coverage covering the entire Auckland region) and is expected to be updated less regularly than previously experienced due to budgetary constraints. Future technological advances may reduce this cost, but not reduce the time frame expected till the next update in any case. Conversion of this updated ortho-photography into building footprints, also to the high standard expected and required is very time consuming and expensive, and will lag somewhat behind the capture and rectification of the imagery it is digitised from. However the methodology allows the outputs to be easily updatable, should an updated footprints dataset become available. Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

80

8.3 Business vacant land Business vacant land capacity is the measure of the area (in hectares) of business zoned land that is on parcels that are wholly vacant (i.e. there are no buildings located on the parcel). Business vacant land is measured to give an indication of how much land is available across the region which is already zoned for business uses and could be used for such purposes readily under zoning provisions. The data for indicating the presence of 'building(s)' is sourced from several datasets and cross checked amongst them. Table 19: Business vacant land capacity assumptions Created variable

Note

Source

_area_building_footprint_calculated

Digitised from 2010/2011 aerial photos.

Building footprints layer (SDE)

_count_buildings

Created from building footprints layer, being a count of building footprint polygons on the parcel with an area greater than 50 m²

Capacity for Growth Study

_count_dwellings

Purchased August 2013, represents June 2013, received at rates assessment geography. Property IQ and Not all buildings are dwellings, but all dwellings Auckland Council are buildings.

While the Capacity for Growth Study is clear as to what parcels it classifies as ‘vacant’ business land, there have been occasions where debate has arisen as whether this land is available of development or not. The following part of this report outlines examples of parcels that we would consider vacant, while others may not. This has been included to provide clarity to users of the study. There are two distinct types of vacant business parcels, the first being a business zoned parcel that is an empty lot (example shown below in Figure 30) and the second being a business parcel that while it has no buildings located on it is currently used for other purposes. These different types are noted below, but are not distinguished in the study itself - this information is only discernable in aerial photography and/or manual assessment.


81

Figure 30: Example of business land vacant parcel - unused lot

Other purposes can include the likes of car parking, storage areas etc. An example of two other uses for otherwise vacant business parcels can be seen in Figure 31. Despite not being truly unoccupied, these parcels are counted as vacant as we assume the fact that because they do not have any permanent/significant building structure located on them they could be easily utilised for other business uses should the need or the desire of the owner arise. In addition, these sites are not distinguishable automatically though data, only by manual assessment. In effect these uses can be considered 'holding' uses, temporary activities representing limited improvements or capital outlay, to bring in rent or ease maintenance, and are easily (in most cases) displaced by further buildings if required.


82

Figure 31: Example of business land vacant parcels – ancillary business and other uses

Below Figure 32 displays an example where a vacant parcel that was occupied for another use, had been converted to one that is now occupied by a building/structure. The parcel was used for outdoor storage at the time of the 2006 Capacity for Growth Study, but since has been built upon, and a similarly utilised site adjacent is also being used much more intensively in the later image. This latter type of use is very difficult to account for in regional scale analysis as it triggers no process for data capture (i.e. no permit, resource or building consent, or improvements are changed) and are typically transient or temporary in nature. These uses are also valid business activities, but fall somewhat outside of the building centric approach to capacity for development utilised in this study.


83

Figure 32: Example of a vacant business parcel (used but with no buildings/structures) in 2006 and no longer vacant in 2010.

8.3.1 Calculating vacant business land capacity Vacant business land is measured through a modelling process, which is shown in Figure 33 below. Business vacant land capacity yield is reported by area (in hectares), which is calculated as part of the modelling process.


84

Figure 33: Diagram of business vacant land capacity calculation BUSINESS (Building Count centric modelling)

Vacant / Vacant Potential Assessment

Building Footprints

Vacant Assessment

Building Count = 0 parcel area min (x) building area min (x)

FME Geoprocessing

Total parcel area


Vacant Assessment

Vacant land is assessed as those business zoned parcels where: (𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 0) AND (𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 = 0) AND (𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 = 0)

This test includes a cross check using dwelling count information (from 2013 PropertyIQ data) as a second test to see if a parcel is vacant. This is used to ensure where the building footprints capture has been incomplete that more recent development is captured (recent updates digitised from 20102011 aerial photography). The reason only dwelling data is used is that we don’t have any additional information of a similar nature for business buildings. Results for vacant business land can be found in the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report.

8.4 Business vacant potential land 8.4.1 What is business vacant potential land and why is it measured? Vacant potential business land is the measure of land capacity on occupied business zoned parcels that already have a building or permanent structure on them (as indicated by the building footprints


85

layer; they have been identified as having potential for further building development. It can be considered in a similar way to residential Infill, but is not necessarily preceded by subdivision. The vacant potential land that is reported, is land that has an unusually large ‘vacant area’ or ‘percent vacant area’, when compared to other parcels of similar generalised zoning within a similar location. The measuring of vacant potential business land is undertaken as almost all occupied business parcels across the region have portions that have no building(s) on them; with at least some of that land having the potential to be used for another purpose. Other purposes could include further building development (extensions for the existing business, or space for ‘new’ business) without impacting on the operation of the existing business, or, if the owner desires, sold on to another business to develop and occupy. This ‘for sale or not’ distinction is important to note, as compared to residential development where it is implicitly assumed additional dwellings will be on a separate title for a new owner, vacant potential business land is just as likely to be utilised by the existing owner or business to expand onto as it is to be sold. That is the measurement of vacant potential land is not a measure of 'land currently for sale to third parties', though some of it is certainly that, but 'land available for expansion of business activities' whether that is for an unrelated third party post-sale, or future expansion of the existing business without sale, or indeed redevelopment and/or 'sleeving' of an existing business activity. It is all land, land that is potentially vacant and ‘potentially useable for additional business activity’, which is considered in this study as potential for additional floor space, which requires additional building(s). The same variables and data is used to determine the primary classification - all parcels that are not vacant are fed into the vacant potential candidate tests, where the post processing statistical analysis determines whether a non-vacant parcel is reported as having land area worthy of being noted as vacant potential land. Vacant potential land candidates are those business zoned parcels that are not vacant, and are where: 𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 OR 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 OR 𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 ≠ 0

Further statistical analysis is undertaken to report only parcels with a ‘noteworthy’ portion of vacant potential is undertaken This is done by using the area of the parcel area net of any building footprints, or the percent parcel area net of any building footprints, based on comparison with sites of similar generalised zoning within a similar geographic area. This approach enables vacant potential parcels in one location to have different ‘trigger’ vacant areas or percent vacant areas to those in another location or generalised zoning type. This means the approach is able to reflect relative geographic scarcity (and arguably likelihood of use) within land use types that have similar future uses. In order to measure vacant potential on business land we split candidate parcels into two different typologies: ‘commercial’ and ‘industrial’. These typology categories are based on a classification of the zoning types in the PAUP solely for vacant potential assessment. A full list of the business zones and their respective typology (under assessment type) can be found in Appendix J: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions. Differentiation of these two business land use types was required as the way the typical business locate and use land in these zone classifications is very different. Creating two different populations (further split into geographic areas) allows the statistical methodology to find parcels, particularly in the commercial group, that are noteworthy in their respective populations. If the groups were not split into typologies, it would be rare that commercial parcels would feature as noteworthy due to their (on average) smaller site are and greater building coverage within a population dominated by large industrial sites with low coverage. Equally, the presence of commercial in the industrial population will skew the population and therefore the standard deviation of that population. Splitting the two types of land in this way allows us to account for this difference, which includes for example 

Commercial tends to be more land intensive, often building upwards, with significant site coverage and the parcels also tend to be smaller; industrial tends to be land extensive with larger, generally single level buildings, covering a smaller proportion of the site, generally requiring larger parcels of land.


86



Industrial use has a significant need of 'non-building' use of land around buildings as storage, turning areas for trucks, etc. 32.



Geographic splitting within those groups (in this study by local board group, the previous study by territorial authority area) also allows for some spatial differentiation accounting for more or less intensive use and spatial efficiency due to land values, typical land uses and demand – parcels that are ‘noteworthy’ in the isthmus’ for example, will probably have quite different characteristics to those considered noteworthy in the main industrial areas of South Auckland, where sites similar to the reported isthmus ones do not make the southern area vacant potential cut.

Figure 34 below illustrates how two example parcels, one from each business zone type and exhibiting vacant potential, are currently used. Because of the differing nature the demarcation was made so that these types could be analysed using the same modelling method – but using different assumptions to reflect varying uses. Each of the example sites below has a significant but similar proportion of site area not covered by buildings; however the proportion of the site considered 'potentially vacant' is different. On the industrial site a larger proportion is set aside for curtilage (outdoor storage yards, truck manoeuvring, etc.) than the commercial site, where only a small proportion is set aside for landscaping and access (parking (if any) can be internalised to future buildings). These assumptions are made globally for each type, rather than individually on a per parcel basis or explicitly, and is incorporated into the standard deviation statistical method approach. Figure 34: Example of business parcels with vacant potential capacity - industrial and commercial

32

Large format retail (LFR) also demonstrates industrial style parcel use characteristics but is a 'commercial' use (though can be located in non-commercial zones), but this is balanced by areas of relatively intensive industrial use, and locations which include commercial supporting business as well as ancillary offices.


87

The PAUP with a new regionally consistent zoning pattern makes classification simpler and less subjective than the previous studies, as industrial land uses are directed into two main industrial zones (Light and Heavy Industrial). We recommend the PAUP spatial zone classification (and geographic splitting) also be used retrospectively when making land comparisons between studies (e.g. industrial land vacancy over time), but care will need to be taken as the extent of business zoning will vary between plans as well as its classification. Some further work is required to create comparable data sets based on these suggestions (for business land take up analysis for example), noting also the issues prevalent in both studies due to building footprint limitations. Note that while the net area vacant and net area vacant percent results values used to identify parcels and is summed as a whole, consideration of the actual parcel area available for industrial development in particular is likely to be somewhat less than this value due to the requirement in most industrial type developments to have an area almost as large as the building footprint for storage, truck movements and so on. The exact proportion to remove to allow for this (the ‘n’ value in the following equation: available area = site area – (𝐧 x building footpint area)

This will vary between generalised locations and from site to site so have not been applied. However users of the vacant potential business land figures should note this issue (vacant potential realisable land area is less than vacant potential land area) along with the other ‘realiseability’ issues that the vacant potential land measure already inherits. The process is intended as a generalised mechanism to find parcels with potentially developable land areas 'of note', not an industry sensitive location model, hence the relatively coarse groupings. More categories could be developed which would change the population structure within each groups and therefore the reported parcels sub-set, as would grouping parcels into different geographies - this latter issue is a key explanatory reason for a large proportion of variation in reported vacant potential business land between the 2012 study (territorial authority based business land groups) (Fredrickson and Balderston, 2013b) and this iteration (PAUP) of the study (local board based business land groups).

8.4.2 Calculating business land vacant potential capacity The method employed to determine vacant potential capacity in the same that was used as part of the 2012 study. Differences are related to the zoning rules applying, the spatial extent of generic business zoning, business areas extents and number, business zone typology classification and geographic population splits (territorial authority versus local board groups) Business vacant potential yield is modelled, as illustrated in Figure 35 below.


88

Figure 35: Diagram of business vacant potential capacity calculation BUSINESS (Building Count centric modelling)

Building Footprints


COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

Building Count > 0

Building Count > 0

FME Geoprocessing

FME Geoprocessing

parcel area min (x)

parcel area min (x) building area min (x)

building area min (x) net parcel area min (x)


Commercial Vacant Potential Assessment ** Inspect Designation Count on outputs Net parcel area vacant potential Net parcel area percentage vacant bounds


Parcel area bounds




Industrial Vacant Potential Assessment ** Inspect Designation Count on outputs


Net parcel area vacant potential

Net parcel area percentage vacant bounds Vacant Potential Candidate Filter


Parcel area bounds Parcel Yield (hectares)

During the pilot study undertaken prior to the 2012 study it was determined that a filter of some sort was required so that only those parcels that had a vacant potential area or percent vacant area that was unusually large were returned (this was previously done manually as part of the user input process), and that only parcels with 'noteworthy' portions of vacant land be reported (given that close to 100 per cent of parcels have at least some small area of the parcel that is not covered by a building footprint). This was considered to be a proxy for ‘realistically available’ given that other parcels in the area and type were used in more intensive fashion, these outlying parcels could be considered


89

unusually underutilised, and would therefore be more likely to be used more efficiently (or revert to the mean) in the future. The process that was developed to filter non-vacant parcels for inclusion in the results as reported vacant potential is described below. Effectively the process is now automated, with parcels selected from the input population based on their relative vacant percentage area and site area in combination. The process undertaken to calculate this is as follows: 1. Net parcel area calculated for each business parcel (in square meters or hectares): _𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = (𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 − 𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎)

2. Percent parcel area vacant calculated for each business parcel (as a percentage of parcel area) _𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡_𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙_𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎_𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 = �

_𝑛𝑒𝑡_𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙_𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 � × 100 _𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠_𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙_𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎

3. Sampling sets are created via categorisation of the regions non-vacant parcels into: 

Commercial and industrial typologies, (based on parcel zoning) and then



Local board group (based on parcels physical location).

4. Each parcel is then within one of seven geographic local board groups (refer Appendix Q: Local board groups), within which there is a predetermined zone based typology of either commercial or industrial (refer Appendix J: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions), and is tested relative to those other parcels in the same groupings (which number at most 14) rather than the entire regional population. 5. Geographic classification provides a useful 'locally important context' factor into the analysis, which in combination with the standard deviation (SD) criteria (being a function of the population of sites fed into the analysis) means the method will capture parcels of different per cent vacant and area vacant depending on their relative size and vacancy within the population. Issues such as a 'modifiable area unit problem' (results are a function of the area chosen) could arise, but as the local board groupings closely relate to the former territorial authorities and represent relatively functional planning and land market units we feel this is of minimal concern, though readers should be aware that alternate selections of different populations will produce different results using this approach. (The SD being entirely a function of the population fed into the analysis). 6. Within those groupings, create a selection of parcels that are considered to have a 'noteworthy' portion on which there is no building cover, within each sample population 33 set . This is the ‘vacant potential candidate feature filter’ box outlined above. This noteworthy selection is based on the calculated SD of the net vacant potential area and net vacant potential area percent values, using criteria as illustrated in Figure 36 below.

33

The sample set for filtering for this study is based on Local Board groupings. The 2012 study used legacy council areas.


90

Figure 36: Example of criteria for selection set of vacant potential land parcels yield analysis

7. Using these SD values a selection is made to capture the green section or 'upper and to the right' area of the scatter plot, being a 'good' range of smaller sites with larger vacant proportions, and progressively larger sites with smaller proportions, using the tests outlined in section 8.4.2.1 (Vacant potential candidate feature filter tests). 8. The SD multiplier values used in the analysis were arrived at via a process of trial and error and manual visual assessment of outputs of the query against aerials of sample business areas of both industrial and commercial types until the outputs of the query captured those parcels which we felt ‘should’ be captured while not capturing those that would not be obviously 'further developable'. This approach was initially developed as part of the 2012 study, and remains fit for purpose in our view. 9. Use of SD in this manner is not strictly statistical good practice, but the process very crudely correlates with the application of an (as yet undefined) equation or S-curve to achieve the same result, but with the benefit of being population sensitive (the 'curve' or equation adjusts to suit the inputs), and the outputs are a good fit to what we would expect to see (based on the input data the model receives). Essentially the process selects parcels that are ‘outside the norm’ for the input population. 10. Finally, create output parcels data set to sum net parcel area yield of parcels in vacant potential land selection set

A detailed diagram of each of the spatial modelling and yield calculation processes (undertaken in our modelling software, FME) can be found in Appendix H: FME workbench schematics. Results for vacant potential business land can be found in the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report.

8.4.2.1 Vacant potential candidate feature filter tests This section outlines the detailed parameters used to create and test for the ‘noteworthy’ portion of net vacant area per parcel based on the sites relative position within other sites of the same typology and geographic grouping. Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

91

Two values are tested for in combination; 1) net parcel area vacant percent (what proportion of the site area does not have building footprints), and 2) net parcel area. The tests used to undertake this assessment are listed in Table 20. Table 20: Vacant potential candidate feature filter tests Test #

Parcel attribute value

Operator Test

1

_net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent

>

0.5 × SD of _net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent

2


>

100 - SD of _net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent

3

_area_parcel_multipart_calculated

>

2.0 × SD of _area_parcel_multipart_calculated

4


>

100 - (2.0 * SD of _net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent)

5

_area_parcel_multipart_calculated

>

4.0 × SD of _area_parcel_multipart_calculated

Based on the results of the tests above, a final composite test is undertaken such that a parcel with possible vacant potential must return a true value for test one and either test two or three and either test four or test five – if a possible vacant potential parcel parcels this test it is output into the final dataset: (𝑉𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑓 (1 = 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝐴𝑁𝐷 (2 𝑜𝑟 3 = 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒)𝐴𝑁𝐷 (3 𝑜𝑟 4 = 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒))

These tests create the white (false) and green (true) areas illustrated in Figure 35 above – these calculations and outputs are not created individually for each input local board group and typology. Parameters highlighted bold text in Table 20 can be varied to create different reported populations. Variations in the input geography or assessment type will also automatically produce different standard deviations and therefore different output results.


92

9.0

Business redevelopment (floor space) capacity methodology

9.1 Background to business redevelopment (floor space) capacity Redevelopment on business zoned land which includes centres, mixed use, general and industrial zones (see Appendix J: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions) is a measure of the additional capacity that could be made available from further development and intensification of currently developed areas, including existing occupied sites as well as vacant and vacant potential land as identified in the business land portion of the study. Note that business redevelopment figures relating to the CDB have been rolled over from the 2012 study. This is due to the limited change between legacy plan rules and the PAUP rules (and in consideration of the complexity of the rules that do apply); this new three dimensions/dimensional (3D) approach has not been undertaken for the CBD area. However, a unique approach building on the methodology developed for all other business areas, and lessons from that process will be developed to account for the complex overlapping CBD development rules in due course. Considerable modelling has also already been undertaken for the CBD area via the City Centre Master Plan planning process, and is an area of particular specialist interest and existing monitoring (including by a number of commercial real estate firms) and strong market activity; we therefore have concentrated our limited resources and best efforts on better understanding the potential of rest of the business areas in the region as these are less understood. The business redevelopment component estimates the capacity for floor space of a business area or centre under a range of scenarios; contemporary, modified theoretical and maximum theoretical. This floor space area is subsequently apportioned to business or residential purposes (and further converted to employees and dwellings), all of which are variable depending on the scenario, and business area type. In contrast to the 2012 study which used an ‘area average’ approach to calculation of maximum plan enabled floor space, this study has been able to accurately model maximum plan enabled floor space, by storey, at the individual parcel geography (rather than at the considerably larger business area geography). This new modelling approach uses a combination of PAUP business zone building constraints including; yards, height in relation to boundary, upper level setbacks, height limits and volcanic viewshafts, to derive building envelopes. Within these envelopes, maximum tower dimension and building coverage (or maximum impervious surface) rules are applied to calculated maximum floor space at each level to derive maximum enabled floor space within the enabled building envelope, on each parcel. From this calculated maximum floor space, lesser scenarios are developed (using the ‘traditional’ area average approach) to reflect different uptake or strategic scenarios. As result of this new approach, we have been able to develop the capability to show in 3D the building envelope within which a complying building could exist, but not necessarily be able to fully occupy. This is achieved by assuming a flat plane for ground level and iteratively extruding each storeys calculated maximum envelope by the assumed storey height. Thus the 3D outputs are an interesting and hopefully useful advance in illustrating the process, by which we have calculated capacity, but they are not really suitable for wider public consultation or illustrating building design parameters because they do not reflect a possible built form, nor are they topographically aware. In parallel to our business modelling process, Auckland Council’s Geospatial department undertook a more design based and desired outcome focussed 3D modelling project which included a with a time bound, idealised 'uptake' component for public engagement on the Unitary Plan (see That project was http://unitaryplan.shapeauckland.co.nz/video/ to view some of the results). undertaken using specialised 3D modelling software CityEngine. Some cross checking between the outputs of both Capacity for Growth Study 2013 and the CityEngine models has been undertaken and Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

93

we find them to be consistent, albeit that the Capacity for Growth Study maximum theoretical modelling outputs illustrate 100 per cent build out rather than a design led uptake scenario, showing only a proportion of existing sites redeveloped with new buildings not all of which are to the maximum. The contemporary and modified theoretical outcomes are a closer representation of these CityEngine scenarios but only numerically. That is, the CityEngine building scenarios are within or equal to the maximum theoretical envelope suggesting both processes have interpreted the plan in a similar way and created very similar outputs using quite independent processes. This aspect of the study uses variable assumptions to derive floor space. This is then converted, using variable assumptions, into capacity for employees and dwellings. Outputs reported in the results report are always less than the theoretical maximum calculated from zoning parameters for business areas and centres because the reporting the plan based maximum potential assessment can be read as assuming all possible floor space will all be developed. The 3D based maximum theoretical potential analysis is ultimately used in our report only as a maximum upper floor space limitation for the much more restrained ‘modified theoretical’ reported outcomes. This is the only aspect in our reporting where an attempt is made to ‘pre-filter’ the raw findings of the study, essentially because the maximum theoretical floor space is so enormous, that is must be moderated to be useful. This issue should not be confused with a suggestion that there is an overprovision of potential for floor space, and that reductions can therefore be made. The nature of redevelopment economics requires a significant 'oversupply' to enable the small proportion of sites that can realistically be redeveloped within an existing business area to be developed significantly higher than the existing development to accommodate projected growth. No existing brownfields location can feasibly be anticipated that all sites will be rebuilt to the maximum allowable development parameters within our lifetimes. A series of assumptions is used to derive the various business redevelopment scenarios based on inputs which are customisable for each individual business area, but in practice have been mainly applied across business area typologies. The maximum theoretical scenario is driven by the plan parameters controlling business building size and shape, directly converted from the 3D modelling. Assumptions are made on how this resulting floor space may be used. The contemporary scenario is automatically generated under which existing vacant and vacant potential land is developed to the same characteristics (floor area ratio, residential split, dwelling size and floor area per employee) as the existing development on currently occupied sites. This scenario is considered to be a 'business as usual' outcome and may not reflect strategic intentions, future public or private investment, or market realities. The modified theoretical scenario is typically higher uptake than the contemporary, and always less than the maximum, and driven by strategic intentions. The methodology undertaken to calculate business redevelopment capacity was initially developed as part of the 2006 iteration of the study. Portions of the methodology have been updated and improved as part of the 2012 study. Improvements at the 2012 study included the purchase of existing floor space data by rates assessment area (RAA), collected as part of the new region wide property valuation process. Further improvements in this study have been made to expand on this new data, and make use of improved processing capability available via FME. However the major reason for improvement in resolution of the maximum theoretical assessment is the ability to utilise a single relatively consistent set of business land development parameters for the whole region as outlined in the PAUP, where previously developing modelling for all of the centres under the very variable legacy planning documents has been impracticable, and for some locations not possible (see Capacity for Growth Study 2012 (Fredrickson and Balderston, 2013a) for further discussions). Business redevelopment capacity is measured so that we are able to determine the level at which business areas and centres around the region are able to accommodate further growth, through redevelopment. The ability for the centres in particular to accommodate future residential growth (the accommodation of increased population through the addition of higher-density dwellings) was identified as a key outcome of the Regional Growth Strategy (Auckland Regional Growth Forum, 1999); as such a consistent Auckland-wide methodology was developed for the 2006 Capacity for Growth Study. The Auckland Plan (published in March 2012) continued with this view, stating the need for “greater intensification in both existing and new urban areas” (Auckland Council, 2012a). It goes on to note “metropolitan centres such as Takapuna and Manukau, will accommodate a large Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

94

proportion of the city’s future residential, retail and employment growth” (Auckland Council, 2012a). As such measuring business redevelopment capacity is seen as a vitally important from a residential growth perspective. These areas are also key employment areas, as are non-centre business areas, and this modelling enables consideration of the appropriate balance and mix between these uses, in combination with the land study. Other than the maximum theoretical scenario which is calculated on a parcel by parcel basis, business redevelopment capacity is calculated across an entire business area and therefore the reported capacity for business areas only exists at this larger geography. The business redevelopment measure that is reported is based on the modified theoretical scenario (as per all previous studies since 2006), which in contrast to residential and rural capacity reporting includes an assumption around 'uptake', and is calculated at the business area scale. There are several reasons that this is done: 

Business activities are not as limited by parcel boundaries to the extent that residential development is.



Figure 37 below shows an example of three parcels in a business area that have a single building across all of them



Maximum theoretical business development potential is an enormous figure, that is important to calculate, but of limited utility to understanding future development, and is considered highly unlikely to occur



Buildings in business areas can and do about each other, often over multiple levels



Given the long term nature of the scenarios, and the high level nature of the assumptions that drive them, uncertainly about exact development locations and typologies, and averaged approach is considered reasonable, given it allows for a wide range of on the ground' outcomes to 'fit' within the floor space generated.


95

Figure 37: Example of cross-parcel business activity

9.2 Defining business areas and business area types Business areas are a geographic outline used to group parcels together for analysis in a consistent way, used only within the Capacity for Growth Study for organising parcels for modelling purposes (i.e. they do not infer any particular planning treatment or strategic intentions). This is an evolution off the approach taken in previous studies, where these groupings were termed “significant business areas’ in the 2006 study, and business areas in the 2012 study. Despite the dropping of the ‘significant’ term, not all business zoned parcels are within a business area extent, but these are generally limited to isolated business parcels (corner shops and other spot zonings) or parcels that may be of a business type zoning or use that are located in special areas or structure plans. Note that the business land assessment (used to identify vacant and vacant potential land) captures a larger set of parcels, as it assesses all business ‘CfGS_zoned’ parcels (not just those in a business area) as well as parcels within identifiably business dominated special areas (Appendix J: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions and Appendix L: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan special zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions identify). The business areas used for this component of the study are based on (but are not strictly defined by) the base zoning outlined by the PAUP. In total 378 individually identified business areas and centres were demarcated (an increase from the 251 assessed as part of the 2012 study, and the 137 assessed as part of the 2006 study). The increase in the number of business areas and centres is due to the further spatial subdivision of formerly contiguous areas by new PAUP zones, as well as the expansion of business zoning in some locations. The geographic limits of these business areas are Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

96

defined by PAUP business zoning 34, with areas names used to differentiate amongst contiguous locations in some instances usually separated by roads or other features, or other previously used area definitions or spatial boundaries. Business area names are based on technical work undertaken as research towards the writing of The Auckland Plan (Auckland Council, 2012c) with centre names coming from Map 10.1 'Auckland's Network of Urban Centres and Business Areas (Urban Core)' and Table 10.1 'Urban Centres Hierarchy - Classification' (Auckland Council, 2012a) of The Auckland Plan. A list of the business areas and centres analysed as part of this component of the study can be found in Appendix J: Business areas and centres with classifications, with maps of the maps indicating their location and extent can be found in Appendix P: Business areas and centres with classifications including scenario assumptions. The business areas have been categorised into a number of types or categories with various disparate base data is allocated to each business area based on category and/or spatial location. This includes data aggregated up to the business area from the parcel scale, and data that have been largely manually allocated to the business area from coarser datasets including employment data from meshblock or other census geographies. The business area typologies are variously used for a range of purposes within the Capacity for Growth Study model including, but not limited to: 

The application of default redevelopment assumptions and business redevelopment assessment, area data and reporting (business area type attribute) or area specific assumptions (business area name attribute)



Business parcel general location naming or generalised use (business area name and type attribute)



Business land vacant potential standard deviation assessment grouping (model type attribute)

9.3 Business redevelopment (floor space) capacity measures The capacity values output from the business redevelopment component of the study are listed in Table 21, accompanied by a brief description of what the measure is, and how it is calculated. Note that these business redevelopment (floor space) measures relate to the volumetric building potential of parcels/business areas taking account of the existing building volume. Table 21: Measures of business redevelopment capacity Business redevelopment capacity measure


Calculation

Total floor space (FS Total)

Total amount of floor space (square meters) possible in a business area or centre calculated using floor space calculations under various scenarios.

From geo-spatial modelling and/or redevelopment calculations spreadsheet

Residential floor space Residential ) (FS

Amount of residential floor space (square meters) in a business area or centre. (See also total and business floor space).

FS Residential =

FS Total × Residential Allocation Factor

34

As the proposed PAUP business zoning is used to define the extent of ‘centres’ in this study, it needs to be noted that these are not the same as centres defined for other purposes. In The Auckland Plan a centre is generally conceived as both the business zoned area (which we have used) and a supporting (usually) residential periphery, which will fall into one of our other capacity categories, such as residential, often within a 800 or 1000 metre radius of centre point, depending on the centre's classification.


97

Business redevelopment capacity measure Business (nonresidential) floor space (FS Business)


Amount of business (non-residential) floor space (square meters) in a business area or centre. (See also total and residential floor space).

Calculation

FSBusiness = FS Total − FS Residential

Estimated employees (Empl)

Estimated number of employees likely to be accommodated in a centre or business area, based on the amount of business (non-residential) floor space divided by a floor area per employee ratio.

𝐸𝑚𝑝𝑙 =

Estimated dwellings (DU)

Estimated number of dwellings likely to be accommodated in a centre or business area, based on the amount of residential floor space divided by a floor area per dwelling ratio.

𝐷𝑈 =

FS Business FS per Empl

FS Residential FS per DU

The business land capacity measures relate to the reporting of land area, potentially available for more buildings taking account of the land already covered by buildings.

9.4 Business redevelopment (floor space) scenarios The PAUP study developed three business redevelopment scenarios; a ‘contemporary’ scenario, a ‘modified theoretical’ scenario and a ‘maximum theoretical’ scenario, the descriptions of which are detailed in Table 22. A ‘current’ state based on existing data sets is also developed through the collation of base data, which is primarily used to derive the net increase for reporting. The application of uptake scenarios is a slightly different approach to that taken in residential and rural capacity components, in that an implicit ‘uptake’ assessment is applied to the total floor space calculated. For all other types of capacity, no uptake assessment has been made. This exception is mainly because the maximum theoretical floor space is so large as to be more or less meaningless for monitoring or planning purposes, so a moderated (and much reduced) amount is required to be created. Note that these uptake assumptions are applied globally either to the business area type (i.e. all metropolitan centres, or all heavy industrial areas) by default, but are over writable by assumptions to apply to an individual business area as a whole, but not to individual parcels within the area or typology group. The ability to undertake individual parcel scale scenarios is limited mainly by the difficultly of calculating employment counts below meshblock scale, which are key drivers of existing floor space use and ratios and several aspects of the resultant scenarios. The conceptual approach does allow for refinement of this business area wide approach to recalculate likely floor space supply based on parcel scale redevelopment likelihood parameters, should these be developed in the future. A summary of the conceptual factors reflected in the scenarios are outlined in Table 22 and Table 23. The conceptual differences between scenarios are illustrated in Figure 38, Figure 39, and Figure 40.


98

Table 22: Business redevelopment scenarios Scenario name

Details of scenario

Contemporary

Effectively a 'business as usual' scenario. Calculates the development potential of a business area, where only the vacant and vacant potential land identified in the business area is developed, based on the current FAR, residential allocation, dwelling size and employee space characteristics of currently occupied sites in the business area. Note vacant potential parcels are both currently occupied and further developed, meaning that the current average FAR of existing occupied sites is not equal to the FAR post-development. Note that this iteration of the study varies from previous contemporary scenarios which previously used only current FAR and the other drivers were from the input assumption used in the other two scenarios. This change was made to better reflect the intention of the scenario to provide an indication of what would happen if new development on vacant and vacant potential land reflects what is in the business area already.

Modified theoretical

A ‘reasonable’, yet aspirational scenario, generating results that are between the lower contemporary (BAU) and the maximum limits of growth (as set by the PAUP this is the maximum theoretical see detail below) allowed under PAUP rules. The assumptions selected were guided by a combination of the design intent of the zones, the 2041 planning horizon, case studies of contemporary development, The Auckland Plan strategic directions and future expectations for these areas, and were developed collaboratively between the study team and the Unitary Plan Business team. The scenario largely reflects a teleological or deterministic view of the PAUP, in that it is primarily intended to be used as a reasonable reflection of what the plan intends to occur, and is a supply based outcome rather than a demand driven forecast. However, due the limits set on supply by the contemporary and maximum, any demand driven forecast would also be expected in most circumstances to fall within this range. The scenario is driven by a spreadsheet based model and is easily amended to reflect new information or uptake assumptions should this be required.

Maximum theoretical

Theoretical maximum development potential of a business area, as permitted under the PAUP. This is calculated using a new 3D methodology first developed for the DAUP and extensively refined and modified for the PAUP. A combination of storey heights, storey (height) limits, Height in relation to boundary controls, yard setbacks, upper level setbacks, podium area maximums and building coverage limits are considered in order to calculate, on a per floor per parcel basis, maximum parcel floor space. The process also enables the generation of 3D building envelopes (the actual mass of the building is usually required to be less than the envelope, but the actual location of a future building must be somewhere inside the envelope) for visual investigation purposes as well as more traditional two-dimensional spatial data.


99

Table 23: Key conceptual factors reflected in business redevelopment scenarios Factors reflected in scenario Scenario name

Strategic intentions? Market realities?

Possible Timeframe?

Contemporary Yes, a proportion of

Business as usual.

Location dependent

Short to medium term, location dependent


Yes, a proportion of

Yes, aspirational yet realistic

Location dependent

Medium to long term, location dependent

Maximum theoretical

Yes, 100% of

No, unrealistic

No, largely unrealistic for 100% of capacity to be realised.

Very long term to never, but location dependent

Plan enabled?

Figure 38: Illustrative diagram of the three business redevelopment scenarios for an example business area

A conceptual example of the difference between the maximum theoretical (permitted under the district plan rules) and the modified theoretical scenarios is demonstrated below in Figure 39 and Figure 40.


100

Figure 39: Example of developable volume and floor space under a maximum theoretical scenario

Figure 40: Example of developable building volume and floor space under a modified theoretical scenario

The ‘modified theoretical’ scenario results have been reported as 'capacity' as part of the PAUP study results. Results of the other two scenarios (contemporary and maximum) are available by request. This is consistent with the approach taken in the reporting of the 2006 and 2012 study. Only the Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

101

modified theoretical scenario is reported is that it provides the most rational and strategic intent reflecting view of longer term development potential in business areas, while still reflecting key strategic intentions. Further work on investigations of how to address market realities with respect to the achievement of these strategic intentions will be ongoing and is the task of the entire council, working with the private sector as outlined in The Auckland Plan.

9.5 Business redevelopment (floor space) capacity calculation methodology This section outlines the steps taken to calculate the business redevelopment potential, and then determine the business redevelopment capacity for each of the businesses areas used as the assessment geography. Inputs and data sourced to undertake the business redevelopment component can be found in the following sections and the business related appendices. In summary the methodology is as follows: 

Maximum theoretical scenario building development opportunities are calculated in '3D' for each permitted storey for each parcel using a combination of building limitations from the PAUP to create a maximum permitted building envelope, within which the maximum calculated floor space must exist



All other scenarios (current state, contemporary and modified theoretical), including the conversion of maximum theoretical floor space to dwellings and employment, are calculated at the business area geography (being an aggregate of parcels) using a spreadsheet developed for the purpose, and are always less than the maximum theoretical (and therefore plan enabled).

Key differences between the capacity ‘modelling’ and creation of scenarios are outlined in Table 24 below. Table 24: Business redevelopment capacity – difference between approaches Aspect of approaches

Maximum theoretical scenario

All other scenarios

Maximum geographic resolution of outputs

Parcel

Business area*

Maximum geographic resolution of Parcel constraints/assumptions

Business area*

Directly spatial?

Yes, calculated in 3D on actual parcel geography

Non-spatial; business areas* calculated mathematically in spreadsheet as business area* average

Reported as capacity?

No, but useful maximum upper limit for other scenarios

Modified theoretical reported as capacity

Measure of plan enabled?

Yes

Yes, is within limits, but less than plan enables

Takes account of nonplan factors?

No, strictly plan based measurement of impact of building bulk and location rules

Yes, at business area* scale implicit in assumptions applied (but not explicit as to what they are) to create more feasible or strategic intent reflecting outcomes.

* Business areas are used as the geography in the iteration reported, but smaller or otherwise different geographies could be used if the assumptions and input data can be generated at these different scales.

The 2012 study utilised a methodology initially developed under the 2006 study, where the Auckland Region Council had calculated, from a combination of discussions with legacy council planners and some limited 3D modelling, the maximum plan enabled floor area ratio (FAR) for each business area Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

102

around the region. This FAR was used to calculate, on the basis of zoned parcel area, a maximum amount of floor space per business area (𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 = 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐹𝐴𝑅). This approach was used due to the very high variability in the planning approaches to business area development and the rules controlling it found across the region under legacy plans. The one consistent feature being that they could all be 'boiled down' to a maximum FAR value which then drove the next stage of modelling. The enormous floor space potential generated from this approach led to the creation of a further 'sub-plan capacity' value, modified theoretical, to report as floor space capacity being ‘realistically’ available, an approach repeated in this study. This traditional method is maintained in this study for the calculation of reported capacity, but for this study, a new approach to calculation of maximum theoretical capacity has been developed. The PAUP's relatively consistent approach to development rules for all business areas enables an accurate parcel scale approach that is able to account for the site specific constraints imposed by various bulk and location limitations to create a parcel scale maximum floor space potential value. These potential floor space values can then be aggregated (from parcel) to any chosen geography required, in the case of this report ‘business area’ is the chosen geography. However the long standing issue of ‘realistic feasibility’ remains, as the resulting maximum floor space potential is enormous, and while it allows the calculation of a very accurate measure of plan enabled floor space capacity, it is of limited utility in a reporting sense. Therefore generalised assumptions about 'uptake' are made at the business area scale (reported in the results as ‘capacity’ from the modified theoretical scenario, very similar to the previous report methodologies. The value of undertaking a parcel based model is however high, as while we can be almost certain that not every building in a business area will be developed to this maximum limit, we cannot say with as much certainty that any particular site or building will not be (re)developed, especially if our time horizon gets longer. Thus for the regional scale, short term horizon, total maximum theoretical floor space is no more than a curiosity. However, at the parcel scale it can be utilised to illustrate what the maximum permitted rule parameters looks like on a site, which is of importance to the concerned or interested neighbour, current owner/prospective purchaser, or local-area-planner. The model can also be used to illustrate what the effect would be (on maximum permitted development), across a business area, or indeed the region if changes were made to the proposed rules. This is the key ‘future’ purpose of the model developed for the study going forward for almost all rules in the PAUP. The approach also has application to more nuanced views on uptake - for example, if maximum development changes by, say, 10 per cent, the ‘uptake’ based assessment could be expected to change by a similar proportion, depending on the approach used, as the number of total enabled opportunities for (re)development decrease. The sections below relate to further description, explanation and commentary on these two approaches.


103

9.5.1 Maximum theoretical scenario: plan enabled 3D floor space calculations The modelling process to generate the capacity for floor space on a parcel is illustrated below in Figure 41 below. Figure 41: Diagram of business redevelopment floor space assessment BUSINESS (Building Count centric modelling)

Max Floor Space Assessment

Generate Ziggurats

Building Envelope Constraints

parcel area min (x) FME Geoprocessing

tower area max (x) tower site area max (x)

Total storey area (Ziggurat Models)


Floor Space Assessment

9.5.1.1 Key parameters for volumetric business redevelopment modelling The key difference in modelling business areas as compared to suburban infill development is the lowered importance of 'land area' as being the key or only driver of development capacity. The third dimension, height plays a significant role, effectively allowing that land to be used more than once as it can be 'used' again at each subsequent level. While land area is clearly still a very important driver, particularly of the economic factors driving the development decision making process whether to undertake development and utilise the plan enabled capacity (or not), the primary driver of floor space capacity, is the ability to ‘go up’. The role of height limits, especially in more intensive locations, like centres, and to a lesser degree other business areas, which are by their nature are spatially constrained by surrounding residential development and total zoned area available relative to residential zoning, going up means consideration of volume, and the calculation of volume requires both width (x) and depth (y), but also the third dimension - height (z). While height is less important for land extensive uses, such as are anticipated in industrial zones, volume (for high study warehousing and storage, or ancillary office uses for example) does still play an important, though potentially less important than land area in terms of utility for expected uses. Buildings in business areas are rarely able to be constructed with 100 per cent site coverage at every level to the maximum height for a range of practical, as well as plan related reasons. Under the PAUP, variable height overlays, height in relation to boundary requirements, yards setbacks, upper level setbacks, maximum tower dimensions, volcanic viewshafts and other constraints must all be considered, which all vary across the region and by parcel. Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

104

The series of images in Table 25 below outline the maximum theoretical 3D parcel modelling process followed in a conceptual way, with more detail on the actual process and mechanisms used outlined in the sections following. Table 25: Conceptual basis of volumetric business redevelopment capacity modelling Description/step

Image

Preparation Step 1: Organisation of base zones and parcel data Example business zone area and surrounding zones that will influence the business zones development potential in relation to them.

Preparation Step 2: Spatial creation of various building constraining rules and inter zone/parcel relationships required to apply rules The neighbouring surrounding zones impact on the receiving business zones (via setbacks, recession planes, upper level road setbacks etc.) which must be modelled. In this image we can see that all existing development is not impacted by these provisions, perhaps indicating potential for redevelopment. Dealing with these overlapping interfaces is the key to the modelling approach taken. The consideration of these aspects is outlined in the steps below.

Modelling Step 1: Extrude business parcels to maximum parcel storey height*. * This is calculated per parcel from the zone height limits +/- Additional Height Overlay if any.


105

Description/step

Image

Modelling Step 2: Calculated and apply setbacks, recession planes, upper level road setbacks etc. based on relationship with sensitive zones and boundaries. Remove those storeys and parts of storeys within encroaching affectations. (Each affectation type is converted to a spatial overlay that exists at each storey level, these overlays are used to clip the extruded storeys from Step 1) at the ceiling level.

Modelling Step 3: As above, but with affectation overlaps removed revealing the 'permitted building envelope', within which floor space can exist. This is the visual 3D output. Calculations are then done mathematically to calculate maximum storey footplates within (less than or equal to) this envelope after accounting for maximum tower dimension or site coverage limits (applied as a maximum percentage of site area that the area of the calculated envelope may be greater than).

Modelling Step 4: Calculate difference in maximum calculated floor space potential from Step 3 and any existing development. (this net difference equals capacity for additional floor space).


106

Description/step

Image

Modelling Step 5: Calculate various scenario(s) (contemporary scenario example shown). (Note: undertaken in spreadsheet rather than in 3D as illustrated) Application of uptake assumptions or filtering of sites based on various economic or locational criteria can be undertaken to refine the total maximum theoretical into a more ‘feasible’ view of what is considered more likely to occur. In this example, each site is developed to an average FAR based on an input assumption, and this business area has limited reported capacity under the illustrated scenario. Compare with the maximum theoretical as illustrated in Step 3. In this example, floor space difference suggests only the central site offers the most probable opportunity for additional floor space. Other information may indicate that it is however a recently constructed local retail centre, and the sawtooth warehouse has a much more likely economic change of redevelopment due to its low improvement value, but is unlikely to result in increases in net floor space. This requires consideration of ‘non-plan’ related information but highlights the potential utility of this modelling to these types of analyses.

The following sections expand on the processing undertaken in the steps above with a view for outlining the process, such that: 

Outputs and limitations can be better understood



The ability for the model to be varied to reflect potential future changes to the planning rules is outlined



Others could potentially use this approach for their own modelling purposes and/or to improve on the methodology, or use of the outputs for further analysis and refinement.

9.5.1.2 Conversion of plan constraints for calculation in volumetric business redevelopment capacity The key change that has enabled innovation in the approach to business modelling has been the ability to use the PAUP as a single planning basis, which provides consistently framed business development rules across the region, rather than a custom approach for each territorial authority jurisdiction. This has allowed us to concentrate on ‘applying the rules’ as they exist, rather than collecting them from the multitude of variously framed planning documents and translating them into a regionally consistent and workable, but much simplified simulation of their original intent. While the rules are now conceptually consistent in their approach to business building development, they do overlap spatially in their effects in many cases (e.g. HIRB and upper level setbacks both preclude development in the same above ground space) and require not only the consideration of the zoning of the business site in question, also that of the more sensitive zones surrounding the business area, and do not have to be directly adjacent to have an impact on a business parcel's development potential (particularly for HIRB controls) The approach that has been developed to deal with these complex and interacting constraints is relatively simple in concept, and which we have termed variously 'ziggurats', 'layer cakes', or 'jelly Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

107

moulds' as the spatial arrangement of these constraining features once mapped by storey in 3D are somewhat analogous to these real world objects, as illustrated in Figure 42. Figure 42: The Ziggurat, a West Sacramento office building, designed to resemble an ancient Mesopotamian temple form (Griffin5, 2007)

We have converted the constraints into polygons that operate at each storey, given that our primary output is not a visual representation of a compliant building, but calculation of the potential floor space within a building. This significantly reduces the calculations required and simultaneously reduces the amount of data the model must carry forward at each step as the data is actually two-dimensional (2D) in nature (storeys) and able to be viewed, queried and processed in standard GIS software. The data is a series of stacked 2D storey polygons with an attribute representing story values (for ordering and height, and storey height for extrusion) and area, but also representative and reflective of 3D space and constraints and able to be viewed and queried in more advanced 3D software using the stored attributes on the 2D feature. While relatively simple in concept, in practice it has proved complex to translate and set up the whole plan for input, particularly set up in a way that allows easy variation to these rules. However, once the source and destination relationships have been established, and the various source and destination 'ziggurats' ‘jelly moulds’ or 'layer cakes' generation processes created, the actual geographic processing is essentially one of simple 2D polygon clipping, but at each storey individually. These 2D polygons can then be extruded into 3D space based on their storey number and known storey height for visual representation and review, which has been very useful as a quality assurance (QA) and review process (do the results of the modelling ‘look right’). The 3D representation is a maximum building envelope (not actual buildings) on an assumed flat plane (rather than being contour accurate) means that the visual utility of the 3D outputs is limited to comparisons between output scenarios at the business area type scale, or for illustrative purposes, rather than investigating more detailed inter-parcel effects or localised visual impacts for which other more ground-level accurate and location specific modelling would be recommended.


108

The business parcels are all cloned to a number of stories (we used 18 as a limit for this modelling exercise), reflecting the maximum number of levels enabled in the plan 35. Where the plan does enable greater than 18 storeys (such as locations like Takapuna (Metropolitan Centre)) we have assumed all storeys above level 18 are the same as storey 18, and this floor space data is contained within level 19 and above output attribute; for example: 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦𝑠 19+ = (𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 18 × 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 18)

This approach may have the effect of slightly overstating maximum floor space potential of the few locations where 19 storeys or greater are permitted. The constraints that apply from sensitive zones expands outwards from that sensitive zone, based on the rules applying, and impacts on the receiver business zone as a function of distance and the particular constraint. For example: 

Height in relation to boundary rule creates 'inverted ziggurats' (similar in form to ancient temples, but upside down, with the top/base being the size of the sensitive zone) that expand progressively outwards from the sensitive zone as the storey count increases, the rate of expansion being a function of the angle and starting height of the recession plane, and easily represented as a mathematical function converted to storeys.



Yard rule creates 'great walls' impacting on all levels above ground (as function of horizontal distance from the boundary with a sensitive zone or feature),



Upper level setbacks are ‘floating walls’ that 'hover' the zone specified number of storeys above ground, only impacting on storeys above the setbacks starting storey, (again a function of distance, but from roads, and only above a certain height).



Height limits are 'clouds' or ‘suspended ceilings’ that impact on all levels above the storey height limit.

An alternative concept for understanding the approach used is to consider all the constraints when combined as 'jelly moulds' that create a negative space, within which compliant building envelopes (the jelly) can then fill. The key to the approaches workability is that all constraints are not treated as a value that operates in meters, but in all cases converted to 'storeys'. The limitation to this approach is that the topography for strong practicable reasons is assumed to be a perfectly flat plane, which may result in modelled building envelopes that are either over- or under-constrained depending on the actual topographical relationship between sensitive features and receiving zones. Topographically accurate calculations are well beyond the scope of most general and region wide investigations outside of site specific predesign investigations, but users should keep this limitation in mind, particularly at less aggregate scales. The sections below outline in additional detail the methodology used to create the constraint features.

9.5.1.3 Business building constraint: building height The PAUP states that height in storeys be calculated (“for the purposes of compliance with the storey limit rule”) on the basis that the first level is 4.5 metres and subsequent stories are 4.0 metres, on a floor to floor basis (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 4.2.3). The relationship between height in metres and storeys in Table 26, adapted from the PAUP is consistent with this 'calculation of height for purposes of rule compliance' methodology. However, in Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 4.8 outlines the minimum floor to floor height can be between 4.5, 4.0 or 3.6 metres depending on the storey level, and stated use. For developments where residential use is proposed a minimum floor to ceiling height (or 'stud height') of 2.55 metres is specified, but not a floor to floor minimum. Based on submissions received via the DAUP feedback phase (and submissions to the PUAP) and industry commentary, we understand these floor to floor limits to be considered relatively generous, and that from a practical point of view the lower 3.6 metres limit is considered the most feasible. 35

This is not strictly true, as there are a couple of locations where storeys are not limited by the plan (e.g. Takapuna). In these locations we have calculated buildings to not exceed 18 levels (i.e. assumed a 18 level storey limit applies).


109

Taking these factors into account, the practical control on physical building height will not be height as measured against the limit in meters above ground level (as few if any buildings are likely to have 4.5 metres storey heights at ground level and 4.0 metres for each after, other than nominally for the purposes of height calculation), but actual storeys within the building, and therefore the limits of the rule measured in storeys is the one that is most likely to apply in practice. This assessment has assisted the storey-centric modelling approach taken. For the purposes of creating constraints for floor space modelling, at each storey level, we have assumed all storeys have a 3.6 metres floor to floor storey height (being the stated rule minimum other than on specific frontages, and only for a specified depth from specified street frontages, which are ignored for our purposes), because it is simpler to use an average, and a storey is a storey irrespective of its actual height, and it is therefore a reasonable assumption. This ‘storey height’ is also a changeable parameter with the model that can be varied if required. As all development in our modelling is assumed to occur on a flat plane for the purpose of regional floor space modelling, in situations where site specific detail or accuracy is of importance, or where slope or level differences are significant, or fine scales where minor variations are discernable, the results of this work may not be of sufficient accuracy – however at coarser scales these overs and unders tend to balance themselves out (i.e. the lack of topographical detail is considered to be a selfcompensating error).

Maximum height and additional height overlays, including volcanic viewshafts Maximum height is controlled by rule 4.2 (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3; and Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 5.1 for industrial zones) which is summarised in Table 26 below. Table 26: Business zone height limits rules Zone Metropolitan*

Building height (metres)

Building height (storeys)

72.5

18

Town*

Refer additional height overlay

Local

16.5

4

Neighbourhood

12.5

3

Mixed Use*

16.5

4

General Business

16.5

4

Business Park

20.5

5

Light Industry

20

5**

Heavy Industry

20

5**

* Additional Height Controls Overlay and any relevant precincts may also vary parcel heights from the values in this table. ** Converted from height outline din Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 5.1 using formula; building height storeys = rounddown(building height meters/3.6)

Each parcel receives a building height in meters (‘zone height’) and building height in storeys (‘zone storeys’) value from the Business_Assess_LUT (Table 56) reflecting the values in the table above based on the parcels ‘CfGS_Zone’. A single spatial overlay (‘height overlays’) has been created from the additional building height overlay and some other height limits specific overlays, again where rule height (in metres) is first converted to storeys using the formula: 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 = 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 �

𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (m) � 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (m)

The volcanic viewshaft polygon layer, which is provided as a contour based raster file (colour of raster cell symbolises the height in metres of the viewshaft ceiling above ground level) has also been converted to a polygon, and then simplified into a height in storeys using the formula: Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

110

𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 = 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 �

𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 (m) � 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (m)

Business parcels are then spatially queried against both the converted height limits and volcanic viewshaft layers (using a parcel centroid point on height polygon) to update the ‘zone storey’ value with the lowest of the two height influencing overlays ‘storey max’ values Figure 43 below shows an extract of a business area (Newmarket) showing the interesting, but also highly complex interplay of the two non-zone based overlay height layers, the additional height overlay (maximum storeys shown in black) and the volcanic viewshaft (max storeys shown in red), both also using the same colour gradient to indicate the extent of the story limits. This map also illustrates why a single parcel centroid height value for the whole parcel is used rather than attempting to model the upper floors to match the variable height which may exist across the parcel.


111

Figure 43: Interplay of height overlay and volcanic viewshafts in Newmarket


112

9.5.1.4 Business Building Constraint: Yards Yard requirements relate to the physical setbacks of a structure on a parcel by a set horizontal distance from the boundary or another feature. Rules 4.15 (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3) and 5.4 (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3) outline the provisions for setbacks from various other zone groups or features; these are summarised in Table 27 below. Other rules in the plan set out requirements for the provision of esplanade reserves of a minimum distance of 20 metres from rivers and lakes. This layer was created for residential modelling purposes and repurposed and incorporated into the business setbacks to supersede (where it exists) the 10 metre riparian margins yard, which applies from lower order streams and water features. In combination the ‘yards’ features used in the modelling therefore incorporates not just business zone yards but also the other general rules from throughout the PAUP which act ‘like yards’. Table 27 summarises the setbacks applied in the model as a combination of these rules paraphrased from the PAUP. Table 27: Business zone yard rules as modelled Setbacks (metres) from source zone(s)/groups Affected destination zone(s)/Groups

Open space and residential zones

Riparian margin (streams)

Esplanade setback (lakes and rivers)

Road

Centres (all zones) Mixed Use General Business

3

10

20

N/A (0)

Business Park

3

10

20

N/A (0)

Light Industry Heavy Industry

5

10

20

3

Table 28 below outlines how the destination and source zones or features have been aggregated into groups for yard processing: Table 28: Business yard rule zone groups as used in Table 26 Zone list from rule Text:

Actual zones/features participating

Centres Mixed Use General Business

City Centre Metropolitan Centre Town Centre Local Centre Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use General Business

Business Park

Business Park



Riparian margin (10 metres)

Streams

Riparian margin (esplanade from lakes and rivers (20 metres))

Lakes and rivers

Road

Roads

Open Space Residential Zones

Public Open Space (all zones) Residential (all zones)


113

Yard source features are grouped as per Table 28 and externally buffered by the appropriate distance as per Table 27. These 'yard source' buffer features are them overlaid with the appropriate 'yard destination' zone groups, and where the two intersect, this intersecting area creates the yard feature. This allows for accurate representation of ‘yards’ impacting only those portions of the destination site that are within the specified distance of the feature in question, as they do not all act as internal buffers from boundaries like residential yards traditionally do. All yard features are then merged into a single spatial coverage for modelling where the maximum storey is equal to zero. In practice in the model, the yard feature clips all parcel extrusion storeys from storey zero (ground floor) to the ‘storey max’ limit, where the yard feature exists. The yard exclusion can be considered as a solid wall existing from ground level to maximum height within which no floor space can exist. Where the yard setback exists, no floor space above ground level (‘storey count’ equals zero) can exist, and therefore modelled floor space within the yard is equal to zero square metres. Illustrated in Figure 44 is an example of how the variable setbacks created within and between zones, the black areas represent the actual yard setback, the width of the area representing the depth of the setback required. In this example the difference between Light Industry (five metres) and Local and Neighbourhood Centre zones (three metres) is discernable, with the Light Industry zone also being impacted by a 10 metres stream setback running though the zone (rather than from the boundary of another site).


114

Figure 44: Business yards overlay example

9.5.1.5 Business Building Constraint: Height in relation to boundary Height in relation to boundary (HIRB) rules relate to requirements to limit building height as an increasing function of distance from more sensitive receiving environments. Sites (parcels) further from sensitive environments generally have a greater potential for taller buildings than land closer to Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

115

sensitive environments. Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 4.3 and Rule 5.2 outline the requirements for business zones HIRB, these rules as utilised in this study are summarised into Table 29 below, containing: 

Destination or receiving zone (the zones that the HIRB ‘effects’);



Source or sensitive zones (the sensitive zones from which HIRB are applied);



Boundary height (height above the sensitive zone boundary at which the recession plane commences), and



Boundary angle, (the angle at which the HIRB recession plane applies at boundary height, relative to horizontal).

The conversion of the rules into modellable parameters is relatively complex and requires a number of steps, which are outlined below. Table 29: Business zone height in relation to boundary rules Destination or receiving zone

Source or sensitive zone

Boundary height (metres)

Boundary Ө (degrees from horizontal)

Centre (all zones)* Mixed Use General Business Business Park

Single House Mixed Housing Suburban

2.5

45


Mixed Housing Urban

3.0

45


Terraced House and Apartment Building

8.0

60

Metro Centre Town Centre

Mixed Use General Business

8.0

60

Public Open Space northern boundaries**

8.5

45

Public Open Space all other boundaries

16.5

45

Town Centre Mixed Use

Public Open Space

8.5

45

Local Centre General Business

Public Open Space

2.5

45


Residential zones Public Open Space

8.0

16

Metro Centre

* Applies only 30 metres from source zone against Metro Centre zone ** Applies 16.5 metres ×45 degrees rule to all boundaries as not practicable to do single northern boundary

These rules were then further summarised and grouped into their source and destination ‘zone groups’ as per Table 30 below, with the rules applying as per Table 29 to the now aggregated source and destination groups.


116

Table 30: Business HIRB ZoneGroups Item

Destination or receiving zone list

Destination zone group data layer

Source or Sensitive zone list

Source zone group data layer

1

All Centre zones Mixed Use General Business Business Park

1_Business_ex_Ind

Single House Mixed Housing Suburban

A_SH_MHS

2


1_Business_ex_Ind

Mixed Housing Urban

B_MHU

3


1_Business_ex_Ind

Terraced House and Apartment Building

C_THAB

4

Metro Centre Town Centre

2_MC_TC

Mixed Use General Business

D_MU_BG

5

Metro Centre

3_MC

Public Open Space

E_POS

6

Town Centre Mixed Use

4_TC_MU

Public Open Space

E_POS

7

Local Centre General Business

5_LC_GB

Public Open Space

E_POS

8


6_Industry

All residential zones Public Open Space

F_POS_Residential

These source and destination zone groups from Table 30 and the rules associated with them from Table 29 were then further processed to transform the boundary height and boundary angle into a series of values that are able to be used to calculate impacts on the individual storey polygons as shown in Table 31, rather than pure Cartesian space. Figure 45 shows the visual keys to the variables listed in Table 31 which control the final modellable outputs contained within Table 32.


117

Figure 45: Converting HIRB rules to modellable parameters

Note that in calculating storey setbacks, and as illustrated in Figure 45, the HIRB is assumed to 'cut off' the floor space polygon where the ceiling of that storey intersects the HIRB recession plane, rather than the floor, this being a more 'realistic' representation of typical multilevel development responses to HIRB controls (effectively it is unlikely that a development will create a building that has outwardly sloping walls to match the HIRB plane, and even if it does, floor space that is not below a ‘ceiling’ (floor space under the sloping wall) is not particularly useable or reasonably necessary to account for. The values shown in Figure 45 above are converted to variables using the relationships shown in Table 31 below. Table 31: Height in relation to boundary variables, description and calculations HIRB variable name

Description

Destination zone data

Zone that HIRB affects

Source zone data

Zone that HIRB emanates from

Boundary height (h)

Height vertically above ground boundary Ө commences

Boundary Ө (Ө)

Angle in degrees from horizontal at which recession plane protrudes

storey_height

Floor to floor height of all storeys

storey_count_unaffected

Count of storeys on the destination site that are not impacted at all by HIRB recession plane


Source or formula Table 30: Business HIRB ZoneGroups

Table 29: Business zone height in relation to boundary rules

3.6 metres Global modelling assumption (see 𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 𝑅𝑂𝑈𝑁𝐷𝐷𝑂𝑊𝑁( ) 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡

118

HIRB variable name

Description

Source or formula

buffer_interval_start

The setback from the boundary applying to the first storey (storey_count_unaffected plus one) that is affected by HIRB

buffer_interval

The setback for each and every subsequent storey from the one below, for every story above the first storey affected. (all levels greater than or equal to storey_count_unaffected plus two)

storey_max_Zig

The upper limit of number of storey polygons required to be created and processed

=

𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 � − 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑� �� 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 tan(𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝜃 𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠)

=

𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 tan(𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝜃 𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠)

18 storeys - global modelling assumption based on PAUP Storeys (if any) above storey_max_Zig are assumed to be shaped like storey_max_Zig and are included in the attribute _area_storey_19+

Once these conversions have been undertaken, these can be used as attributes to drive the calculation of HIRB effect on various storeys in the spatial modelling. The parameters used in the modelling to create the HIRB ‘ziggurats’ (shown as pale green features in Figure 45) are outlined in Table 32 below. Variation of the input parameters or zone groups will influence the ziggurat resulting. Table 32: HIRB to ‘ziggurat’ conversions for HIRB constraint creation

Boundary Ө

h

Θ

storey_height



buffer_interval

storey_max_Zig

1

1_Business_ex_Ind

A_SH_MHS

2.5

45

2.5

45

3.6

0

0.694

3.6

18

2

1_Business_ex_Ind

B_MHU

3.0

45

3.0

45

3.6

0

0.833

3.6

18

3

1_Business_ex_Ind

C_THAB

8.0

60

8.0

60

3.6

2

0.128

2.1

18

4

2_MC_TC

D_MU_BG

8.0

60

8.0

60

3.6

2

0.128

2.1

18

Item

Boundary Height

Converted HIRB Constraint Ziggurat parameters

Source Zone Groups

Rule Parameters

Destination Zone Groups

Zone Group Relationships


119

Θ

storey_height



buffer_interval

storey_max_Zig

3_MC

E_POS

16.5

45

16.5

45

3.6

4

0.583

3.6

18

6

4_TC_MU

E_POS

8.5

45

8.5

45

3.6

2

0.361

3.6

18

7

5_LC_GB

E_POS

2.5

45

2.5

45

3.6

0

0.694

3.6

18

8

6_Industry

8.0

16

8.0

16

3.6

2

0.775

12.6

18

Source Zone Groups

5

Item

h

Converted HIRB Constraint Ziggurat parameters

Boundary Ө

Rule Parameters

Boundary Height

Destination Zone Groups

Zone Group Relationships

F_POS_ Residential

To create the HIRB affectations, a series of 'inverted ziggurats' are created from the HIRB source zone groups for each of the eight HIRB rules outlined in Table 32. Manual clipping of the source ziggurat is undertaken to limit the horizontal extent of all HIRB into Metropolitan Centres from certain source zones to 30 metres as noted in the rules, prior to the constraint being run against the parcels. These are then overlaid on the matching destination group storey extrusions and used as ‘clipper features’ on the matching destination polygon (clippee) using ‘storey count’ to match storeys to the correct level between source ‘ziggurat’ and destination parcel clones. For locations where there are multiple HIRB features (the parcel is within HIRB control of multiple sensitive zone groups) the most restrictive is automatically utilised, irrespective of the order of processing as the clipping process iteratively 'eats' the destination polygons. If a more restrictive HIRB is applied first, there is nothing for a less restrictive HIRB to 'eat', and if less restrictive is applied first, and then the more restrictive applied, the more restrictive will simply clip a bit more off. Post modelling quality assurance data checks were undertaken, with Figure 46 being an example from this work. This figure shows how the particular spatial arrangement and combination of source zones around a destination zone creates variations in HIRB setbacks, confirming that the process is working as anticipated, creating patterns of affect depending on the spatial arrangements and combination of source and destination zones. Note for this example the difference in HIRB pattern (green represents are lower stories though to red for higher stories) from the sensitive Public Open Space zone (light green) on two different receiving zones, Light Industry (solid purple) and General Business (striped purple). This difference is a function of the Height and angle imposed. Irrespective of the PAUP reasons for the significant variance in HIRB impact from this single sensitive zone to the different effects of similar buildings on different receiver zones, the ability to show the resulting impact in this way allows these issues to be identified spatially and therefore be explored further.


120

Figure 46: HIRB rule test example


121

9.5.1.6 Business building constraint: upper level setbacks This group of constraints apply in particular business zones where the general height rule enables developments above six stories, being the Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre and Mixed Use zones. Rule 4.5.4 (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3) (Maximum Town Dimension and Building Separation) also applies to those parts of any building over six storeys (including those that may be proposed in zones where the height limit is less than six stories. We have not modelled this non-complying type of development scenario). Note there are no equivalent rules for the industrial zones (as these zones are height limited to 20 metres (or less than six storeys) and streetscape and general amenity concerns are less important in those zones, given their intended function). We have combined the two provisions together as they are functionally the same in terms of a building constraint, creating a combined ‘upper level setbacks’ layer. These provisions as summarised and utilised in the PAUP modelling are outlined in Table 33 below. Table 33: Upper level setback rules Road frontage (Rule 4.4)

All other parcel boundaries (Rule 4.5.4)

Zone storey_count_unaffected

Road_frontage_Buffer

Storey_count_unaffected

Internal_Parcel_buffer

(stories above ground level)

(metre setback)

(stories above ground level)

(metre setback)

Metropolitan Centre

6

6

6

6

Town Centre

4

6

6

6

Mixed Use

4

6

6

6

In essence, the upper level setbacks act as a yard, but only above the stated storey (‘storey count unaffected’). Of the two types of upper level setbacks (ULSB), only the road frontage setback was created as a spatial overlay for clipping purposes, it being a function of the relationship between a parcel and the road which are relatively fixed. This was created by buffering the CRS Road casings by six metres (‘road frontage buffer’), clipping it to the three zones stated and applying the ‘storey count unaffected’ value based on the zone. Internal parcel boundary buffers (all other parcel boundaries) are handled internal to the model, given that it is working at the parcel level, it was more efficient to do so rather than run a spatial clipping process across every parcel in each of the three zones, above level six. This ‘all other parcel boundaries’ setback was also incorporated into the variables used for the maximum tower dimensions calculations discussed below. The variation between ‘storey count unaffected’ for the road frontage ULSB in the example location of Newmarket is illustrated in Figure 47 below. Note - the Metropolitan Centre zoning extends across legal road parcels in the block south of the corner of Remuera and Broadway, (the thick black six level storey count unaffected area) however this has no practical effect in the modelling as there are no zoned land parcels that are able to be extruded there in any case. Note also that only the road related ULSB is illustrated, and therefore is not shown where the zone boundary is more than the required distance from a road.


122

Figure 47: Upper level setback test


123

9.5.1.7 Business building constraint: Maximum tower dimensions These provisions, as outlined in Rule 4.5 (maximum tower dimension and tower separation; Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 3), relates to those portions of buildings above six levels in the Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre and Mixed Use zones. The rule requires that the maximum plan dimension of any part of a building above level six to be no greater than 50 metres. In addition it must also comply with the setbacks laid out in Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 3, Rule 4.4 and as such must be six metres from any side or rear boundary (i.e. within the ULSB described in the section above). Assuming a four sided parallelogram would be the typical shape for such towers 36, we calculate that the maximum area of the floor plate within a tower above would be no greater than approximately 1250 square metres, and would require a podium (or parcel area) of no less than approximately 2242 square metres to achieve (assuming six metre setback on all sides in accordance with the Upper level setbacks that also apply). This can be achieved on a (minimum) 47 metres by 47 metres parcel/podium where the tower is (maximum) 35 metres by 35 metres. Variations in parcel dimensions create variations in the maximum area possible, due to the variation in the interdependent relationship between long and short sides and the fixed maximum diagonal, as illustrated in Figure 48. Figure 48: Tower to podium area dimension relationship (at a six metres setback and 50 metre maximum diagonal) 2,600

Area m2 (log)

2,100

1,600

1,100

600

Minimum parcel/podium area required Maximum tower floor area

100 10:22

20:32

30:42

35:47

40:52

49:61

Tower:Podium Side A dimension

The potential for tower shapes other than four sided parallelograms will also vary the maximum diagonal to tower (and podium) area relationships. For the purposes of calculating plan enabled potential floor space above level six, we have assumed that all towers will be 'maximised' and are square. This is a reasonable and practicable approach to the a-spatial iteration problem this rule presents, which is only an issue on parcels over the 2242 square metres minimum podium area where six level buildings are enabled, for which a problem and solution is described below.

Other shapes are of course possible - a circular shape would provide the greatest floor area (π.25²=1962.5 m²) but requires a proportionally larger podium to achieve and results in a relatively expensive construction process, and creates an inefficient internal layout, so these alternatives were not considered further, but the calculated figures are indicative of floor space for these reasons..

36


124

The tower dimension rule is rather ambiguous about whether only a single tower is permitted on each site, or multiple towers are permitted and they must be separated from each other as if they were on separate parcels. After discussions with the Unitary Plan team, and in consideration of the large number of potentially sub-dividable large parcels in areas where greater than six storey buildings are possible (allowing creation of numerous smaller parcels, each with a tower after subdivision but not before), it was determined that the best approach to calculating maximum plan enabled floor space above storey six would be the latter, where the rule is interpreted as allowing multiple towers per site (where the site is are large enough), with each tower separated as if they were on separate parcels. This issue is slightly complicated by the fact that the six metre setbacks to the boundaries have already been removed from the starting floor space envelope, with only the 'inter-tower' separations to be accounted for, as illustrated in Figure 49 below. Figure 49: Maximum tower dimension calculations on larger parcels Partial tower < 1250 m²

Separation between towers, which is removed in calculations

50 m Full 1250 m² tower Levels 1 to 6 inclusive

6 metre setback above level 6 Floor space yield Floor space envelope

As the tower maximum dimension rule does not specify where on a site the tower(s) must be located (other than being inside any required setbacks), only that these towers may not be larger than specified. On this basis it was determined that the modelling of towers should be done mathematically rather than spatially, in a similar manner to the way we have dealt with building coverage limits (but without the ease of calculation enabled by a percentage value). This means that the 3D/2D clipped parcels would be clipped to the setbacks, but not clipped to allow for inter-tower separation, thereby becoming an envelope, rather than a floor, and requiring the calculation of a floor space area yield figure for each floor which may be different from the total area of the spatial feature. After much consideration, it was determined that floor space yield (within the envelope) would be calculated as: 1. For storey six and below: 2. As the tower separation rule has no effect on level six and below, the floor space envelope area is the smaller of either the floor space envelope area, or maximum building coverage limitation: 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 𝑀𝐼𝑁(𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒)

3. For storey seven and above:


125

IF 1250 square metres is the maximum area of a tower with a diagonal dimension of 50 metres, AND when there is a six metre setback on at least two sides (which has already been considered in terms of the floor space envelope) and the towers must be separated by 12m from each other (6m to ‘boundary’ for each tower) AND we assume (for calculation of floor space yield) that tower(s) will occupy the 'corners' of storeys with floor space envelopes that are large enough to accommodate more than one tower in order to maximise development potential 37, THEN 1710.26 square metres is the maximum level seven plus floor space envelope area required to before the envelope could accommodate more than one tower of 1250 square metres, 4. Based on the arrangement illustrated below in Figure 50 and described in the conditions above. 5. Essentially a further 460m2 of building envelope is required in addition to the 1250m2 tower to allow for an additional compliant tower to exist.

Figure 50: Inter Tower Separation Offset Calculation (Not to scale)

6. This logic is then modified slightly to allow for the situations where the floor space envelope is not equal to 1710.26 square metres (i.e. most of them) as follows: IF Floor space Envelope ≤ 1250 m² THEN Floor space Yield = Floor space envelope. ELSEIF Floor space Envelope > 1250 m² AND ≤ 1710.26 m² THEN Floor space Yield = 1250 m² ELSE Floor space Envelope > 1710.26 m² THEN Floor space Yield = (Floor space envelope / 1710.26) × 1250 37

A crosscheck with the building coverage impact as mentioned for storey six and below was not developed as no buildings greater than six levels are possible in zones where a building coverage limit applies.


126

The latter calculation effectively allows for the envelope to be divided into the number of towers with their own six metre separation allowed for (1710 square metres) , then multiplied by the maximum allowable floor area of each tower (1250 square metres) to obtain the maximum floor space allowed on each level above level six. As this calculation provides for sub-1250 square metre towers to exist (they are allowed to be smaller than this, just not larger) arguably there is a point at which the nth tower could be so small as to be economically unviable and therefore unlikely. There are a number of potential responses to this issue: 

At this (as yet unknown) viability point the floor space values are negligible, but this is balanced by other assumptions and limitations of the approach (e.g. non-square towers)



Potential nth tower floor space could be amalgamated into the nth-1 tower as a consenting matter (i.e. tower dimension greater than 50 metres)



At this point the floor space values are negligible and the effect on overall yield figures are negligible (i.e. within margin of error/floor space values are indicative)

Adjustments could be made to allow for this, but these matters are, in our view, best left to site specific analysis however users of the data should keep this factor in mind.

9.5.1.8 Business building constraint: building coverage There are no specific rules in the Business Zones that relate to Building Coverage as a stated rule. However there are a number of rules which effectively limit the building coverage of buildings in the business zones, and this constraint groups these rules together to ensure floor space is not overreported. The effects of some of these rules are already ‘covered’ by the consideration of other requirements (e.g. Yards) but some are not. In zones where yards apply, building floor space (and therefore coverage) is restricted to the area not within the yard, so will be somewhat less than 100 per cent site coverage in these cases, but additional calculations are not required; these rules are summarised in Table 34. Table 34: Building coverage rule proxies Zone

Rule

Business Park

Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 4.17 “at least 20% of the site must be landscaped”

Effective building coverage limit

80%

Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 4.18 “maximum impervious area 80%” General Business

Light Industrial Heavy Industrial

Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 4.18 “maximum impervious area 80%”

80%

Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 5.3 “maximum impervious area 80%”

80%

Part 3, Chapter I, Section 3, Rule 5.3 “Maximum impervious area in riparian margins 10%”

Actual floor space in riparian margins is 0% due to effect of riparian yard, so this is not recalculated. All floor space is impervious, as it must be within a building, which is not allowed in the riparian yard. Non-building impervious area is not the subject of this study.

The impervious surface rule states, for example, that the maximum impervious area is 80 per cent of a site, with a limit on impervious area of 10 per cent within any riparian yard. While not all impervious Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

127

areas are buildings, all buildings (floor space) are impervious areas, therefore the maximum building coverage is effectively less than or equal to the impervious surface rule, in this case 80 per cent of the site area. The same approach applies to landscape area minimums – by definition buildings are not landscaping, so any area required for landscape may not be buildings, and may not be floor space. Some rules (4.17) only require landscape where there is not a building or access point – this does As riparian yards are already excluded from containing any buildings (floor space equals zero) by the yard modelling (see sub-section above), any impervious surface that may potentially exist in that location (the yard setback) will not be modelled as additional floor space. No accounting is therefore made of the variation between riparian yard imperviousness and non-riparian yard imperviousness for building coverage purposes. Other yards will also have the effect of reducing potential floor space to less than 100 per cent coverage, but there is no imperviousness requirement. Like maximum tower separation, the impervious surface rule, or building coverage rules do not specify or suggest where the building must be located, only that of the entire site area, up to a maximum of 80 per cent, can be impervious (or buildings). For the purpose of modelling, the issue is dealt with by checking that the ground level building envelope area (all levels above ground level are less than or equal to the area of the ground floor), after removal of any other spatial floor space constraints from yards and HIRB and so on, is less than or equal to 80 per cent of the site area. If the ground level floor space is greater than 80 per cent then the floor space yield is calculated at 80 per cent of the site area, otherwise the calculated floor space envelope figure is used. 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 𝑀𝐼𝑁(𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒)

Note that like the tower dimension rule, the 2D and 3D representations of the building floor space envelope is not visually altered, but is instead undertaken mathematically, as the constraint is a-spatial (i.e. it does not determine where something can occur, only how much of the identified space it can occupy). The actual building cannot exist beyond the constraints of the envelope, but may only be less than or equal to the bulk indicated by the 2D/3D modelling.

9.5.1.9 Final conversion: creation of parcel floor space Constraints modelled, as discussed in the sections above, are calculated on a 'by storey' basis. We have maintained both a spatial representation (2D, as well as a 3D version) of each level. For most analytical purposes a single parcel floor space total is considered sufficient. Section 9.6 illustrates that for calculation of reported capacity, the 3D building envelope modelling is effectively to provide an (accurate) upper limit for more abstracted or aggregated calculations. The main benefit of undertaking calculation of maximum theoretical development potential is to know exactly what the maximum is, even if it is highly unlikely that all of this potential will be realised. It is important to note the way in which the 2D/3D floor space data could be perceived as potentially (mis)representing potential development opportunities. In particular it must be remembered that the maximum theoretical spatial data is the 'floor space envelope', not the 'floor space yield', with maximum tower dimensions and building coverage in particular not visualised, this is highlighted in Table 35. These factors can make a significant difference to the actual form of development that is permitted to occur versus the apparent development that is visually. Accordingly the 2D and 3D business modelling should be considered as a representation of 'permissible building envelope' within which a building may exist, but not exceed, and often is not possible to occupy all space within it.


128

Table 35: Floor space constraints - visual vs. calculated Spatial affectation layer created or required for modelling

Effect visible in/as 2D/3D representations?

Effect accounted for in floor space total

Effect accounted for in floor space yield

Building height

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yards

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Height in relation to boundary

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Upper level setbacks

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Max tower dimensions

No

No

No

Yes

Building coverage

No

No

No

Yes

Business Floor space Constraint

9.5.1.10 Potential utility of 3D building envelopes Despite the limitations outlined above, the 3D envelope is a useful tool because of its illustrative power. However, because of the limitations care must be taken to not push analysis towards matters of high detail, or where contour accurate building representations, taking account of ground level changes, or building bulk or design at a parcel scale, are required. Additionally they should not be considered as projections of a future business area - they are a representation of the maximum envelope within which buildings can exist in accordance with the plan rules modelled. The example below of Newmarket (looking south along Broadway) (Figure 51 and Figure 52), shows an example of how the data can (and has) been used. These examples were created after a request was made to investigate whether the proposed blanket height limits for the Metropolitan Centre zone were appropriate for Newmarket Metropolitan Centre, after the publication of the DAUP. What this visualisation illustrated was the potential conflict between the proposed 18 storey general limit applying to all Metropolitan Centre zoning, and the volcanic viewshaft to Mount Eden which effectively precludes that otherwise enabled 18 level developments in Metropolitan Centre zoned sites in Newmarket. The images below illustrate the potential maximum floor space both without restrictions of the volcanic viewshaft (Figure 51 ) and with restrictions of the volcanic viewshaft (Figure 52), clearly illustrating the ‘cost’ of or conflict between the volcanic viewshaft on buildings the standard height limit otherwise enabled. We would note that provisions in the PAUP now includes a lower height limit overlay for the Newmarket Metropolitan Centre zone and also other surrounding zones to avoid this potential interrule conflict.


129

Figure 51: Newmarket (DAUP) without volcanic viewshaft

Figure 52: Newmarket (DAUP) with volcanic viewshaft


130

9.6 Conversion of business redevelopment floor space to dwellings and employees This section outlines the process for calculating the business redevelopment potential under the contemporary, modified theoretical and maximum scenarios shown conceptually in Figure 53 below. The diagram illustrates the steps taken in each scenario calculation, with the values used in each assumption diamond varying depending on the scenario. The orange diamonds shown in Figure 53 indicate the application of an assumption in a scenario. The default value of each assumption variable is outlined in: 

Table 36: Business floor space assumptions, source and use by scenario



Table 37: Average FAR inputs for the modified theoretical scenario



Table 38: Business redevelopment residential allocation factors



Table 39: Business redevelopment residential dwelling average size, and



Table 40: Gross floor area per employee.

Appendix P: Business areas and centres with classifications including scenario assumptions, identifies the individual location specific assumptions as they have been applied to each business area, which may vary from the defaults. Figure 53: Diagram of business redevelopment capacity calculation process for modified theoretical and contemporary scenarios


131

The tables below outline the primary default source of assumptions, all of which apply as an average across the land used in the scenario. By default the assumptions apply to all business areas within the business area types (e.g. town centres), but these can be manually overwritten as required (e.g. market attractive town centres could have a higher build out assumption than emergent ones) to account for local issues and opportunities. These assumptions were both developed and refined iteratively using a spreadsheet model with a dashboard of key metrics allowing a simple default assumption to be entered and overwritten by each area type for each scenario, and individual business areas to be individually adjusted if required. Modified theoretical assumptions should be considered indicative only rather than a definitive view on what is likely to happen in each centre as it evolves between current and maximum.


132

Table 36: Business floor space assumptions, source and use by scenario Assumption variable

Current

Contemporary


Maximum theoretical

Capacity Calculation methodology

Sourced from existing situation parcel data

Spreadsheet model based on current development typologies occurring on vacant and vacant potential land (if any)

Spreadsheet model based on an average development typology occurring on a portion of the land in the business area

PAUP based limits from 3D modelling, based on all land being redeveloped to the plan enabled limits

Relationship to other scenarios

Lower limit for all scenarios. i.e. no scenario can be < current, but they may be = current (i.e. no growth)

Always ≥ current, how much > is dependent on the amount of vacant and potentially vacant land assessed as being available for additional development

Always ≤ maximum theoretical, and ≥ current but not always > contemporary, depending on the assumed FAR and other inputs

Upper plan enabled limit for scenarios

Generally unfeasible, 100% build out to plan limits. Significant capacity is required for modified to be realizable, given small percentage of uptake

Scenario reflects

Existing situation

Business as usual

Anticipated yet aspirational plan enabled outcome (reflects The Auckland Plan vision as enabled by PAUP). Indicative outcome only.

Total floor space

Sum of latest known (July 2013) parcel floor space (source: PropertyIQ rates assessment data) summed by business area

Vacant and vacant potential land developed to the average FAR of occupied sites business area

An assumed FAR is developed for each business area type. This must be ≥ current and ≤ maximum. Manual override by individual business area also possible.

All parcels redeveloped to PAUP limits. Data aggregated from 3D model outputs

Residential floor space allocation

Proportion of total floor space tagged with a residential use (source: PropertyIQ rates assessment data, (July 2013)) summed by business area

Use current residential floor space Allocation unless manual override used.

Residential floor space allocation is developed for each business area type based on PAUP assumptions. Manual override by individual business area also possible.

Use modified theoretical residential Floor space allocation unless business area specific manual override used.

Average dwelling size

Residential floor space total (source: PropertyIQ rates assessment data, (July 2013)) summed by business area divided by count of dwellings in business area

Use current average dwelling size unless manual override used.

Average dwelling size is assumed for each business area type based on PAUP assumptions and previous work. Manual override by individual business area also possible

Use modified theoretical scenario average dwelling size unless manual override used


133

Assumption variable

Current

Average floor space per employee

Business floor space (source: PropertyIQ rates assessment data, (July 2013)) summed by business area, divided by the allocated employees from Business Demographics (Source, SNZ, February 2013) meshblock data


Contemporary


Maximum theoretical

Use current average floor space per employee unless manual override used.

Dwelling size is developed for each business area type based on current unless PAUP assumptions for future of business area are sufficiently different. Manual override by individual business area also possible

Use current average dwelling size unless manual override

134

9.6.1 Application of business area-wide assumptions and a note on their use The application of the assumptions at a broad business area scale while potentially missing local nuance, does mean that the inherent uncertainty of outcome from future redevelopment processes over a long timeframe can be accommodated within the assumed outcomes. All input assumptions should be considered in this way, as an 'average' acting as placeholders representing a wide range of potential outcomes on a given site, which all the sites collectively within a business area in aggregate could deliver in the future (rather than an assertion that every single site will be developed 'to the average'). The average is a mathematically useful means to create an aggregate total and should be considered as representing all the possible combinations that could factored to result in the utilised figure. That is the average is literally the sum of its parts, not a single outcome, though it is utilised in this way for its special mathematical properties. Readers and users of this information should therefore be careful to avoid the 'ecological fallacy' whereby a population is falsely assumed to be made up of a set of cloned individuals equal to the stated average, rather than a wide range of individuals each with widely different characteristics who have been 'averaged'. Conceptually illustrated in Figure 54 is the application of a model assumption (in this case, residential allocation factor) to a sub-maximum floor space uptake (also modelled as an area wide average) in an example business area. While the diagram shows 'residential percentage' being distributed on each site 'equally', because the assumption is applied mathematically across the entire business area, as an average, this is not the only potential form in which the outcome could be achieved - one of the three sites could be 100 per cent residential with the other two all non-residential and the scenario would still be achieved, or any other potential combination (of which there are many), that sums to the resulting or input 'average'. Figure 54: Diagram of an example of residential allocation to a modified theoretical scenario

9.6.2 Floor space Assumption: Floor area ratios (FAR) Each of the scenarios expresses a business area’s development potential as a floor area ratio (FAR). The FAR assumptions used can be found in Appendix P: Business areas and centres with classifications including scenario assumptions.


135

FAR is a representation of the relationship between the gross floor area of building(s) on a parcel and the land area of that parcel: 𝐹𝐴𝑅 =

𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎

For example a FAR of 1.0 indicates a floor area exactly equal to that of the parcel area. This floor area could be arranged on a site in any number ways. Below Figure 55 illustrates how an FAR of 1.0 could be exhibited. Figure 55: Potential building forms where FAR is equal to one (FAR = 1) (image sourced from The City of Calgary, 2013)

The key benefit of using FAR (from a modelling perspective, particularly where future scenarios are implicit) is that it does not predetermine the actual or definitive form of development that will occur, but does provide an indication of the style or format it is likely to take based on typical ratios found in existing development typologies, for example: 

A FAR of less than 0.5 would typically indicate a single level typology,



FARs between 0.5 and 1.0 have increasingly higher propensity for at least some multi-level development.



A FAR of greater than 1.0 requires a multi-level structure to achieve it (as the floor area is greater than the land area).

The actual application of these assumptions to real world development is site dependent (a large site with a tall building may have a low FAR, and a single level structure may extend across multiple parcels) but these issues are more than offset by the general usefulness of the concept as a cross check to the other inputs. This concept is further illustrated in Figure 56 below.


136

Figure 56: Potential built forms where FAR is equal to 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 (image sourced from City of South San Francisco, 2011)

The FAR assumptions for each of the scenarios are derived from different sources: 

The FAR assumptions for the contemporary scenario are calculated based on the current average FAR of occupied sites across a business area, applied to identified non-occupied (vacant) land and potentially developable (vacant potential) portions of occupied land.



The FAR for the maximum theoretical scenario is a product of the calculations from the 2D/3D modelling. It is the result of the modelled floor space generated from assessment against PAUP parameters compared to the site area of all parcels in the assessment geography, rather than an input directly. The current and maximum theoretical FARs assist in providing upper and lower ranges for the modified theoretical FAR, with future expectations being for somewhere between 1) more development than exists currently, but 2) not more than the plan enables (i.e. current is less than or equal to future, which is less than or equal to the maximum).



The FAR assumptions for the modified scenarios are based on the assumptions developed with the Unitary Plan teams, generally further modification of those used in the 2006 and 2012 study to better reflect new PAUP zoning expectations and opportunities, and new knowledge and information around market interest and prioritisation of council interventions. However they remain relatively teleological - they show what is hoped for from a successful implementation of the plan enabled vision for the area, supported by a range of statutory and non-statutory actions and private investment, rather than what is necessarily or definitely going to happen 38.

In developing the spreadsheet dashboard we found that while FAR was a good cross-check enabling us to get a feel for the outcomes resulting from the key inputs, other modelling stakeholders from the Unitary Plan team were more comfortable using a 'percentage build out' factor applied on the maximum theoretical scenario which in turn generated floor space and an FAR to crosscheck. This is because this 'percentage build-out' value related better to the conversations they had been having with

38

This is a common critique of work of this type, but is a necessary framework to start from - if what is desired from policy interventions is not illustrated and used for further planning then what is desired is even less likely to happen as the alignment of councils various functions and planning processes, interventions, enabling and direct action is reliant on numerical representation to achieve this function. Alternative scenarios that, for example follow a strictly market based approach presume that the planning system has (or should have) no influence on future development patterns and are therefore equally blind but in the other direction. In reality, both scenarios should be created with the most likely outcome being somewhere between the two, depending on location.


137

politicians and communities though the development of the DAUP and ultimately the PAUP, and was also the factor used to determine the scenarios used in the CityEngine 3D visualisations 39. While the spreadsheet calculations are still driven off the FAR, the percentage build out value determines the FAR for modified theoretical. Table 37 below shows the current FAR, default percentage build out assumption and the calculated average resulting FAR (including manual overrides) under the modified theoretical assumption by business area type. Table 37: Average FAR inputs for the modified theoretical scenario

Business area classification

Current calculated FAR (all zoned land)

Assumed Per cent buildout of Maximum Theoretical (default input for modified theoretical scenario)

Business Park

0.31

20%

0.78

City Centre

1.73

85%

3.31

General Business

0.32

16%

0.49

Heavy Industry

0.26

9%

0.28

Light Industry

0.34

13%

0.44

Local Centre

0.39

25%

0.76

Metropolitan Centre

0.53

19%

1.66

Mixed Use

0.48

26%

0.87

Neighbourhood Centre

0.49

34%

0.79

Town Centre

0.48

27%

0.91

Calculated average business area type FAR (for modified theoretical)

As can be seen, the percentage build out assumptions (as a proportion of what is theoretically possible, as measured by the maximum theoretical scenario) are relatively low (with the exception of the City Centre) but all location types show a considerable increase in future average FAR over the current average FAR. For the majority of locations, the FARs are also less than 1.0, which implies that the built form will be one story or less. This is not correct, as the floor space expected in these areas can be arranged in multiple ways and for FARs over 0.5 (especially at the large scale these relate to) reflect a propensity for multilevel. Total business floor space is also directly related to the FAR (Floor space = Zoned Parcel Area x FAR), which for large areas quickly generates significant additional space, especially when considered against the current regional average FAR. That does not mean the assumptions taken collectively are necessarily unreasonable, or too pessimistic, but illustrate the difference between what is theoretically possible, what is reasonable and what is currently in place are very considerably different. This in turn suggests that the considerable change in business areas as is anticipated and sought by the plan but may not necessarily come easily.

9.6.3 Floor space assumption: residential floor space allocation factor The residential floor space allocation is the proportion of total floor space in each scenario that is assumed to be used for residential purposes. The assumptions used are based on the business area type (refer to Table 38 below) and have been based on discussions with the Unitary Plan teams, guided by the current split in representative business areas. These values are relatively arbitrary, as other than the industrial zones (where residential activity is non-complying – residential floor space is zero) and some centre zones (where certain road frontages the ground floor must be retail, or

39

For more information on the CityEngine 3D visualisations, refer Auckland Council, 2013a, Auckland Council, 2013b)


138

residential floor space must be less than 100 per cent), the PAUP does not actually specify these ratios. These assumptions are variable across all three scenarios by individual business area (by using the manual override). Table 38: Business redevelopment residential allocation factors Current calculated residential floor space split (% residential)

Residential allocation factor (modified and maximum theoretical scenarios)

Business Park

2.3%

1.0%

City Centre

36.7%

40.0%

General Business

0.0%

1.0%

Heavy Industry

0.0%

0.0%

Light Industry

7.5%

1.0%

Local Centre

11.3%

60.0%

Metropolitan Centre

2.1%

48.0%

Mixed Use

27.2%

60.0%


16.1%

50.0%

Town Centre

13.8%

50.0%

Business Area Classification

The diagram below (Figure 57) shows conceptually how a residential allocation factor is applied to a modelled floor space. Note that in actuality, the proportion is applied mathematically in a spreadsheet rather than spatially, see also comments above regarding application of averages. The red area in Figure 57 indicates the portion of building floor space that is assumed to be used for residential activity across the whole business area; in this case an example three level development is assumed, of which one third (or 33 per cent, or one level of three) is presumed to be used for residential activity. Figure 57: Diagram of an example of residential allocation to a modified theoretical scenario


139

9.6.4 Floor space assumption: average dwelling size (gross floor area per dwelling) The average dwelling size assumption indicates the gross average amount of building floor space (in square metres) that is allocated to each potential dwelling in a business area. (See also discussion of gross floor space in 7.5.1.5 Gross apartment floor area (THAB) where the same concept is applied and explained in more detail). This figure is used to convert the amount of residential allocated floor space calculated in square meters into capacity for dwellings. This assumption is applied based on the business area type (see Table 38), but allowance in the model has been given to allow the average dwelling size for each individual business area to be customised if so desired (refer to Appendix P: Business areas and centres with classifications including scenario assumptions for the assumption used for individual areas). This allows the ability to easily change assumptions for specific areas if requested, allowing possible scenario testing at a later date. Note that the average internal floor area of the apartments themselves will be less than these gross figures. Table 39: Business redevelopment residential dwelling average size Current calculated average gross floor area per dwelling (m²)

Default average gross floor area per dwelling (m2) (for modified and maximum scenarios)

Business Park

40

100

City Centre

99

76

General Business

62

100

Heavy Industry

249

100

Light Industry

175

100

Local Centre

112

100

Metropolitan Centre

138

90

Mixed Use

207

100


111

100

Town Centre

296

100


An average current dwelling gross floor area is calculated based on dividing the current floor space area classified as being used for residential purposes per business zoned parcel for each business area classification, divided by the known dwelling count for those same areas (both data sets are sourced from June 2013 Property IQ rates assessment data). These current calculations are done for each business area individually; the above current values are averages of the individual business areas by type. All data is initially sourced from PropertyIQ at RAA geography and converted to parcel before parcel are aggregated to business area and calculations are made. See Appendix E: Modelling rules for apportioning dwelling count from the rates assessment polygon to parcel polygon for more detail on this RAA to parcel data conversion process. Once this stage of calculating business redevelopment potential has been completed, an area’s remaining development capacity is calculated by the subtraction of existing dwelling totals from the modelled totals. Results for business area dwelling capacity can be found in the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report.

9.6.5 Floor space assumption: average gross floor space per employee The average gross floor space per employee assumption indicates the average amount of building gross floor space (in square metres) that is allocated to each potential employee in a business area. Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

140

This allows conversion of the non-residential floor area calculated to be converted into a measure of potential employment capacity. This assumption is calculated based on the existing employee numbers (sourced from 2013 Business Demographic data, supplied by Statistics New Zealand at meshblock geography, manually allocated to business areas) divided by current non-residential floor space (from June 2013 Property IQ rates assessment data) for an individual business area or centre. The assumption for each individual business area assessed can be found in Appendix P: Business areas and centres with classifications including scenario assumptions, and is summarised below in Table 40. Note that in this iteration of the study it was decided that it was not possible to make an accurate determination about how non-residential floor space might be used in the future (in the time available, and given that the PAUP does not specify floor space use by ANZIC code), and that existing workspace ratios are considered as good a value as any for the conversion of the remaining business area floor space (after removing that portion allocated to residential) to an assumed potential number of employees. Clearly variation of the workspace ratio used would influence the number of employees anticipated from a business area, and more detailed assumptions about the exact future mix of activities in a given location may be able to be made and utilised in the future. If that comes to pass, then the assumed workspace ratio from this new employment mix could also be recalculated. Table 40: Gross floor area per employee Current calculated average gross floor area per employee (m²)

Default average gross floor area per employee (m2) (modified and maximum scenarios)

Business Park

13

13

City Centre

34

34

General Business

59

59

Heavy Industry

91

91

Light Industry

76

76

Local Centre

39

39

Metropolitan Centre

38

38

Mixed Use

37

37


53

53

Town Centre

45

45


Once this stage of calculating business redevelopment potential has been completed, an area’s remaining development capacity is calculated by the subtraction of existing employment totals from the modelled totals. Results for business are employment capacity can be found in the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report.


141

10.0

Rural residential capacity methodology

10.1 Background The PAUP proposes a new approach to rural residential growth when compared to the region's legacy district plans. An Auckland Council press release summaries for a general audience the policies and objectives addressed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Auckland Council, 2013b):

Preserving productive farmland 3/07/2013

Managing the effects of rural and countryside living, while preserving productive farmland, were among issues discussed by councillors and local board chairs at the third Auckland Plan Committee draft Unitary Plan workshop today. Subjects raised for political direction included:    

Rural subdivision Countryside living lot sizes, location and extent Mixed-rural zone Second or subsequent dwellings on rural sites

There was general agreement with the direction of the Auckland Plan for rural areas to remain rural in character and future rural population growth to be focused in existing towns and villages. These sentiments were reflected in much of the feedback so far on the draft Unitary Plan. Suggested approaches discussed at the workshop today included:    

No net increase in the number of rural sites, to protect productive land and avoid fragmentation Investigate additional countryside living areas and potential for different lot sizes around rural towns and villages Review the location of the mixed rural zones and whether additional mixed rural zones would be appropriate Investigate providing for second or subsequent dwellings.

There are four main approaches to enabling additional dwellings in rural zones now provided for in the PAUP, these are: 1. Latent vacant site development, but subject to various site criteria 2. 'Traditional' subdivision based on minimum site area and/or consideration of a few overlays, the latter approach applied mainly in precincts (largely being translations of legacy provisions) 3. Transferable Rural Site Subdivision (TRSS) under two quite separate, but overlapping approaches: a. TRSS via vacant site amalgamation (requires identification of donors and receivers), and b. TRSS via significant environmental area (SEA) protection (requires identification of donors and receivers), and


142

4. Provisions enabling additional 'second or subsequent' dwellings for larger sites without necessarily facilitating subdivision. In contrast to previous legacy plans, development capacity in rural areas is deliberately limited in the PAUP, resulting in a planning approach that seeks to not increase the net number of rural titles from the existing count while still facilitating a reasonable level of dwelling growth for rural purposes. This requires an expansion on previous Capacity for Growth Study approaches to consideration of subdivision as a mechanism for calculating dwelling potential (on a one dwelling per title basis, more or less) to a much more complex approach reflecting the new PAUP framework. The PAUP enables some provision for additional dwellings without subdivision, and limited 'traditional' subdivision in certain locations, generally where legacy rules have been rolled over as precincts. A limited number of PAUP rural zones enable a traditional ‘minimum site area’ approach to subdivision, and there are also 'density bonus' provisions in certain ‘Transferable Rural Site Subdivision’ (TRSS) receiver locations facilitating receipt of donor sites. The majority of rural residential development from subdivision is expected to occur by way of TRSS, where ‘donor’ sites in specified zones with particular features or attributes (such as the appropriate area and type of Significant Environmental Area (SEA)) are able to be used to create (or transfer) potential to other specified ‘receiver’ locations where parcels in those receiver locations have the necessary attributes (such as site area) to do so. Calculation of the capacity under each option at the parcel level is relatively straightforward, as most locations in the region now operate under the single set of consistent rules, meaning a smaller set of rules has been required to be modelled, though their individual complexity more than makes up for the lack of numbers. The rural residential capacity component of the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 assesses each title in Auckland’s rural area for its latent development potential, subdivision and/or Transferable Rural Site Subdivision (TRSS), and potential for subsequent dwellings potential under the PAUP. The following sub-sections of this report outline the approaches used to model these rules, and the assumptions and limitations used are part of these approaches. The TRSS provisions enable the transfer of potential from site to site around the region as well as a limited increase in the number of rural lots. Due to the nature of the relationships between donor and receiver sites, it remains difficult to predict the actual source and destination of these transfers at a sub-regional scale.

10.1.1 TRSS: measuring the potential for transfer and receipt, and impacts on location specific growth calculations. Under TRSS provisions, the number of dwellings in the rural area is enabled to be moved around and increased and we can quite accurately identify the potential amount of this transfer or receiver ability increase on a parcel basis. Where those dwellings will ultimately be located and the number of titles they will end up occupying is a little harder to ascertain under the TRSS provisions - which allow but do not necessarily require, transfer of that potential to a very wide range of potential receiver locations. The potential for transferability between titles is measurable at the individual parcel level and at the regional scale, as the ability for an individual title to donate and/or receive can be calculated (along with any other development options) but is not able to accurately determined for any scale in between (such as a local board, catchment, or other study area). This is mainly because the relationship between donors and receivers is unknown and unknowable - there is no way to say that a particular vacant site will be used as a vacant donor (over say being developed in situ), and then if that title will be used to construct a dwelling or create a title on a particular receiver site, as the two are not required to be related in any way before the TRSS transaction occurs. In fact the PAUP specifically states that donor sites can be created without any receiver being prior known. We can calculate each site’s potential to donate or receive, but not if that will happen or where particular donors will get received on a per parcel basis. For this reason if any sub-regional geography is chosen (such as a local board area) we can indicate the total number of titles with the potential to donate TRSS, latent potential, second and third dwellings and receivers, but we cannot aggregate Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

143

these figures to say what the total number of dwellings in that given geography may be after all of these options are taken or otherwise, as donated titles may leave the assessment area, or be received from outside it and vice versa. Additional complications arise in the aggregation of results due to the number of (usually mutually exclusive) development options a parcel may have. In contrast to legacy district plans, this issue was solved by assessing all options and choosing the single approach that delivered the greatest number of dwellings (as a proxy for the greatest return to owner/highest capacity possible). Under the PAUP rules the modelled options where there is more than one, are often for a single dwelling, either happening in situ, or existing as a TRSS opportunity that can potentially occur 'elsewhere' - that is on potentially thousands of potential receiver titles that are not required to have any prior relationship with the donor. For this reason capacity is reported at the sub-regional level as 'without TRSS' only, 'with TRSS' total being ascertainable at the regional scale only. Total potential for donation and receipt within any given geography is possible but total growth outcomes for that geography are not.

10.2 Rural residential assumptions and limitations Below are the main assumptions and limitations that are specific to the rural residential component of this study. These are in addition to the assumptions and limitation for the study as a whole outlined in earlier sections: 

Where an existing title has more than one dwelling, existing dwellings are allocated to any potential new lots before new vacant title/TRSS are created. This is based on the assumption that this would be required by any consenting processes. Therefore the dwelling yield may be less than the number of new rural titles that is possible to be created, and results cannot be used to forecast subdivision consents or new titles (e.g. for development contributions calculations). This also applies to non-subdivision based development opportunities, such as second dwellings and vacant sites.



The study has not assessed the potential for rural based employment, only dwellings.



Where subdivision is used as the mechanism for determining a net dwelling yield, the model does not actually model ‘subdivision’ as lines on a map, but rather the mathematical potential for a minimum lot area to fit within a potential candidate area, less current dwelling count and any other constraints, and rounded down to the nearest integer (or whole dwelling).



Rural capacity is calculated at the individual title scale (and is reported at the macro scale). Considerably different outcomes could occur where more than a single title is utilised in a single application (i.e. the study does not consider combinations of titles or amalgamation to gain more subdivision potential, mainly because there is no objective, repeatable or practicable way of predicting which if the infinite combinations and iterations of titles would be likely or feasible, and is anecdotally rare in any case).



Rural assessment has been undertaken on a ‘title’ level (where as the urban assessments on a ‘parcel’ level).



No accounting is made for minor household units/subsidiary dwellings which are now limited to certain 'legacy plan' based precincts, but may enable considerable increase in 'dwelling' stock in those locations. Additional modelling could be undertaken in the future to investigate this potential.



Potential for “Second and Third dwellings” (as per the plan provisions) has been calculated for those sites where this option is available.



No modelling of boundary adjustments or other cadastral variations to create alternative cadastral patterns (with potentially different dwelling yield outcomes) has been (nor feasibly can be) made.



The assessed PAUP rural zones include titles that are partly or wholly inside the metropolitan limits (or RUB), as well as those outside, but do not include the urban type zoning of rural towns (as defined for this study) or special areas and structure plans (as


144

defined for this study). Some special areas are 'rural' in nature (and are discernable in the results report tables). 

Results include currently vacant titles that cannot be subdivided, that are assumed to have an underlying ‘right’ to erect a single dwelling, irrespective of district plan rules controlling location or bush clearance, in a similar manner to the treatment of urban residential parcels. However the PAUP does also have particular rules that do require consent for a dwelling (as a land use activity) and these are also calculated. This set of parcels may also have potential to erect a dwelling as a permitted activity, be amalgamated with an adjoining title and transfer the development potential to a receiver, protect SEA and transfer the bonus lots, be a TRSS receiver, subdivide or any number of other options.

10.3 Calculating rural residential capacity Rural residential capacity has been calculated based on selected parameters of the rural subdivision and general rules applying to each title that falls within the ‘rural area’ spatial and/or zone category definition and is not in a special area; rural town; business area; or otherwise inside a metropolitan residential zone. The definition of ‘rural area’ used in this study is outlined in Table 41 and shows the location of the Rural assessment area, which is further refined by zoning classification as 'rural' - see Appendix K: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rural zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions. Table 41: Rural area description Location Type

Rural area

Description

Assessment Method


Properties with a rural zoning (from Zone LUTs) that are outside of the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Area and those properties that are within the Metropolitan Urban Area that are zoned for rural use, excluding areas that have been identified as forming part of a rural town, or zoned Future Urban.

Rural residential component – titles analysed for rural residential development potential (latent potential, subdivision, TRSS, and additional dwellings) to derive a net dwelling potential.

Title

The interrelationship between development options and zoning is complex, but within this complexity there are patterns. A number of similar approaches have been grouped together into ‘rule groups’ to use the same workbench, with different parameters. FME workbenches were created for each 'rule group' to calculate potential capacity under a set of similar rule approaches applying across the suite of zones. A significant number of zones also allow for more than one approach to subdivision, meaning that the number of potential subdivision approaches exceed the number of zones. In these cases, each option has been assessed. Note that there are issues with determination of which option would be taken by a land owner with multiple options, (as in many cases the maximum number of dwellings enabled remains the same between options) with consequential calculation issues for the spatial determination of where any future dwelling may occur (onsite, or transferred somewhere else, or receiving additional dwellings). A large number of spatial features were also developed from both PAUP related data sets, and existing geo-spatial datasets to feed the various workbenches to enable the calculation of such criteria as the potential for SEA protection and similar. Details about these overlays can be found in Appendix F: Data and sources utilised in study, with description and source - with maps illustrating the extent and location, and sources of each of these spatial features shown in sections below.


145

Figure 58: Diagram of rural residential capacity calculation RURAL RESIDENTIAL


Title

Local Boards


CfGS Zoning

Designations

Data Mappings Lookups

Classical Subdivision / TRS Subdivision / Vacant Assessment

CfGS Name Data Mapping Filter

bldg. plat. min (x)

SEA bldg. plat. min (x)

vacant(D) title area min (x)

vacant(D) bldg. plat. min (x)

vacant(R) title area qual. (x)

vacant(R) title area min (x)

vacant(R) bldg. plat. min (x)

SEA(D) bldg. plat. min (x)

FME Geoprocessing Classical Subdivision (Custom and Other) Classical Subdivision (Minimum Site Area) TRS Subdivision (Vacant Donors and Receivers) TRS Subdivision (SEA Donors and Receivers) Vacant Assessment (Dwelling Count = 0)

(D) denotes Donor

(R) denotes Receiver

OTHER overlay area mins

Title Yield (dwellings)

Rural Residential Assessment ** Inspect Designation Count on outputs

All yields are given as a measure of the potential for net dwelling increase, after accounting for any existing dwellings on the title. The investigation of subdivision potential is only undertaken to better calculate the potential for additional dwellings. Dwelling yield is not a measure of potential new titles, nor a projection of subdivision consents, which may be less than, equal to or greater than dwelling yield depending on the circumstance. Titles that have a current dwelling count of zero and have no calculated potential for subdivision are assumed to have the potential for a single additional dwelling (yield equals one) as a basic property right. A further assessment of the potential for 'permitted' dwellings on vacant titles has also been undertaken to reflect new PAUP criteria (as far as possible) for compliance with new


146

dwelling consent status rule, given that not meeting this criteria makes the establishment of a dwelling on those sites a 'non-complying activity'. All calculation results are rounded down to the nearest whole integer, for example if a zone has a subdivision rule allowing one title per 1.0 hectares 40, and a candidate title is 2.9 hectares with a single existing dwelling, the yield calculation would be: 2.9 ℎ𝑎 ÷ 1 ℎ𝑎 = 2.9 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠 2.9 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 = 2

𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 2, 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 1 = 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑓 1

In this example the dwelling potential of the remaining 0.9 hectares lot is ignored, as it does not strictly comply with the modelled rules. A possible ‘real world’ application of such a result is that the title may have a 1.0 hectare new lot and a 1.9 hectares balance or two 1.45 hectares titles or any variation thereof. An alternative scenario may be that a three (or more?) lot subdivision consent where one or more lots is smaller than 1.0 hectare may be applied for by way of application under a higher consent category, but as that is beyond the rule parameters modelled and subject to the consent process 41 we have not considered this potential further. Decimal yields are contained in the raw outputs for further analysis, but these are less relevant under the PAUP rules than under legacy district plan rules due to the very stringent criteria applied. Where accounting for existing dwellings results in a negative yield (i.e. the current number of dwellings exceeds the potential subdivision potential under current rules) these are recorded as a yield equalling zero. This is done because this study is assessing potential capacity for additional dwellings, not gross potential for new titles, and the rules do not require the removal of legally established existing development. The approach taken to calculate capacity was to group subdivision approaches into groups representing similar approaches for processing purposes. These are described in general terms in section 10.3.1 (Rural capacity calculation rule groups), with individual approaches discussed in more detail in the following section 10.3.2 (Rural capacity calculations).

10.3.1 Rural capacity calculation rule groups For the calculation of development opportunity, the various options for development are classified into four main ‘rule groups’: 1. Vacant sites/latent potential (capturing vacant site development) 2. Minimum site area subdivision (the 'traditional' approach to rural residential growth) 3. TRSS (to calculate donor and receiver potential under each of the TRSS approaches); and 4. Custom and other being a catchall for those that did not fit into the preceding groups, as shown in Table 42 below. Further details of the approach taken to modelling each group is outlined in the relevant rule group sub-sections below.

40

This example rule was used in the legacy plan report, and was relatively common under Legacy rules, but could only occur under the PAUP rules in a Countryside Living Zone identified as a TRSS receiver. 41

All subdivision is subject to resource consent. The point is that such applications would no longer be assessed at the consent category that the rules specifying the minimum lot size are, so moves the proposal into a higher category subject to more discretionary assessment and analysis, which is not easily modelled in an objective manner. We neither suggest nor imply that planning assessment can or should be undertaken by algorithm.


147

Table 42: Rural residential capacity calculation groups Development option

Development option sub-type 0A: Unoccupied_title_yield

0. Vacant sites/latent capacity 0B: Permitted_unoccupied_title 1A: Subdiv_1A_150ha 1. Minimum site area subdivision 1B: Subdiv_1B_CSLpreTRSS 2A1: TRSS_2A1_Vacant_Donor 2a. Vacant site amalgamation 2A2: TRSS_2A2_Vacant_Receiver

2. Transferable rural site subdivision

2B1: TRSS_2B1_SEA_Donor 2b. Sea protection 2B2: TRSS_2B2_SEA_Receiver 3B1: Greenhithe A 3B2: Rodney landscape group

3. Custom and Others

3B3: Clevedon 3 3B4: Runciman A & B 3C: Second_and_Third_Rural_dwelling

10.3.1.1 Rural rule group 0: Vacant sites/latent potential This group covers vacant sites, which have been assessed in two ways; 

0A: all vacant titles, and



0B: those vacant titles where it is a Permitted Activity to erect a dwelling.

Previous studies included calculation of vacant titles as any title with a rural zoning where the current dwelling count was equal to zero, as having a latent potential for at least one dwelling (as an underlying property right allowing reasonable use, which we have taken to mean residential occupation 42). This category remains included, as 'unoccupied title'. This is calculated as: Unoccupied title = (dwelling count = 0)

A new assessment to identify those unoccupied titles where it is a PAUP permitted activity to erect a dwelling, given that the PAUP outlines a number of criteria for this test to be met (where, these criteria are not met it is a Non-Complying Activity - see Part 3, Chapter I, Section 13, Rule 2.6.1). Identification of vacant parcels where the establishment of a dwelling is a Non-complying Activity is therefore discernable from those reported parcels where: (Unoccupied title = 1) AND (permitted unoccupied title = 0)

The 'unoccupied title' starting set is also the starting input for the vacant TRSS donor candidate set, though a number of criteria (similar to the 'permitted unoccupied title' criteria but with some differences) are applied before the computationally intensive neighbour testing process is launched. See also section 10.3.2.10, which describes second and third rural dwellings, which is a form of ‘latent potential’, but as a very late addition to the PAUP have been included in the 'custom and other' calculation group. This rule enables the construction of additional dwellings on larger rural sites (greater than 40 hectares in area) without prior (nor necessarily allowing subsequent) subdivision.

42

On rural zoned sites only - parks, reserves, roads and etc will not be captured in this set and we do not include them in this assumption that reasonable use includes occupation in a permanent dwelling house


148

10.3.1.2 Rural rule group 1: Minimum site area subdivision This option exists in only a few zones in the rural area, mainly Rural Production and Mixed Rural zones at 150 hectares minimum site area, and in the Countryside Living zone (CSL) (which can be modified by TRSS 'bonus' capacity where these provisions exist) at four hectares minimum site area or less.

1A. 150 hectare minimum In the Rural Production and Mixed Rural zones the minimum site area for subdivision is 150 hectares. Very few titles in these zones are 300 hectares or more, the majority of which are in isolated locations. Accordingly the 150 hectare minimum rule generates very little subdivision potential, and can be considered to be effectively nil in terms of feasibly realisable growth potential. As most sites meeting these criteria also would have other, higher yielding options for development (including the option of plan changes or non-complying activity applications) it is considered unlikely that this rule will be utilised by land owners in other than the rarest situations. None of the other rural zones (Rural Coastal, Rural Conservation) have an option for traditional subdivision' of the actual parcel, but these do allow for TRSS donation (via both vacant sites and SEA protection) and receipt to and from other receiving zones, and in some instances (subject to coastal policy overlays) second and third dwellings.

1B. CSL without TRSS Countryside Living zones (CSL) where a minimum site area 43 provision is enabled, usually allows freehold minimum site area subdivision to between one and four hectares. Some (but not all) CSL areas are also provided with a 'bonus' density provision enabling increased development where a qualified TRSS donation right is utilised either from Vacant Site amalgamation or SEA protection. This is discussed in the TRSS provisions below. The CSL area rules are identified by the ‘additional subdivision controls’ overlay, but also in a number of precinct rules. There are no ‘general subdivision’ rules that apply to the CSL zone as a whole or generically – thus, if a CSL zoned site is not within the additional subdivision overlay or otherwise identified in a precinct there are no subdivision rules to apply to these sites, and capacity has not been assessed, as the PAUP has not enabled any 44. There are also a number of locations where there is overlap between precincts and overlays, which due to our data preparation processes, the overlay rules will take priority 45. We understand the correct or intended zoning to be applied to these 'missing' and overlapped areas will be included in the council's submission to the hearings panel to amend the various rules and data to reflect the most appropriate approach to be applied, and this will be incorporated into subsequent modelling in due course. These CSL locations are shown in Figure 59 below.

43

Note that the average is used where rules outline a minimum and an average net site area. For the purposes of capacity calculations, the minimum is of no relevance (it may however influence how that capacity might be ultimately arranged on the subdivided title, but not how much capacity is possible from the title as each 'minimum ' area site must be offset by a larger one to maintain the rule average) so the largest of the two provided values (being the average) has been used as the input variable. This same approach applies to CSL TRSS receiver provisions. 44

It is understood that this situation is the result of last minute amendments to the extent of the CSL zone that were not matched by adjustments to the additional subdivision controls. We understand that one of the Auckland Council submission points has sought to address this issue, based mainly on the feedback from the model development process. Decisions of the hearings panel on this submission (and others) will be incorporated into future modelling processes in due course, most likely postCouncil consideration of recommendations and subsequent update to the required spatial data (and rules).

45

As for CSL generally, resolution of these issues will be subject to hearings panel and Council consideration of submissions (if any) on these issues.


149

Figure 59: Countryside living locations by rule source and development type


150

10.3.1.3 Rural rule group 2: Transferable rural site subdivision (TRSS) There are two separate approaches to TRSS outlined in the PAUP: 

Vacant site amalgamation, and



Significant Environmental Area (SEA) protection.

Each approach has quite different donor and receiver site attributes, and a varying list of spatial exclusions and specific site criteria. In summary however, vacant site TRSS allows the transfer of 'latent potential' from a qualifying vacant site to a wide range of other 'receiver' locations, with the additional requirement that the vacant site be absorbed into a neighbouring ‘amalgamating’ title. The newly combined amalgamated site (vacant site plus a valid neighbouring one) must also meet certain criteria once combined. The key parameters controlling the capacity for TRSS under the rule is the nature of the vacant title and its adjoining neighbours, but the rule does not create any new dwelling opportunities, or increase the net number or rural titles - it only enables the movement of them around, ideally (but not necessarily) from more sensitive locations to less sensitive ones. SEA protection TRSS on the other hand, allows the creation of transferable title rights from areas within the SEA coverage of the plan, following additional identification and classification (into the various SEA TRSS classes), pest and weed control, legal protection and fencing of various sizes of ecology based on its class within the PAUPs SEA layer. Note that environmental features not within the specified PAUP SEA layer are not valid features for the purpose of this rule. Once these criteria are met and appropriate actions taken, the SEA allows the creation of ‘SEA bonus’ TRSS lots, which must be transferred to specified receiver locations, which the PAUP specifies as only certain CSL precincts. Key parameters controlling capacity for TRSS under this rule are the size and quality/class of the SEA features. This rule does facilitate a net increase in the number of dwellings and titles in the rural area, (via the bonus lots) but that increase is only 'realisable' in the identified receiver areas, all of which are in the Countryside Living zone, which can be generally considered to be less sensitive than the sites with SEA donating the TRSS. The specific rules applying are outlined in full in the subdivision section of the PAUP. They have been summarised into the key aspects utilised in modelling outlined in Table 43 below. Table 43: TRSS Rule summary TRSS method

2A: Vacant site amalgamation

2B: SEA protection

TRSS Donors

2A.1 Vacant donors

2B.1 SEA donors

Donor Zones

Both sites (vacant title and adjacent amalgamate) must be in: Rural Production Mixed Rural Rural Coastal Rural Conservation Future Urban

Donor site attributes required

Two sites required, at least one of which must be vacant. Vacant site must abut/adjoin the other amalgamating site. Both must be a minimum area of one hectare and when combined have a maximum density of one dwelling per 40 hectares.


Not specified. (Sites in all rural zones are potential SEA donors, provided they have the requisite SEA features).

Contain SEA of specified area/category not already protected by covenant (or other legal protection).

151

TRSS method

2A: Vacant site amalgamation

2B: SEA protection

Donor site exclusions (attributes the site must not have)

Must not be a road severance or closed road lot, or subject to designation.

Must not be a road severance or closed road lot, or subject to designation.

TRSS receivers

2A.2 Vacant Receivers

2B.2 SEA Donors

Receiver zones

Rural Production (one TRSS per receiver only) Mixed Rural (one per two hectares of site area) Countryside Living (where TRSS provisions exist) Note also Rural Subdivision Table 6 requirements outlining from zone to zone relationships (not specifically modelled but will apply at point of transfer) Rural and Coastal Villages (TBD)

Countryside Living zones where TRSS provisions exist) Rural and Coastal Villages (TBD)

Receiver site attributes required

All receivers: Demonstrate compliance with the general and Auckland wide subdivision standards with the exception of the minimum lot size. Receiver not in CSL: Be at least two hectares, and have at least two hectares in balance area after receiving TRSS (i.e. min area greater than four hectares). (Note Rural Production can receive only one TRSS). Receiver in CSL: Comply with the minimum lot size with TRSS provisions in the relevant CSL Precinct (refer additional subdivision controls overlay)

Receiver site exclusions/overlays

Outstanding Natural Character (ONC) High Natural Character (HNC) Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL) Significant Environmental Area (SEA) Receiver site exclusion areas Contain no Elite or Prime land. (Area of LUC 1, 2 or 3 soils on parcel must be zero)

All receivers: Demonstrate compliance with the general and Auckland Wide subdivision standards. Identified as a CSL TRSS receiver location in Subdivision Rules Rural Table 10 (Part3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.8.c.ii). Have at least six metres of frontage for each proposed new lot.

ONC HNC ONL SEA Receiver site exclusion areas

For TRSS approaches, donor and receiver potential is calculated separately, and effectively form 'buckets' of potential - potential to donate TRSS (donors) and potential to receive TRSS (receivers). The actual transfer of potential TRSSs from a single donor to a single receiver is not modelled as that is more dependent on 'happy coincidence' between inter-personal relationships and market issues, quite distinct from any plan enabled potential for transfer, between potential donors and potential receivers. Note also that there are overlaps between the donor and receiver 'buckets', particularly for vacant site TRSSs (some sites can both donate and receive TRSS, though in some instances the options are mutually exclusive) and there is overlap between the buckets for vacant and SEA donation and receipt (all four buckets overlap). These issues have not been resolved such that estimates at a sub-regional scale of growth (or decline) in the number of dwellings or rural titles can be ascertained at any sub-regional scale.


152

Countryside Living is one of many receiver locations for vacant site TRSS, but is the only location where SEA protection TRSS can be accommodated. All CSL areas with the potential to receive TRSS are in the northern rural area. Thus, there may be potential for the numerical ability for SEA lots to be transferred, will be reduced by vacant lots, ‘taking up the available slots’ in CSL, which may have flow on negative effects to the permanent enhancement and protection (via covenants, weed and pest control and fencing etc., in addition to the general PAUP protections) of SEA, if SEA protection lot incentive is not able to be transferred. This is discussed further below and the rules themselves are listed in Table 10 of the rural subdivision rules of the PAUP (Auckland Council, 2013a). The high cost and threshold for TRSS to first be consented and created, fenced and covenanted, which then of course needs to then paid for by a receiver, on a one-to-one basis suggests that TRSS may not be a particularly economic proposition. Therefore the actual numbers of transfers is likely be significantly lower than the potential for transfer, but this has not been the subject of any detailed analysis. While it may be economic for receivers in highly desirable locations to purchase TRSS from sites in less desirable locations, it is unlikely to remove latent vacant site development potential from highly sensitive, yet highly desirable areas. There is also a potential 'double jeopardy' issue with small (smaller than one hectare) sites that were not created in accordance with the permitted activity dwelling criteria, such as road severance lots or ‘paper town lots, which are relatively common in some areas of Franklin - Such sites are not valid TRSS donors (so they cannot be amalgamated and 'transferred' to more suitable locations) and erecting a dwelling on them is a Non-Complying Activity. We understand from the rules applying to these sites that development of them is considered to be undesirable (being a Non-Complying Activity), but as they are not transferable either (to presumably more suitable locations), then their likely development outcome will be that they are ultimately be developed, in situ resulting in the effects the consent classification seeks to avoid (by making it difficult to consent), but not does provide an alternative.

10.3.1.4 Rural rule group 4: Custom and other Various other rural overlays and precincts (many are ‘rollovers’ of legacy zones) also provide for some Minimum lot Area type approaches, but often in consideration of additional factors such as bush cover, various landscape factors or slope, depending on the relevant issue in the locality and legacy planning regime. As the majority of these precincts and overlays are 'rollovers' of legacy planning provisions modelling approach has accordingly been 'copied' from the 2012 Capacity for Growth Study, but a large proportion of them have also been 'translated' from legacy plans or represent legacy plan changes that have now been incorporated into the PAUP provisions, and require modelling to reflect the PAUP. A number of locations and development approaches are included in this group including second and third rural dwellings.

10.3.2 Rural capacity calculations The sections below outline the detail of the calculations, assumptions and methodology undertaken to calculate each individual development option. The allocation of rural zones to processing groups is shown in Appendix K: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rural zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions and Appendix M: Rural zone processing guide.

10.3.2.1 Specified building areas, safe building platforms (SBP) and the protection of ecological values The subdivision of rural sites is subject to the general rules for all subdivisions laid out in various subdivision, rural and general sections of the plan. We have pulled the majority of these rule requirements from various parts of the plan as spatial requirements combined together into a single set of criteria used as a spatial overlay and used for all rural subdivision to test for suitable building platform/specified building area compliance.


153

This approach is used as a 'base' standard against which all rural development is modelled, except where more detailed (and therefore stringent or different) requirements are imposed by the relevant precincts or overlay. These rather dispersed rules are collated and paraphrased below: 

Each proposed site for a residential building must be able to contain provide at least 5000 square metres 'specified building area' (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.1.c.i)



However Subdivision Rule 2.3.1.c.ii (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5) requires only 2000 square metres of this 'specified building area' (we have termed this smaller area are ‘building footprint area’) to be clear of:



The one per cent (1%) annual exceedance probability (AEP) floodplain (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.1.c.ii and also Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.2.3.2).



Any required yard setbacks (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 13, Rule 3.2) including coastal protection yards, road yards, quarry buffer areas, and similar ‘yard’ type features



Any required provision for appropriate esplanade reserve of 20 metres in width from specified features (i.e. lakes, the sea and rivers) (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.1.6)



Subdivision rule 2.2.3.2 (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5) also outlines that all subdivision applications must show the location of indigenous vegetation within SEA, wetlands, rivers lakes and streams, provide a report assessing them from an appropriately qualified person, give effect to policies and objectives that promote the protection of valuable natural features, and that the council may require these features to be protected by fencing, weeding, pest control, and/or providing access, but does not definitively state that they are to be avoided (c.f. site shape factor requirements for residential and business subdivision. As we cannot assess each feature 'on the ground', nor determine if an unknown future subdivision layout 'gives effect to objectives and policies' without assessing a layout against them, this should be noted as a limitation of the analysis. We also note that applications deemed to not meet this requirement would be assessed as a Non-Complying Activity. Therefore we have assumed, that SEA, wetlands, rivers, lakes and streams are not suitable for inclusion in the smaller ‘building footprint area’.



Account is also taken of the general rule expectation that development would also be located outside of various other hazards, ecological and landscape features, elite soils and other features mentioned in the particular rule, precinct or overlay discussed in more detail in the individual capacity calculation section below.



Considering all of the above, only the 2000 square metres ‘building footprint area’ is tested, with the 5000 square metres tested against site area only (i.e. provided a title is larger than 5000 square metres and has an area free of the listed features larger than 2000 square metres the title is deemed to pass these combined tests.

These rules can be further summarised (and have been applied) as follows: 

Title area big enough to contain a specified building area (5000 square metres)?



Net area of title after removing land within various overlays larger than the building footprint area (2000 square metres)?

Below Figure 60 illustrates the spatial extent of this basic rural specified building area constraint, which appears to be very extensive, but there is a remarkable amount of land 'in between' that meets the criteria for development. The interpretation of whether the rules require the entire starting title, the proposed title, or just the defined building platform areas are required to be clear of the identified hazards/features are of key importance to the resulting yields in the situation where these features are so extensive. The plan is relatively unclear with respect to these matters, and in discussions with the Unitary Plan Rural team we have taken the most conservative approach, which is consistent with the general Resource Management Act (RMA) approach to interpretation (strictest applies/precautionary principle). Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

154

Figure 60: Rural specified building area constraints (general)


155

10.3.2.2 Latent capacity 0A: Vacant titles This is measured consistent with the other measures of vacant parcels in the residential zones and previous studies. Note also that titles meeting this criteria are also candidates for Permitted dwelling vacant titles and vacant donor sites (these two are subsets of vacant titles), as well as potential overlapping with other development options such as subdivision or TRSS options. Calculation: Select titles where that are presently vacant (dwelling count equals zero); no other testing undertaken. IF (𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 = 0) THEN (𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 1), ELSE (𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 0)

10.3.2.3 Latent capacity 0B: Vacant titles where dwelling is permitted

This is a far more complex calculation than vacant titles taking account of the specific requirements of Rule 2.6.1 (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 13), but also the spatial requirements of the Coastal Policy Overlay mentioned in Rule 2.6.2 (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 13) Table 1, and the specific requirements of other overlays where known. In developing mechanisms to test for the criteria listed in Table 44 below, we noted that a number of the rule criteria relate to the way in which the title 'came into existence', which is not possible to test for with the high level title data available. In practice this will require the careful review of every individual title’s documentation, and some cross checking with old, sometimes incomplete paper records, and would be part of the documentation required to be provided by applicants and cross checked by planners at the time of consent. Because of this, we have not been able to test for all of the rules’ criteria directly, and accordingly the results may potentially represent an over count of ‘valid’ permitted vacant title development. However as we have not been able to ascertain a relationship one way or the other between the effect of dwelling construction on existing privately owned rateable properties (being the effect that is to be managed by this rule), and the original title creation mechanism (being the rule trigger) that is not otherwise captures by title size, shape factor or other such site attribute criteria that is already tested for, and therefore any over count may actually be very minimal. The selection of titles where the parcels meet the relevant criteria for permitted activity dwellings are outlined in Table 44 below.


156

Table 44: Vacant title where dwelling is permitted: rule summary Rule

Modelling note/comment

Modelling test parameters

Not a closed road or road severance allotment

Not tested, insufficient data to discern

Not tested

Two tests here, 1: A Territorial Authority (TA) must have granted consent, ELSE 2: The title area must be larger than 2 ha.

_title_area_calculated > $VACANT_TITLE_AREA_MIN (=20,000)

If a council, or its predecessor did not grant consent to its creation its net site area must exceed 2 ha

Comment: The TA consent is not discernable from data available, so a title issue date test is used as a proxy, being newer than1973 when most TA's should have had a Town and Country Planning Act (1977) District Scheme well developed. 2. If the title is older than this, then it must be larger than 2 ha.

… title issued under the Land Transfer Act (1952)...

Not tested, insufficient data to discern; see title date test.

Not tested

… must be separately recorded on a Valuation Roll at 1 November 2010…

Not explicitly tested, but assessment geography is legal title areas.

Title geography as input

(paraphrased) … an additional spatial requirement for some locations in the Rural Coastal zone means a dwelling on these sites (within Rural Coastal Policy Overlay) is a Restricted Discretionary Activity (see rural zone rules). Rodney Landscape Precincts also require dwellings (all dwellings are buildings) to obtain consent.

Spatial overlay with Rural Coastal Policy Overlay and Rodney Landscape Overlays.

Spatial overlay with Rural Coastal Policy Overlay and Rodney Landscape Overlays.

OR

_title_issue_date_newest > 19721231

10.3.2.4 Minimum site area subdivision 1A: 150 hectare subdivision The assessment of capacity is driven by the CFGS_ASSESS_RURAL_LUT Minimum Title area values and only applies where CFGS_UID in (ZN_4_11, ZN_4_16) - i.e. Mixed Rural and Rural Production Zones. This is the 'classic subdivision' option provided in the PAUP for rural areas, other than some precincts and the CSL areas where TRSS is not enabled.

10.3.2.5 Minimum site area subdivision 1B: Countryside Living (without TRSS) The rules in this group are driven by CFGS_ASSESS_CSL_LUT minimum title area values and associated CSL location overlay, which is a subset of the additional subdivision controls overlay combined with the additional data from other precincts and overlays, all of which has been reconfigured to suit the requirements of our modelling approach (CSL_LUT variables added). See also Figure 59. Note rule requirement for all parcels to have a minimum road frontage of 15 metre if front sites, minimum of six metre road frontage if they are to be rear. For calculation purposes, it is assumed all Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

157

new (and parent) sites will be 'rear sites' and use six metre frontage limitation, titles not meeting this rule are Non-Complying and so non-passing of this test is fatal to their chances of containing modelled capacity (the yield on sites with larger than six metres of frontage is zero) as it steps consent category beyond that modelled. Because of the difference in frontage required for front (larger than 15 metres required) and rear sites ( larger than six metres required), this rule is less onerous (or more generous) than perhaps intended (as frontage length/six metres > frontage length/15 metres). Note that no accounting of the percentage front and rear parcel requirement mentioned elsewhere in the rural subdivision rules has been made, which may limit the number of ‘rear’ sites.

10.3.2.6 TRSS 2A1: Vacant donors Not all parcel tests required by the various vacant donor rules (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3) are included in the model (i.e. not road severance parcel, or sites on approved scheme plans, but not yet on individual titles (i.e. have 223 but not 224c)). Thus, the calculations may include some road severance parcels (that pass the other tests) potentially increasing yield, but this will be more than offset by not accounting for consented lots that have not yet been converted to titles. (See also comments regarding latent potential – permitted vacant sites above). Unimplemented consented lots: The rules also allow the transfer (as TRSS) of pre-approved but notimplemented lots “…shown on an approved scheme plan of subdivision which would, if given effect to, create sites that could be used under these rules”. As with all assessments in this study, the title cadastre at the time of assessment is used, as lots not yet titled do not form part of the existing cadastre we cannot model them. Data from as yet unimplemented resource consents could be used to add to the potential donor list if required, but is beyond the scope of this current study. Territorial authority granted: As the body granting consent (or purpose of creating the tile – e.g. road severance lot) cannot be directly ascertained without resource intensive manual investigation of every single rural title document, a ‘title age’ test has been included as a proxy to allow the capturing of titles that are smaller than 1ha, that were 'granted consent by a territorial authority'. The assumed minimum title age is 1973, on the basis that no/few TAs had valid district schemes prior to this date, effectively assuming all consents from 1973 onwards were granted by 'council or a predecessor'. Vacant sites and their neighbouring amalgamatee: A test added to the vacant donor rules (as compared with the DAUP) requires that both the resulting amalgamated titles (the vacant title and the neighbouring title that it must be amalgamated into) must be: 

Within a specified set of zones, and



The combined area of both must be greater than 40 hectares and



Resulting density must be no greater than one dwelling per 40 hectares.

These requirements seem relatively simple, but are very complex to test for, as the attributes of all abutting parcels are required to be considered in addition to that of the vacant parcel. This requires a two-step process:  Finding otherwise valid vacant parcel candidates 

Testing abutting neighbouring sites to ensure the combination of both pass the required tests.



Vacant parcels without suitable neighbouring sites are not valid TRSS, but (contrary to our initial suspicions) few sites are without suitable neighbours, and many sites have more than one neighbour. This is possible as the ‘abutting’ test does not specify a minimum abutment length, which if introduced (e.g. to ensure reasonable access between each ‘part’ of the


158

amalgamated title) may limit amalgamation potential considerably, as many neighbours are fairly tenuous in their spatial relationship. A concatenated (comma separated) list of the ‘CRC ID’ (unique title ID provided by modelling process) of the amalgamation candidate parcels is also appended as an attribute on the vacant donor parcel for future investigations of potential parcel combinations, as illustrated in Figure 61 below, which shows the CRC IDs of all rural titles (black text), as well as vacant TRSS donor titles with the concatenated list of potential amalgamation candidates CRC IDs (in red text with white outline). Close investigation of the concatenated amalgamatee candidate list for each vacant title enables the suitable candidates for the vacant donor title to amalgamate into to be individually identified, and considered further. In reviewing these results, we have noted that a significant proportion of potential amalgamation combinations are between adjacent ‘vacant donor TRSS titles’ (which is not precluded by the rules and indeed is a logical possibility) rather than into existing occupied titles. This suggests that either, the practical potential for transfer of TRSS potential ‘future dwellings’ to other locations may not be as high as the total number of vacant candidates, or, on the other side of the equation, those now combined 46 (large sites) could be further combined with ever smaller, but as yet unidentified titles , but in this case, while the potential combinations increase, the likelihood of these increasingly complex land transactions occurring on a widespread basis, decreases.

46

Amalgamation Candidate combinations are, like the rest of the analysis in this study, based on the cadastral pattern as it currently exists. If two (or more) adjacent vacant titles were amalgamated with a third (or more) title, the CRC_ID iterations would be substantially different, as the combined area of the two vacant sites would decrease the required size (and dwelling count) of the third (or subsequent) amalgamatee.


159

Figure 61: Vacant TRSS candidate parcels and potential amalgamatee parcels

10.3.2.7 TRSS 2A2: Vacant receivers Vacant amalgamation receiver titles are those that are enabled to be subdivided on the basis that a TRSS potential from a donor located elsewhere, is transferred to them. Note that this calculation is completely independent of the donor calculation, in that each process is calculating the individual titles potential for donating and/or receiving. This results in some overlap between the two sets, with several sites having potential as both donors and receivers, but in a practical future options sense, these options are mutually exclusive. This issue and others noted earlier are key reasons why accurate calculation of the potential for net increase in dwellings in the rural area generally, or specific areas in the rural area specifically is very difficult to Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

160

ascertain as it requires each titles ‘preferred’ option to be determined, of which there are many potential iterations. General rules: The rules for calculating vacant receivers are relatively simple, and very close to ‘traditional subdivision’, other than the requirement that uptake of that potential is related to the transfer of latent potential from another site. In Rural Production, parcels meeting certain criteria (two hectares for new parcel plus balance greater than two hectares equals four hectares minimum qualifying parcel) are enabled to receive vacant donors at a rate of one per existing title (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.4.c.x). In Mixed Rural, the effective density upon receipt of TRSS is one per two hectares (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.4.c.iv and v), also requiring a four hectares minimum size, the difference being that each additional two hectares title area allows for the receipt of further TRSS. Countryside Living (CSL) also operates on a density basis, the actual site areas controlled by a spatial overlay and linked table in the rules. Exclusion features: In developing the model, there was considerable discussion with the Unitary Plan team over whether the list of features in listed in Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.4.c.iii required that the entire starting title be clear of them, or just any proposed new title created (i.e. does '...following amalgamation, all receiver sites must...' ... '...be located outside of...' mean the same thing as the term ...following amalgamation, all receiver sites must...' ...'...contain no...' as the term is used with respect Elite Soils in Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.4.c.vii?). It was decided that the more conservative approach would be taken with these features being considered as exclusions (maximum area of feature on title must be less than or equal to zero), with the architecture of the model being designed to allow for the movement of these features from 'exclusions' (maximum area equal to zero) to 'constraints' (area of feature on title must allow room for specified building area) if a more liberal interpretation was to be taken in the future. CSL and Rural Production zones also require there to be no elite soils on the receiver title (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.4.c.viii), and we have determined that the features listed in (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3.4.c.iii) (ONC, HNC, ONL, SEA and Receiver Site Exclusion Areas) will be treated as exclusions (area of 0m2 on receiver title rather than net area clear of). Figure 62 below illustrates the combined extent of these TRSS Vacant Receiver ‘exclusion’ features.


161

Figure 62: TRSS vacant receiver exclusion features

Countryside Living: CSL zones receiver potential are driven by a particular subset of rules outlined in Table 10 of Rule 2.3.3.8.c.iii (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5), which outlines those CSL locations (spatially identified via the additional subdivision controls overlay) where TRSS receipt is possible, essentially as a 'density bonus'. In each of these three (of nine) named CSL locations the 'base' rule is for a two hectares minimum, with the receipt of TRSS allowing for the effective density to be reduced to one hectare. Figure 59 shows the location of the CSL areas enabled to accommodate TRSS. Note that they are all located in the northern rural area of the region, meaning SEA donor sites from the southern part of the region will need to move into the northern if they are to be realised. Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

162

Rural Production: Titles in the Rural Production Zone, may receive a single TRSS lot, if the title is larger than four hectares (allowing for a two hectare balance lot and a minimum two hectares TRSS lot). No testing is made for existing dwelling(s) in the Rural Production zone, as how this is to be dealt with is not specified in the rules, and there are other rules in the plan also enabling multiple dwellings to exist on certain larger rural titles. Thus, any Rural Production sites over four hectares (two hectares minimum in addition to two hectares for the balance lot) is treated as a potential receiver irrespective of the number of dwellings on it (subject to the other spatial exclusion testing criteria mentioned above, and the general rural subdivision provisions regarding specified building areas applies for each new transfer site (and the inevitable dwelling that goes along with it). ‘Existing dwelling count’ check functionality could be added if required, however clarification would be required as to whether existing dwellings would be enabled to be on its own individual title by using a TRSS up first (where subdivision is not otherwise enabled) before additional TRSS allow new dwellings on new vacant parcels, and the interface between this expectation and the general dwelling rule applying in rural zones. Mixed Rural: Titles in the Mixed Rural zone may receive unlimited number of TRSS donors at a rate of one per two hectares (1:2 hectares), with a minimum two hectare ‘balance lot’ (requiring a starting area of four hectares). Given the 1:2 hectares rule, it is has been assumed (in contrast to Rural Production) that each existing dwelling on the title would be put onto its own ‘two hectare block’ before any new vacant two hectare blocks were created. Although the same provision for multiple dwellings exists on larger sites in this zone as for Rural Production; given that titles must be at least 40 hectares in area before a second dwelling is permitted, this potential inconsistency will make only small numerical impacts on the (already large) receiver potential of large (larger than 40 hectares in area) Mixed Use titles. On the other hand, this assumption may also undercount the potential TRSS transfer potential if any number of existing dwellings is enabled to be located on the two hectares balance lot rather than being allocated their own two hectares lot before any TRSS are enabled. Mixed Rural TRSS is subject to the other spatial exclusion testing criteria mentioned above, and the general rural subdivision provisions regarding specified building areas applies for each new transfer site (and the inevitable dwelling that goes along with it). Potential vs. growth: Note that the receiver calculation is the calculation of titles potential to receive TRSS and be developed as a result, and there is no actual relationship between donors and receivers either generally or particular titles specifically, either modelled or assumed. The potential for parcels to ultimately take up this opportunity to develop in the way modelled does of course depend on a specific future donor-to-receiver transfer relationship, but this is not what is being calculated, nor can it be realistically be done using parcel attributes. At a global level (and within certain zones where the rules provide for limited transfer into the zone from other zones) the amount of donors and receivers can be compared, but there is no way to say that donor title 𝑥 TRSS will ultimately be utilised on receiver title 𝑦, as they are not required to have any discernable pre-existing relationship before this occurs. Some localised transfer requirements are built into the rules for some locations but this only localises the issue within those locations as the transfer between donor and receiver in terms of growth (or reduction in latent) potential still remains as much of an issue within those locations as it does across the broader rural area.

10.3.2.8 TRSS 2B1: SEA donors The calculation of the potential to be a SEA donor is based on the parameters outlined in Rule 2.3.3.5 (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5). The rules allow the creation of ‘TRSS bonus lots’ in return for SEA enhancement and permanent legal protection, thereby incentivising enhancement and (as the SEA rules themselves only limit potential degradation caused by human induced land use activities, but not by weeds or pests, or potential future rule changes). Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

163

The rule does not specify the 'zone' that a donor site must be (though it will obviously need to be in the ‘rural zone’ group as the rule is within the rural section), only that the site must be 'In an SEA', though in practice it is the area of SEA within an existing title that determines TRSS donor potential. Rule 2.3.3.5.a (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5) outlines the specific requirements the SEA feature must meet in order to qualify as a donor feature, paraphrased below: 

identified as an SEA in the PAUP overlay;



must not be otherwise legally protected or have previously been used for TRSS;



contiguous and of a certain minimum size depending on whether it is 'wetland', 'threatened' or 'indigenous' and larger areas will qualify for extra lots as indicated in Table 45.

Table 45: SEA Donor rule summary: SEA feature area minimums SEA feature type

Minimum SEA feature area for one TRSS donor lot

Minimum SEA feature area for two TRSS donor lots

Wetland

0.5 ha

1.0 ha

Threatened

3. 0 ha

N/A

Indigenous

5.0 ha

8.0 ha

These rules in combination, required the creation of a new custom spatial representation of SEA, where the SEA in the PAUP has been modified as required to enable the calculation of potential on the basis of assuming to meet this rule criteria. Note that the rules require onsite evaluation and reporting by appropriately qualified individuals. We have used available corporate data sets to create proxies. The way the rules and the model works also required that the SEA sub-layers be overlapping. That is, all unprotected SEA is ‘Indigenous’, all 'wetlands' are threatened, and are by definition are also Indigenous, all threatened are by definition also Indigenous (but, not all ‘threatened’ is necessarily ‘wetlands’). The following worked example illustrates the overlapping SEA concept further: If the SEA were split into single, non-overlapping distinct features, a site with a contiguous area of uncovenanted SEA (say six hectares) which was over the minimum five hectares area limit that was partly made up of wetland (of say 0.4 hectares) and partly of threatened (of say 2.5 hectares) would leave only 6.0 - (0.4 + 2.5) = 3.1 hectares of indigenous SEA, that would not qualify, which is not the desired outcome: Total Uncovenanted SEA Area on Title = 6.0 ha; Wetland SEA Area = 0.4ha, >0.5ha = Not Qualify Threatened SEA Area = 2.5ha, >3.0ha = Not Qualify Indigenous SEA Area = 3.1ha, >5ha = Not Qualify. = Title does not qualify for TRSS donor

Using the overlapping approach, covering the same SEA, means that the assessment process would instead result in: Total Uncovenanted SEA Area = 6.0; Wetland SEA Area = 0.4ha, >0.5ha = Not Qualify Threatened SEA Area = 2.9ha, >3.0ha = Not Qualify Indigenous SEA Area = 6.0ha, 20ha in this subprecinct. In effect both sub-precincts have been modelled as a single Precinct, but readers should note the potential for higher density outcomes in B if amalgamation occurs, or multi-site applications are made. A customised set of features has been created from the constraints and exclusion database. We note in particular the existence of Franklin Rural Exclusion Area and the RUB, as both of these features apply over all or some of the Precincts; we have therefore considered these to be constraints rather than exclusions. If they were treated as exclusions, no capacity would be realisable in this precinct despite the rules clearly suggesting otherwise. These important features are permitted onsite (else no subdivision in the area could eventuate), but no specified building area may fall on them. That is, these features are treated as building platform constraints, not title exclusions (c.f. general rural subdivision modelling). These features are illustrated in Figure 69 below. A feature that is not currently included, but should be as it is listed in the rules applying to the precincts, is slope greater than 15 degrees (26.79 per cent), which is not currently available in PAUP data sets and we have not calculated from LiDAR data for this small area (20 per cent slope calculations were limited to the urban area due top processing limitations). The time-cost of creating a small input slope feature relative to the effect on regional capacity meant that this was ignored, and treated as a matter for arrangement of capacity rather than the amount of it. Otherwise the standard approach to all subdivision and building platform constraint testing applies.

48

Note that 'clustering' is enabled but is irrelevant to the calculation of capacity, because it relates to the future layout of that capacity


176

Figure 69: Runciman A & B location and SBP constraints


177

3C: Second & third rural dwellings A provision has been included in the rural zone rules, allowing more than one dwelling per site without subdivision (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 13, Rule 2.6). Table 1 of the rule (number of dwellings per site) outlines what is permitted in the zones, a copy of this table can be seen as Table 48 below. Table 48: Number of dwellings per site, by rural zone as per Rule 2.6 Table 1 (Part 3, Chapter I, Section 13) Rural Coastal, Mixed Rural and Rural Production zones

Rural Conservation or Countryside Living zones

Dwellings in the Pakiri, Whangateau to Waiwera, Kaipara South Head and Harbour to Muriwai to Te Henga coastal areas (Coastal Policy Overlay Areas)

One dwelling per site

P

P

RD

Two dwellings per site where the site is > 40 ha

P

D

D

Three dwellings per site where the site is > 100 ha

P

D

D

More than three dwellings per site

D

D

D

Dwelling

Note for brevity we refer to the Pakiri, Whangateau to Waiwera, Kaipara South Head and Harbour to Muriwai to Te Henga coastal areas collectively as the “Coastal Policy Overlay Areas”. This table/rule is interpreted as: 

If the title is in the Rural Coastal, Mixed Rural, or Rural Production zone and not in the listed Coastal Policy Overlay areas, and, if the title is large enough then more than one dwelling on the title is possible, at the rate shown in the table.



Rural Conservation and Countryside Living Zones can only have one dwelling per title, and if title is in the listed Coastal Policy Overlay areas, only one dwelling is allowed, but that also requires Restricted Discretionary consent. No second or third dwellings in the Coastal Policy Overlay Area are permitted; no dwellings in the Rodney Landscape Overlay area are permitted.



Activities listed as Discretionary are not modelled (i.e. more than 3 dwellings)

We have also included the Rodney Landscape Overlay provisions in the policy exclusion as this particular overlay also requires buildings within it to be subject to Discretionary consent assessments. These combined constraints are shown in Figure 70, with Coastal Policy Overlay in Blue Hatch, Rodney Landscape Overlay in red, and the relevant zones mentioned in the rule indicated in Grey. Standard Building Platform tests apply for all these new additional dwellings as well, we have used the same test criteria as for general subdivision, as seen in Figure 60.


178

Figure 70: Second and third rural dwellings: zones and constraints


179

11.0

Modified capacity: site shape factor

11.1 Background This section of the report looks at the assessment of capacity when taking into account 'site shape factor' (SSF) requirements as outlined in the residential subdivision provisions of the PAUP This analysis is an extension to the capacity modelling work undertaken for the PAUP, and assesses the over 300,000 residential parcels (and their capacity) against a number of SSF constraints that they possibly intersect. Note that this assessment is undertaken after the candidate areas have been identified and yields determined, by intersecting the whole parcel with capacity against the constraints, rather that modelling capacity around constraints. The latter approach may produce different outcomes, but this is currently beyond our spatial processing capability to investigate, and as the discussion below points out such an approach is likely to produce overly conservative outcomes as the constraints do not automatically preclude development. Instead we have assumed that constraints will impose a range of costs and barriers to future development (that may or may not be overcome) rather than totally exclude it. The PAUP includes provisions requiring the demonstration of a 'site shape factor' for residential zoned parcels for vacant site fee simple subdivision. This provision is contained in the subdivision rules (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.1.2) and is supported by other city wide rules in the plan regarding the avoidance of hazards and more specific zone provisions. The modelling of potential for additional dwellings in the PAUP’s rural zones has incorporated tests for a 'specified building area' (as per Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5, Rule 2.3.3), and as such this type of capacity has not been included in this modified capacity assessment. It is worth keeping in mind that the degree to which the existence of these SSF constraints will actually preclude development eventually occurring is dependent on a combination of many other factors, including but not limited to: 

The perceived or actual cost (in time and dollars) of overcoming the constraint



The degree to which the constraint impacts on practical development, engineering, or layout. For example bridging or moving an small section of underground pipe in practical terms is not an issue, but resolving steep slope and flooding issues that together cover 90 per cent of the site area are



The form and nature of the residential development proposed for a site. For example heritage trees could be avoided by clustering development outside of the drip line, slope may be less of a constraint where good views exist; and



Market interest in the area and the degree to which any cost is able to be overcome by potential gain from development.

A series of spatial queries are used to test for a parcel's 'intersection' with the various constraints. The constraints are variable in shape and nature, and an area or net coverage per cent threshold will favour bulky polygon constraints over various point and line sourced ones which may (or may not) impose a greater level of risk, or constraint, to any development. The single capacity base layer (one capacity for all parcels with more than one option) used in this assessment is the ‘ARFM inputs’ (see Section 13.0), but excluding 'rollover' areas. Capacity modelling is undertaken at the parcel scale, and for consistency with previous studies, consideration of individual parcels interaction with broader scale constraints has not been undertaken. This is mainly because constraints can and do change over time, and in addition a dataset that contains all land otherwise developable is a useful dataset, and follows our “model all, filter later” approach (as, for example a data set that pre-excludes land affected by a certain constraint is not useful for cost benefit analysis of proposed works that may address that constraint). Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

180

At the time of development, investigation of cost benefit analysis of flood protection works (or clustering of development to avoid the section of the site affected by flooding) for example would determine whether land could be developed or not. This is also a key reason why the results of this study cannot be used directly as a growth projection. Accordingly a number of rules in the plan, that are not specifically listed in the input parameters in the sections above have not been incorporated directly into the ‘raw’ capacity modelling, largely because there are so many. One of the major rules not considered, which helpfully combines the majority of these factors into a single requirement, is specific consideration of PAUP Subdivision Rule 2.3.1.2.c (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5) 49 repeated below (Auckland Council, 2013a): Site shape factor - Each proposed vacant site must contain the following: a.

access and manoeuvring that meets the requirements of the Auckland wide and zone rules

b.

private outdoor space required by the zone

c.

a rectangle measuring eight metres by 15 metres must be able to be located outside any of the following: i.

natural hazard area identified in a council natural hazard register/database or GIS viewer

ii.

slopes greater than an average of one in five

iii.

protected root zone of a notable tree

iv.

Significant Ecological Area or Outstanding Natural Feature or Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay

v.

scheduled historic heritage place, or site or place of significance to Mana Whenua

vi.

network utility installations, including private and public lines

vii.

building line restrictions in the Unitary Plan and on a Certificate of Title

viii.

right-of-way easements

ix.

area of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips required by the Unitary Plan

x.

yard setback required by the underlying zone

xi.

riparian, lake or coastal protection yard.

xii.

separation distance from national grid transmission lines.

Some aspects of the list are included for facilitated modelling (access), some are simply assumed to be met (outdoor space), others are considered constraints that would be overcome in the development process, or are a prerequisite for development (network infrastructure). Further details are included in Table 49: Site shape factor components below. As the infill modelling in particular seeks to find land of sufficient area to meet the site size requirements (rather than designing the location of the building on that site) direct testing has not been incorporated. We have however created a post processing approach to 'filter' those parcels that contain development opportunities against these criteria, which could inform more nuanced investigations. The key reasons some of these features are not considered within the main residential modelling processing are outlined below:

49

A similar rule is contained within business subdivision rule 2.3.2.3.a (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5), but no site shape factor is specified, instead referring to a 'building complying with the rules of the applicable zone avoiding' the listed features. Compare also with rural subdivision where the specified building area rules are factored into the parcel level analysis, mainly due to processing limitations (calculation of net areas on 100 candidate parcels is reasonable, calculation of net building platform areas within a constrained parcel landscape across 400,000 plus residential parcels is beyond our current processing capability finding space within 'raw' parcels is already a multi-day process, hence the filtering approach)


181



Geo-processing capability - calculation and testing of building platforms within the raw cadastral landscape is beyond the limits of our computer hardware and software capabilities. The constraints layers, even when simplified have a considerably higher spatial index value (they are very complex, messy shapes) that would exceed these limits.



"Capture all, filter later" approach - we have taken an approach whereby the primary purpose of the study is creating a data set for use as an input to further more detailed investigations, not all of which are currently known. The study therefore is finding land that has sufficient space for additional development, under a subset of rules, which can be further tested post processing depending on the purpose that is being investigated. For example, a number of parcels contain slopes that are greater than 20 per cent but in locations where this enables good views it could be assumed that this will not preclude development over the longer term. In locations subject to flooding (one percent (1%) AEP) investigations of alternative flood works may require investigation of all development precluded by flooding as part of a cost benefit analysis.



Series consistency - previous studies have not necessarily excluded land subject to various constraints, and the consideration of what is a constraint also changes over time, both in terms of economics, engineering, social acceptance and planning regimes.



Constraint variability - we can relatively quickly consider new information or additional layers post processing, but inclusion of the constraints within the process would lead to slow turnaround times (see also first point) and limit the utility of the output data to a single use, not multiple uses. In this way, we consider the study outputs as ‘land census data’ that always requires filtering (or at least appreciation of the limitations of the data) before being used for a particular purpose.

Spatial constraints however be accounted for by undertaking further modelling once our base results have been generated, by identifying land that is affected by these provisions, or other constraints that may change over time (e.g. new heritage features discovered or listed, new flood modelling, sea level rise, tsunami hazards, character areas, new building constraint rules (geotechnical, slope), infrastructure capacity etc.). The SSF constraints outlined in Subdivision Rule 2.3.1.2.c (Part 3, Chapter H, Section 5) have a related spatial extent and this allows us to 'intersect' these features with the generated capacity results, creating a new output dataset which can be filtered based on the constraints identified against them. IN effect this process is an example using constraints listed in the SSF rule as an example of the post modelling filtering process. The SSF constraints used in the spatial queries collectively represent the modelled criteria for provision of a 'site shape factor in residential zones for vacant site subdivision'. However, intersection of the constraint with a parcel does not necessarily indicate that a safe building platform cannot be provided on a given site. Rather there may be issues to be aware of with the location or extent of any building platform, or consent status of the application for development may be increased - i.e. the development capacity utilisation chance may be reduced due to cost, delay or concern about resale value or council processing issues. Additional constraints such as character overlays (captured by the subdivision rules), current owner intentions, or market issues have not been considered but can be considered through additional analysis. We did not include 'networks' infrastructure (as required by the rule) for two main reasons: 

The data processing requirements of the complex spatial networks made it infeasible with the technology available (the spatial index is poor), and



The existence of network infrastructure is a necessary prerequisite for development potential, so excluding sites that do intersect infrastructure is counterproductive.



Existence or otherwise of known network infrastructure does not reveal capacity or capability for connection


182

Assessment of yards, access, open space and setbacks was not undertaken as these are included in the site level assessment modelling already and are assumed to be met by the minimum site size and shape criteria. Building lines and ROW Easements are not included as we do not have this information. The existence of these constraints may impose consent category and cost implications for development on those sites subject to them. The analysis provides an indication of the locations where these issues may be most acute, but it does not indicate whether or not capacity is actually reduced. However, for the purpose of this methodology we presume they do.

11.2 Methodology The methodology sub-section for this modified capacity (site shape factor) modelling process has been broken down into two sections 1. The outlining of the datasets used to create the combined layers that represent constraints, and 2. The process of using these created constraints layers to calculate a modified capacity result for the PAUP.

11.2.1 Combined constraints datasets for intersection In order to undertake the 'filtering' of the residential capacity results by using constraints, first a series of constraints layers needed to be generated. The input datasets used to create our combined constraints layers are outlined below in Table 49. This table also notes the provision of the PAUP rules from which the constraints chosen have been used to represent. Table 49: Site shape factor components Provision Access and manoeuvring that meets the requirements of the Auckland wide and zone rules Private outdoor space required by the zone

Natural hazard area identified in a council natural hazard register/database or GIS viewer

Spatial features used

Description

Access is tested at the parcel candidate level using access width. Private outdoor space is a proposal design issue and is not 'modelled'. Both are assumed to be complied with (or sites meeting the minimum site size and etc. in the model are implicitly compliable within the minimum site size/shape factor required by the zone rules).

Selected Hazards used: Coastal Inundation (UP) Regional Floodplains v7 (AC Storm water team) Closed Landfills (DAUP data) Liquefaction Soil Class 234 (SDE\Geology) Slope Instability High (SDE\Geology) Rain Instability High (SDE\Geology) Drury and Wairoa Fault Lines (10 m buffer)


These hazard features have been collected from various sources within council’s SDE, and combined into a single coverage, with the exception of flooding, which has been included but kept separate. Significant data cleansing of the flooding layer has been undertaken but it remains a highly complex shape for processing (poor spatial index value). It is assumed that these features would form a good proxy for the contents of any database as suggested in the rule, in the absence of further information. We note that coastal inundation is the only 'hazard' included in the PAUP dataset, but is not the only hazard the council is aware of.

183

Provision


Description

Slopes greater than an average of 1 in 5

Slope (greater than 20 per cent)

CfGS: Custom 2 m LiDAR raster to polygon conversion where slope is greater than 20% gradient (1:5)

Protected root zone of a notable tree

PAUP: Notable Trees (point features)

PAUP inputs converted to CfGS features: conversion of points to polygons using buffer distance based on discussions with AC Natural Heritage Team (10 m)


Significant Ecological Area Outstanding Natural Feature Outstanding Natural Landscape

PAUP overlays, as supplied.

Historic Heritage (point) Historic Heritage Extent of Place Sites and Places of Significance To Mana Whenua (point) Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua

PAUP overlays converted to CfGS features: Historic Heritage point features not within an 'Historic Heritage Extent of Place' to be buffered by a 10 metre radius as proxy for extent of place in absence of other information. Sites of Value are supplied as polygons (100 m radius) and Sites of Significance are supplied as points and refer to landscapes and particular features (pa sites, urupa, islands etc. The relevant SoS rule refers to a 50 m radius buffer from these points, so this buffer distance has been applied

Wastewater network Water supply network Storm water network Wholesale and retail features, excluding private lines

Combined feature created but not included in testing As features are also a prerequisite for development, most parcels will intersect the combined feature. Features cleaned and buffered by nominal pipe diameter. Private lines excluded because They are regularly relocated as part of the development process Actual locations are not always accurately reflected in SDE (refer asbuilt plans)

Scheduled historic heritage place, or site or place of significance to Mana Whenua

Network utility installations, including private and public lines

Building line restrictions in the Unitary Plan and on a Certificate of Title

Right-of-way easements

Information contained on Certificate of Title not available.

Information contained on Certificate of Title not available.


Not tested – partly implicit in capacity modelling process No data Note: Building lines are generally a historic anomaly, and are not an available spatial layer, and have been replaced by more flexible tools, such as road widening designations or yard rules for the most part. Not tested – partly implicit in capacity modelling process No data. *Note that ‘plan compliant’ access to infill sites is included as a requirement in the infill modelling process, however no assurance that this will modelled access is consistent with ROW or that modelled development does not use ROW space

184

Provision


Description

Area of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips required by the Unitary Plan

Lakes Coastline Streams greater than three metres wide

CfGS: 20 m buffers created from esplanade requiring features. Buffer distance (in plan) may be greater than 'ground' distance.

Yard setback required by the underlying zone

Cadastral boundaries and PAUP rules

Implicit in capacity modelling process Not tested separately or created as a single layer as provision is included in general spatial model parameters for development calculations at a parcel level. Inclusion of this data in a spatial overlay would result in all parcels in zones where the rules contain a yard setback being 'constrained'.

Riparian, lake or coastal protection yard

Coastline Lakes Streams greater than three metres wide

CfGS: various distance buffers created from yard requiring features. Buffer distance (in plan) may be greater than 'ground' distance. Significant overlap with rule provisions ix and x.

Separation distance from national grid transmission lines

Electricity Transmission Corridor

PAUP overlay converted to a Capacity for Growth Study feature - Inner Urban and Rural parameters used.

Below Figure 71 shows the combination of SSF constraints layers, over a residential parcels layer. The numbers indicate the count of unique constraints the parcel intersects. Given the majority of these parcels are already occupied, the presence of these matters has not precluded their original development, but existing dwellings may be arranged in such a way that new development falls within the more difficult portion of the parcel. This analysis does not identify this aspect, but tags each parcel with the SBP constraint count for further investigations and use as an indicator of potential issues.


185

Figure 71: Example of SFF constraints count on residential parcels 50

50

Note: SBP in the legend of this map refers to ‘safe building platforms’ rather than SFF. For the purposes of this study they are the same.


186

11.2.2 Intersection of constraints layers with capacity results After the composition of the representative constraints layers, this information is intersected with a region-wide parcel dataset. This allows us to cross-reference any capacity results against the parcel it falls on, while also maintaining information about the type and number of constraints that may fall on any one parcel. The input datasets used and the process employed to undertake this analysis is detailed below. Input datasets: The combined constraints layers, as outlined in Table 49 are used as data inputs, the names of which are summarised in Table 50 below. Table 50: Site Shape Factor feature classes Input feature

Provision

SBP_2c_i_Hazards_wo_Flooding SBP_2c_i_Hazards_Flooding

Natural hazard area identified in a council natural hazard register/database or GIS viewer

SBP_2c_ii_Slope

Slopes greater than an average of 1 in 5

SBP_2c_iii_NotableTrees

Protected root zone of a notable tree

SBP_2c_iv_Environmental


SBP_2c_v_Heritage

Scheduled historic heritage place, or site or place of significance to Mana Whenua

SBP_2c_vi_Networks Created but not used

Network utility installations, including private and public lines

SBP_2c_ix_x_xi_Setbacks Created but not used

Area of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips required by the Unitary Plan Yard setback required by the underlying zone 51 Riparian, lake or coastal protection yard.

SBP_2c_xii_NationalGrid

Separation distance from national grid transmission lines.

In addition to these constraints layers, this modelling process also used the following input datasets: 

Parcels



Residential capacity (ARFM inputs) results

Calculation: 1. Base parcel layers are intersected with the nine constraints layers identified in Table 49, creating a new parcel layer which includes the type and number of constraints that intersect with each parcel. 2. Residential capacity (ARFM inputs) results and joined to the base parcel layer (with constraints attributes). 3. A new 'residential capacity (ARFM inputs) with constraints counts' is outputted to be used in analysis. Results from this processing of the capacity results are then used for analysis, which has been reported as part of the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report.

51

Note that yards are largely incorporated into site modelling parameters and are not included in the spatial constraint layer.


187

12.0

Special areas (including structure plan areas) While special areas and structure plan areas are discussed as a single group in this report, they each have distinct qualities. Structure plan areas are areas that are identified for development (residential, business rural or a mix of all three) but where the rules for a variety of reasons were not modelled, or modellable. Special areas are generally locations where specific special activities are, or will be located, which depending on perspective can be considered as partly residential and/or business uses (e.g. hospitals, airports, marinas and quarries), but primarily are special in some way. Capacity figures for structure plan and special areas are collected/measured and reported differently to the other types of capacity covered in this study. Table 51: Description of structure plan and special areas below describes these differences: Table 51: Description of structure plan and special areas Area type

Description

Structure plan area

Areas subject to ‘structure planning’ generally providing a relatively prescriptive and integrated planning structure applying to all of the land within the structure plan area. Such approaches generally apply to large scale greenfields development areas and are increasingly common as a planning approach to reflect local issues or where ‘standard zoning' may generate undesirable outcomes. Examples include Flat Bush and Massey North. Interested readers are referred to the relevant structure plan documentation for more information including greater detail on the individual structure plan areas.

Special area

Generally apply either as an unusual base zoning or overlay to recognise some unusual or ‘special’ current or future activity. In most cases capacity for ‘non-special’ activities is considerably curtailed, and accordingly no yield has been calculated. Examples include major infrastructure such as hospitals. Special areas are also sometimes applied as a ‘holding zone’ prior to future Structure Plan processes. Interested readers are referred to the relevant district plan sections for more information and detail on the individual special areas.

Due to the nature or state of their land use planning or timing these areas have not been modelled by us. The figures are based on information provided from a range of sources, and reflect the latest understanding of the future of these locations either as outlined in the PAUP or in information publically available at the time of notification of the PAUP/strike date of this study Structure plans generally contain a number of existing parcels or titles over which potential is distributed unevenly (i.e. not in relation to parcel area), or require that some future structure planning process (e.g. comprehensive development plan) be undertaken before capacity can be known. Thus the individual parcels making up the identified area have not been allocated an individual capacity yield (as existing parcels are not a relevant consideration in most structure planning processes), but are instead aggregated (to the structure plan or special area level) and share a single yield figure that applies to the area as a whole. These figures have been primarily sourced from the relevant structure plan, precinct, or overlay documentation, and amended where required following discussions with Operative District Plan teams to reflect more recent developments and knowledge. Like the rest of the figures reported in this report, the structure plan and special area yields are ‘plan enabled’ capacity, reflecting the intentions of the relevant planning documentation. Some structure plans are more prescriptive than others, and some envisioned development that is quite considerably different from what is actually being built in these Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

188

areas. Readers with a more detailed interest in the special areas should refer to the relevant precinct or structure plan in the PAUP, or other public processes for more information, particularly with respect to better understanding sub-area distribution of growth. Capacity for structure plans should therefore only be considered an indication of what 'should' happen in these areas (if the currently available ‘plan’ is followed in the future), but not necessarily what will happen, particularly if the structure plan is not anticipated to commence for some time. Statutory Plans can and do change, as does the market, and future preferences. In Future Urban zones (FUZ), where the exact future land use is yet to be determined, we can only indicate that the current proposed rules effectively allows for no development, until such time as a structure plan is approved. Plan enabled capacity in the FUZ is therefore zero, until the zone is changed to something else though the plan change process. However, in some instances we are aware of legacy planning intentions for these locations and have assumed that these will provide at least a starting point for more detailed structure planning, and have reflected this information only where it exists as 'pipeline capacity'. Given the rapid pace of change in these areas, including through the provisions of the Special Housing Areas Act 2013, we can only suggest that readers take the information presented as indicative of the situation at the time of writing only, and make their own investigations where more specific or up-todate detail is required.

12.1 Why don’t we model these areas? These areas are not modelled as the structure plan or special area generally provides clear parameters for development within the area, and modelling on an ‘existing parcel’ would provide no additional benefit or increased understanding of potential for development within the wider area, and in most cases is also relatively difficult to do. An example structure plan from the PAUP, Figure 72: Orewa Countryside , illustrates this issue. No modelling process could replicate the outcome envisioned by this structure plan, accordingly we 'calculate' capacity from the maximum number of lots indicated, less those that are occupied, leaving a potential for additional dwellings. Therefore no ‘modelling’ is necessary, however some monitoring (existing development in the area) and simple calculation is still required. The formula below indicates the approach taken, which can be applied to capacity for dwellings, or business land or whatever the intended ‘development’ output of the structure plan is: 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡


189

Figure 72: Orewa Countryside Precinct

Image sourced from Auckland Council (2013a)

Other reasons for not modelling capacity using our parcel based approach in these structure plans and special areas include: 

Structure plans are based on a combination of environmental, cultural and economic assessments to generate a comprehensive and integrated plan for an entire area. Usually such approaches are applied across large areas with relatively few owners in order to create comprehensive sustainable new urban areas. In this manner most structure plans are ‘cadastre blind’ and existing ownership patterns are more or less irrelevant for the initial layout and distribution of development potential within the Structure Plan. This compares with ‘established’ zonings where development occurs in a relatively ad-hoc manner within the underlying cadastral framework.


190



The structure plan is often very detailed and in many cases provides a maximum dwelling yield, negating the need for any modelling.



Some locations state that a future planning process (e.g. Comprehensive Development Planning) is required to be undertaken to determine the appropriate outcome. We cannot second guess these future processes.



‘Pre-existing’ title or parcel boundaries within the special area are not necessarily a logical geography for calculating capacity from most structure plans, and should such parcel level detail be required then reference should be made to the relevant structure plan.



Many structure plans are the result of a long and heavily negotiated process following landscape, ecology, urban design and infrastructure requirements as well as wider strategic and growth management requirements, interacting with specific land owner/developer requirements. These outcomes cannot be replicated in a computer model.

The practical constraints above with respect to estimating total yield should however be differentiated from what we are able to do with respect to tracking development as it occurs which can be done to some level of detail. Uptake to date can be compared to the estimated total yield to provide an estimated remaining capacity yield, which is the key reported metric, contained within the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan): Results technical report. A full list of special areas considered as part of this study can be found in Appendix O: Special areas with type, location and expected future development yields at the end of this report. Note that where information has not been provided to us, or we are unable to ascertain with certainty the future outcomes for an area we have not provided a capacity figure.


191

13.0

Using capacity results as inputs into the Auckland Residential Futures Model

13.1 Background One of the important uses of the Capacity for Growth Study results is as an input into the Auckland Residential Futures Model (ARFM), commonly known as the Auckland Growth Model. For more information on the Auckland Residential Futures Model, refer to Auckland Council technical report; Auckland Futures Growth Model 2012, TR2012/014. The Capacity for Growth Study results are used as the shorter term (10-15 year) dwelling supply input of the 30-40 year model run to determine how many additional dwellings can be accommodated in an area in accordance with planning decisions that have been made, and this in turn is used to distribute the numbers of additional households and people (demand) into those areas, which is used for a wide range of corporate planning purposes (Owen, 2012). In order for the capacity data to be used as an input into the ARFM, the capacity results must be engineered to create a 'single figure per parcel' or 'flattened' view of capacity, as the Study outputs are reported as a range - Capacity from Infill or Capacity from Redevelopment, with a number of parcels having options under both approaches. In addition, an attached/detached dwelling typology is also required to be provided, and all of this information input to the model at 2006 Meshblock geography (the base areas the growth model operates at). The section below outlines in detail the process to do this.

13.2 ARFM input creation methodology The conversion of ‘raw’ capacity outputs into ARFM model inputs requires the creation of a multi-step process to create meshblock scale inputs containing a single dwelling capacity figure with an attached/detached split, using the following steps: 

Create a single parcel scale capacity view



Aggregate capacity to meshblock scale



Apply dwelling typology splits to meshblock totals based on assumed development outcomes and zoning of parcels contributing to capacity totals.

In order to create the ARFM inputs, a small FME workbench model was created. This section of the report gives an overview of the method used to undertake this analysis.

13.2.1 Create single capacity option at parcel scale The model imports all capacity values, and where one parcel has one development option, that goes forwards unaltered. Where a parcel has more than one development option (infill or redevelopment) then a choice must be made, and the remainder of this section will focus on the decision making process. The model uses assumptions to make choices between the development types possible on a parcel (infill vs. redevelopment), where more than one option was identified in the study. This single view is created by making a selection as to what development option is considered most likely to occur on a parcel for those parcels that have both infill capacity (room for an additional development on the parcel without removing existing development) and redevelopment capacity (capacity for development on a parcel if the existing development was removed). All other parcels with only a single option are carried Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

192

forward unaltered. Essentially this provides a third capacity figure, somewhere between the reported infill and redevelopment capacity totals. This ‘one parcel - two choices’ option only occurs on residentially modelled parcels of an area less than 2000m², that have both an Infill (existing development remains) and a Redevelopment (existing development removed) yield greater than zero. Although this size category of site does potentially encompass the majority of urban residential sites, sites with both options are a smaller proportion of these due to the PAUP rules applying in combination with the layout of existing development on the site, and in many cases do not produce different dwelling yield outcomes (infill yield equals redevelopment yield). The assumption used for determining which option will be taken is the consideration of the value of the improvements (IV) on a parcel relative to capital value (CV) of the parcel. In this instance we have assumed only those parcels with an improvement value to capital value (IV:CV) ratio of less than or equal 30 per cent will be redeveloped – that is, the improvements (dwellings and other buildings, fences, retaining, driveways etc.) on the parcel are worth 30 per cent of the total value of the land and improvements. All other parcels (IV:CV greater than 30 per cent) are assumed to be ‘infilled’, (the existing improvements on the parcel are not removed) which is consistent with previous approaches to populating the ARFM model, and also with previous redevelopment assessments (Fontein et al., 2011). IV:CV ratio is a useful indicator of the likelihood of redevelopment, because if a parcel has a high improvement value relative to its total overall value (CV) it is assumed that the chances of the improvements (including pools, tennis courts as well as other buildings) being removed or demolished to make way for redevelopment are lower, as the removal of the IV is a sunk cost that must be recovered though resale of the new development. Maintaining the assessment as a ratio allows the assessment to respond to the underlying land value (LV) which is the other component of CV (CV = IV + LV). Thus, redevelopment will occur only where the improvements are ‘undercapitalised’ with respect to the value of the parcel as a whole, otherwise infill (the addition of more IV without removing the existing) is assumed to occur. After the assessment, the capacity information relating to the parcel and the capacity ‘source’ chosen by the process is passed forward into a new set of outputs, which in turn lets us calculate an overall ‘single’ capacity number which will be somewhere between the Infill and Redevelopment totals range. Note that in order to supply sufficient capacity (consistent with council land use planning assumptions regarding population and dwelling growth) to the model to accommodate projected long term demand, 100 per cent of this new plan enabled capacity is assumed to be available as potential supply. This is considered an slightly unlikely outcome (that 100 per cent of enabled capacity is taken up), but given beyond the current PAUP a definitive view of what the land use pattern will be has yet to be determined (to the level of detail required), is a necessary and reasonable one. However, as the ARFM model operates at a mesh block scale, the individual parcel capacity is not directly utilised, thus, plan enabled capacity is used as a proxy for supply across the entire meshblock. This allows for the situation where site specific enabled development opportunities are not taken up for a wide range of reasons to be offset by non-complying development on other sites within the mesh block, whilst still remaining consistent with the input PAUP planning framework. Further amendments to the ARFM model can be made to account for assumed future planning decisions such as SHA areas, future Greenfields developments (in the FUZ and elsewhere) and other developments, such as are reflective of the High Level Auckland Plan Development Strategy in the longer term including updates. The input datasets and the process used to create the 'single view' of capacity are detailed below. Input datasets: 

Residential parcel base-layer (including residential parcels that fall within roll-over areas)



Residential infill capacity results



Residential vacant potential capacity results


193



Residential redevelopment capacity results

Calculation: 1. Import and merge infill and vacant potential results into one dataset (simply referred to as 'infill' from here on). 2. Tag infill parcels with 'infill' attribute label. 3. Import and Tag redevelopment parcels with 'redevelopment' label. 4. Join infill results to base parcel dataset. 5. Join redevelopment results to base parcel dataset. 6. Filter parcels into one of two categories. 7. Single Option: Parcels that have only one capacity type total against them (‘infill’, ‘redevelopment’, or ‘neither’ (i.e. zero)). 8. Multi option: Parcels that have more than one capacity totals against them (both ‘infill’ and ‘redevelopment’). 9. If parcel only has infill capacity against it output as an 'infill' tagged parcel and include the infill capacity number. 10. If parcel only has redevelopment capacity against it, apply a filter to select only those parcels that have an IV:CV ratio of less than 0.3. Output selected parcels, tagged as 'redevelopment' and include the redevelopment capacity number in output total. 11. For parcels that have both infill and redevelopment capacity, filter into two categories. 12. Identify parcels that have an IV:CV ratio greater than or equal to 0.3. 13. Identify parcels that have an IV:CV ratio less than 0.3. 14. If a parcel has a IV:CV ratio greater than or equal to 0.3 it is deemed that the likelihood of the existing dwelling/building/improvements on the parcel being removed in order to undertake redevelopment are low, as such parcels in this category are tagged as 'infill' and output with the infill capacity number included. 15. If a parcel has a IV:CV ratio less than 0.3 it is deemed that the likelihood of the existing dwelling/building/improvements being removed in order to undertake redevelopment are high, as such parcels in this category are tagged as 'redevelopment' and output with the redevelopment capacity number included. 16. Finally merge data from Steps 8, 10 and 11 to create a single parcel based dataset, with only one capacity type and capacity yield per parcel is created.

13.2.2 Residential housing typology assumptions As well as requiring a single capacity number for each meshblock, the ARFM requires the assumed dwelling supply data to be fed into the model with an attached or detached housing typology to enable the ARFM model to determine the demand for the capacity sourced dwelling types against its household type projections and associated household dwelling preferences matrix. The definition of attached and detached dwellings used in the ARFM model is the same as used by Statistics New Zealand when collecting dwelling information as part of the census (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). Detached dwellings are single stand-alone houses, and Attached dwellings are those such as a unit, town house, duplex or apartment. Previous inputs into the ARFM model made a broad assumption about housing typology based on the operative legacy district plan zones rules the capacity was sourced from. The creation of the ARFM inputs from the PAUP capacity results required the creation of a new PAUP-zone to anticipated housing typology concordance. Where a zone was identified to have specified (or likely to result in) a specific housing typology, this was applied (e.g. the Single House zone provides for only detached dwellings, Centre zones only provide for attached dwellings). Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

194

Where the housing typology in the zone can be a mix of attached and detached (e.g. Mixed Housing zones and the THAB zone) assumptions were used to generate a ‘percentage split’ by attached and detached dwellings, with this split applied to all capacity from a particular zone at the meshblock level (i.e. individual parcels development typology is not predetermined, the parcels capacity is summed to the meshblock then split). Table 52 indicates the proportion of dwellings in a meshblock and zone, by 'graph colour', that is of an attached typology. 

Mixed Housing provides for a mixed housing typology that is variable depending on the nature of the parcel that is developed – small parcels are mostly detached (allowance for walls to be common) but ‘unlimited density (green) sites are assumed to be 100% attached and there is a range in between.



Terraced Housing and Apartments zone provides for only terraced housing and apartments (100 per cent attached), and



All other residential zones provide 100 per cent detached dwellings.



It is presumed that 100 per cent of capacity is rural areas will be detached.



All business area capacity (including centres) is 100 per cent attached.



Structure plan inputs are manually handled by the ARFM modelling team based on inputs from the relevant Structure Planning teams/documentation.

Table 52: Attached split by zone and parcel type for meshblock Per cent of dwellings assumed to be attached Zone name Infill

Vacant and redevelopment

Mixed Housing Suburban (Site class from area frontage graphs) Mixed Housing Urban (Site class from area frontage graphs) Terraced Housing and Apartment Building

Blue

Green

Grey

Red

Orange

20%

100%

20%

20%

20%

Blue

Green

Grey

Red

Orange

40%

100%

40%

40%

40%

10%

20%

100%

100%

All other residential zones

0%

0%

All rural dwellings

0%

0%

100%

100%

All dwellings in business areas Dwellings in special areas

Not included in this allocation process


195

13.2.3 Calculating final meshblock capacity figures The input datasets and the process and assumptions used to create meshblock inputs of capacity; including housing typology is outlined in step-by-step process below. Input datasets: 

Residential vacant capacity results



Residential capacity (ARFM inputs) results



Residential on business land (business redevelopment) capacity results



Rural residential capacity results



Meshblock dataset (2006)



Attached versus detached housing assumptions by zone

Calculation: 1. Tag each of the parcels from the capacity results datasets with the meshblock they fall within (using a spatial query in FME). Output results to a series of spreadsheets. 2. Use a pivot table (in Microsoft Excel) to generate a table with capacity totals by meshblock number cross-tabulated by zone name and 'graph colour' for the Mixed Housing Zones. 3. Use the zone, and site colour to determine the split of capacity by housing typology in a single meshblock, based on table below 4. Special areas information is manually added by the ARFM Modelling team. 5. A few examples of how this is worked through follow: 6. If a meshblock has vacant residential capacity for 36 dwellings in the Mixed Housing Urban zone, with capacity for two dwellings 'blue', capacity for 19 dwellings coming from 'green' and capacity for 15 dwellings coming from 'grey'. 40 per cent of dwellings in the 'blue' category would be attached, 100 per cent from the green and 40 per cent from the grey. This sums to 25.8 attached dwellings (which is rounded to 26 dwellings), which makes the remaining dwellings from this meshblock and zone (10) detached. 7. A meshblock has capacity for eight dwellings, through infill, from the Single House zone. Zero per cent of dwellings in this zone are assumed to be attached (there is no site colour classification for this zone), so all eight dwellings are classified as detached. 8. A meshblock has capacity for 25 dwellings in the Terraced Housing and Apartment Building zone. One hundred per cent of the housing in this zone is attached (there is no colour classification for this zone), so all 25 dwellings are classified as attached. 9. This process is also undertaken for vacant residential capacity results and the ARFM residential capacity results. 10. Create a single spreadsheet from the previous steps, with capacity for attached and detached dwellings, by meshblock.

13.3 ARFM input creation: Results Results from the re-processing of the capacity results outlined above are then used as the plan enabled dwelling supply input (supplemented with additional information particularly for FUZ and longer term assumptions) to inform the residential supply side of the ARFM model. For more information on the Auckland Residential Futures Model, refer to Auckland Council technical report; (Owen, 2012). These results have also been used for other uses and processes, including in this study where a single capacity view is required.


196

13.3.1 Single Capacity option: results There are 17,706 parcels with a proposed residential zoning across Auckland that have both an infill and redevelopment capacity development option. After running these parcels through our development type selection process we are able to create a ‘single capacity total’ for the Auckland region, as seen below in Table 16. Totals in the table below include vacant capacity, infill and vacant potential capacity or redevelopment capacity, residential on business capacity and pipeline capacity. Table 16: Comparison of total residential capacity totals; with infill, with redevelopment and, ARFM inputs Capacity totals

Capacity (dwellings)

Total residential capacity (utilising infill)

258,487

Total residential capacity (utilising redevelopment)

417,079

Total residential capacity (ARFM inputs)

274,149

When displaying these capacity results on a graph (refer Figure 33) we can see that the newly generated capacity result sits between the modelled results (capacity with infill or capacity with redevelopment). Notably the newly generated ARFM input capacity sits very close the number for capacity when utilising infill total, in fact the difference of 15,662 dwellings from the capacity with infill total, is only a six per cent increase on the capacity with infill total. Reasons that the ARFM input capacity total sits closer to the infill capacity total rather than the redevelopment capacity total is most likely related to the fact that many of the redevelopment opportunities that are available under the PAUP are on sites that have a high improvement value compared to their capital value, that is the value of the house and other improvements on the parcel make up more than 30 per cent of the total value of the property, and those sites collectively do not ‘redevelop’ to a significantly greater degree than if they were simply ‘infilled’. This approach also provides an example of the post-processing potential using the very rich and detailed data produced by the model using plan enabled capacity as the starting point.


197

Figure 34: Comparison of residential capacity totals; with infill, with redevelopment and, ARFM inputs

450,000

417,079

400,000 350,000 300,000

274,149

258,487

250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Residential capacity (utilising infill)

Residential capacity (ARFM inputs)

Residential capacity (utilising redevelopment)

13.3.2 Housing typology splits: Results As well as requiring a single capacity number, the Auckland Residential Futures Model requires capacity results to be fed into the model with an assumed housing typology associated to the capacity figure; this is provided as a mix of two dwelling types, attached dwellings (such as a unit, town house, duplex or apartment) or detached dwellings (single stand-alone houses). By applying the housing typology methodology to the capacity results (ARFM inputs) we can see at a regional level the split between attached and detached dwellings (see Figure 35 below). The detached dwellings make up the largest proportion of dwellings, representing roughly two-thirds of capacity supplied to the ARFM model. Figure 35: Residential capacity (dwellings) (ARFM inputs) by dwelling type


198

The housing typology split from the capacity (ARFM input) does not perfectly match the indicated typology splits stated in The Auckland Plan, where under the 70:30 and 60:40 scenarios the split would be 39 per cent detached and 61 per cent attached and, 46 per cent detached and 54 per cent attached respectively. This is because this is not the complete dwelling supply for the total development period (FUZ, and other special areas are handled by the ARFM team, and assumed future planning decisions (such as future plans will provide, given the PAUP has a 10-15 year ‘life’) are not included, which would add more detached dwellings (FUZ) but also attached (assumed future urban planning decisions). On the other hand, these figures also reflect the limited proportion of total supply of additional dwellings of a fully detached typology that is realistically achievable in an existing built up urban environment, and also that the PAUP allows the sharing of walls of dwellings that are more like detached dwellings in layout and form (but share a wall with another dwelling and therefore are classified as attached). The supply of future dwellings sourced from business areas in particular (100% attached), but also in combination with THAB and the more intensive MH sites are also a major component of the input dwelling supply, and indeed overall capacity calculated.


199

14.0

Glossary Business Areas and Centres: The large contiguous areas of proposed business zoning that have a similar typology and are considered to be significant areas of employment, including urban and rural centres, as described in the technical papers written to inform The Auckland Plan. The geographic limits of these areas are defined by zoning as published in the PAUP. These areas are a subset of the urban area and rural towns. Future urban zoned areas: Based on the zoning layer from the PAUP and is a new zoning encompassing 'unzoned' locations between the MUL and the RUB. Future plan changes and structure planning is required to be undertaken before the PAUP Future Urban zoning is changed (by plan change/variation) to a yet to be determined zoning pattern that enables development to occur in Greenfield Areas for Investigation: Future greenfield areas as noted in The Auckland Plan (Auckland Council, 2012a) that at the time of publication of The Auckland Plan where not defined specifically, but their general location was indicated in the Development Strategy maps. Since this time work has been done as part of the PAUP process and some of these areas have been defined (Future Urban zoned areas within the proposed Rural Urban Boundary). Infill (residential): The process, by which an additional dwelling or dwellings are added to either the front or the back of a residentially zoned parcel, which is already occupied by a dwelling. Infill capacity is measured on parcels that are smaller than 2000 m2 and vacant potential is measured on parcels equal to or larger than 2000 m2. Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL): The extent to which the urban area of Auckland can develop, as defined by the Auckland Regional Policy Statement. Note that the MUL used in this study is based on the extents as at 1 November 2010. This MUL extent has been used as it is the basis on which monitoring of both The Auckland Plan and the PAUP will take place, and there is no other consistent and formalised definition of Auckland's urban area. Parcel: A cadastral polygon with a legal description (can also be known as a property, section or lot). This geographic area is used to undertake capacity assessment within residential and business zones that are in the urban area. Rural residential: Additional dwelling units on rural zoned titles, either through titles being currently vacant or through subdivision (based on the modelled consent category from district planning rules). Redevelopment (business): The redevelopment of business land. This could include the removal of buildings from a parcel and the construction of new structures, or the addition of floor space to existing structures. Redevelopment (residential): The removal of dwellings from a residential zoned parcel and the development of up to the maximum number of dwellings facilitated under the district planning rules as modelled. This could be under a range of consent categories, excluding Non-Complying and Prohibited zone dependent. Rural area: Properties with a rural zoning, excluding areas that have been identified as forming part of a rural town (generally these areas fall outside of the MUL, but there are a few instances where this is not the case). Rural Towns: Clusters of properties that have a proposed 'urban type' zone (including residential and business zones from the Zone LUTs) and are outside of the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limits. Special areas: Areas spread across the locations above that are not suitable for analysis by the other methods. In many cases these are structure plans, where an overall yield figure is provided for the structure plan area based on published information, and no modelling is required or it is not possible.


200

Special areas include locations of particular activities that are not modelled (e.g. hospitals, quarries, ports etc.). Title: The land contained on a registered Certificate of Title. This geographic area is used to undertake capacity assessment within rural areas. Note that a title may contain one or many parcels. Transferable rural site subdivision (TRSS): The transfer of the residential development potential of rural sites from one location to another through the subdivision process as proposed in the rural zone of the PAUP. Total business land: Total area of business zoned land in a given area. Urban area: Large contiguous areas of properties that have a proposed 'urban type' zone and are within the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limits (Auckland Regional Council, 1999). Vacant (business): Capacity (in hectares) of business zoned parcels that are currently wholly vacant (no buildings/structures). Vacant (residential): Capacity for dwelling units on residential zoned parcels that are currently wholly vacant (no dwellings or buildings), either via subdivision or a dwelling as a right. Vacant potential (business): Vacant potential is the measure of the vacant portion of parcel that is currently zoned for business use and is not already occupied in some way by a building. Generally this portion of the site is unoccupied and could be used for further development. Vacant potential (residential): Refer Infill (residential). Zone LUT: A Zone LUT is a 'look up table' which contains the simplified parameters of the zoning provisions of the PAUP which are used as an input into the modelling process.

The definitions for many of the above terms are sourced from the Land Use and Built Environment Glossary of Terms (Fredrickson, 2013b). This glossary also includes many other terms used in this report, as well as other commonly used land use related terminologies. For a copy of this glossary, please contact the authors of this report.


201

15.0

References

AUCKLAND COUNCIL 2012a. The Auckland Plan, Auckland, New Zealand, Auckland Council. AUCKLAND COUNCIL 2012b. The Auckland Plan Addendum, Auckland, New Zealand, Auckland Council. AUCKLAND COUNCIL 2012c. Auckland Plan Issues Report: Strategic Business Classifications - Activities and Areas. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Council. AUCKLAND COUNCIL 2013a. Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, Auckland, New Zealand, Auckland Council. AUCKLAND COUNCIL 2013b. Unitary Plan workshop supports protection of productive rural areas. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Council. AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL 1999. Auckland Regional Policy Statement, Auckland, New Zealand, Auckland Regional Council. AUCKLAND REGIONAL GROWTH FORUM 1999. Auckland Regional Growth Strategy: 2050, Auckland, New Zealand, Auckland Regional Growth Forum. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. 2011. City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance: Frequently Used Standards - Rules of Measurement [Online]. South San Francisco, CA: City of South San Francisco. Available: http://www.flycode.net/rules_of_measurement.php?src=rulesmeasurement.htm [Accessed 19 March 2014]. FONTEIN, P. 2012. Auckland Unitary Plan - Total Development Potential Using a Fine Graned Analysis for the Howick Ward Area. Auckland, New Zealand: Studio D4. FONTEIN, P., RAY, A. & ROBINSON, T. 2011. Auckland Plan - Total Auckland Development Potential. Auckland, New Zealand: Studio D4 & Jasmax. FREDRICKSON, C. 2013a. Investigating potential for amalgamation of parcels located in the Mixed Housing Zone of the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Council. FREDRICKSON, C. 2013b. Land Use and Built Environment Glossary of Terms. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Council. FREDRICKSON, C. & BALDERSTON, K. 2013a. Capacity for Growth Study 2012: Methodolgy and Assupmtions. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Council. FREDRICKSON, C. & BALDERSTON, K. 2013b. Capacity for Growth Study 2012: Results. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Council. GAMBLE, S. 2010. Capacity for Growth Study 2006. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Regional Council. GRIFFIN5. 2007. The Ziggurat [Online]. Wikimedia Commons. Available: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacramento-river-bank-pyramid-20.4.jpg [Accessed 16 July 2014]. JASMAX & AUCKLAND COUNCIL 2012. Auckland Design Manual: Worked Examples - Infill Amalgamated Sites. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Council. MERIDIAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 2011. Revised plans for apartment building at 15th & V [Online]. Washington, DC: Meridian Hill Neighborhood Association. Available: http://www.meridianhilldc.org/home/2011/8/14/revised-plans-for-apartment-building-at-15th-v.html [Accessed Januray 2014 2014].


202

MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. 2008. Designations and requiring authorities [Online]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment. Available: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/central/designations/ [Accessed 8 April 2014]. OWEN, P. 2012. Auckland Residential Growth Model 2012. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Council. STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND. 2013. Occupied Dwelling Type [Online]. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. Available: http://www.stats.govt.nz/surveys_and_methods/methods/classifications-andstandards/classification-related-stats-standards/occupied-dwelling-type/definition.aspx [Accessed 17 March 2014]. THE CITY OF CALGARY. 2013. Carpenter’s Union Building (10 Street N.W.) Land Use Redesignation (Rezoning) Application [Online]. Calgary, Canada: The City of Calgary,. Available: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Pages/Current-studies-and-ongoingactivities/Carpenter%E2%80%99s-Union-Building-(10-Street-N.W.)-Land-Use-Redesignation(Rezoning)-Application.aspx [Accessed 19 March 2014].


203

16.0

Appendices


204

Appendix A: Map showing the location and extent of rural towns


205

° Te Hana Port Albert

Pakiri

Whagnaparap

Whangateau

Wellsford

Ti Point

Matakana Taparoa

Port Fitzroy

Omaha

Rainbows End

Awana

Campbells Beach

Sandspit

Bradleys Beach

Kaipara Flats

Okiwi

Leigh

Point Wells

Warkworth

Okupu

North Cove

Buckleton Beach

Claris

Whagnaparapara

Vivan Bay

Medlands

Bon Accord

Snells BeachAlgies Bay

Tryphena

South Cove

Scotts Landing Mahurangi West (Pukapuka)

Puhoi

Waiwera

Shelly Beach

Kaukapakapa Waitoki

Stillwater Weiti Village

Parakai

Okura

Helensville Coatsville Riverhead

Date Saved: 24/03/2014 10:52:26 a.m. Path: U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\Maps\1_Workspaces\Location and Extent of Rural Towns.mxd

Location and extent of rural towns assessed.

User: CraigF

Paremoremo

Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Waimauku KumeuHuapai

Herald Island Whenuapai Village

Whenuapai Coastal

Muriwai Waitakere Village

Orapiu

BeachlandsPine Harbour

Maraetai

Kawakawa Bay Orere Point

Whitford

Clevedon

Matingarahi

Big Bay Wattle Bay

Graham s Beach

Orua Bay Awhitu

Clarks Beach Waiau Pa

Pollock Te Toro

Auckland Council Boundary

Hingaia South

Matakawau Point

Matakawau

Waiau Beach

Glenbrook Beach

Rural Town

Urban Area Rural Area

Te Hihi Kingseat

Hunua

Karaka South Paparimu Paerata

Patumahoe

Pukekohe

Bombay

Buckland Waiuku

Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring

Appendix B: Maps showing the location of business areas (including business area type)


207

Map Number

Inset 1

Auckland Council Boundary Business Areas Urban Area Rural Town Rural Area

Inset 2

°

1

User: CraigF

Date Saved: 24/03/2014 11:39:29 a.m. Path: U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\Maps\1_Workspaces\Business Areas\Appendix - Business Areas Map Index.mxd

Inset 3

2 3

4 5

6 Inset 4

Location and extent of Business Areas assessed in study: Index map Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan


°

User: CraigF

Date S aved: 24/03/2014 12:46:18 p.m.

Path: U:\CPO\AS R\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\Maps\1_Workspaces\Business Areas\Appendix - Location of Business Areas, by Type Map 1.m xd

Orewa Town Centre

Orewa Mixed Use

Helensville North Light Industry

Helensville Town Centre Helensville West Light Industry

Silverdale West General Business

Silverdale Town Centre

Gulf Harbour Local Centre

Silverdale South General Business Silverdale South Silverdale South Light Industry Mixed Use Silverdale South Heavy Industry

Beverly Road Mixed Use

Inset 3

Whangaparaoa Business Mixed Use Whangaparaoa Town Centre Hudson Road Light Industry

Warkworth Town Centre Warkworth Warkworth General Business Mixed Use

Business Area Type

Warkworth Retail Park General Business Warkworth Industrial Light Industry Wellsford West Light Industry

Snells Beach Local Centre Snells Beach Light Industry

Inset 2

Wellsford Neighbourhood Centre

Wellsford South Light Industry

Inset 1

Metropolitan Limits

City Centre

Motorway

Town Centre

Road


Major Parks and Reserves

Business Park

Rural Town

Metropolitan Centre

Arterial or Major Road

Local Centre

Rail

Mixed Use

Metropolitan Area

General Business

Rural Area

Light Industry

Heavy Industry

Location of Business Areas (with type) (Business Redevelopment study component) Map 1



Path: U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\Maps\1_Workspaces\Business Areas\Appendix - Location of Business Areas, by Type Map 2.m xd Date S aved: 24/03/2014 12:47:12 p.m. User: CraigF

Mairangi Bay Mixed Use Mairangi Bay Local Centre

Northcote Town Centre

Jervois Road Three Lamps College Hill Local Centre Mixed Use Mixed Use

Hinemoa Street Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Light Industry

General Business

Takapuna Metropolitan Centre

Milford Town Centre Milford Mixed Use


Devonport Town Centre

Devonport Naval Base Light Industry


Central Business District City Centre

Belmont Local Centre

Rural Area

Devonport Naval Base Mixed Use

Hauraki Corner Local Centre

Barrys Point Takapuna Light Industry Mixed Use

Akoranga Business Park

Northcote Road/Akoranga General Business

Kawana Light Industry

Rural Town

Business Park

! °


Rail

Mixed Use

Smales Farm Taharoto Road Business Park Mixed Use

Wairau Valley Thornton Road Mixed Use Light Industry

Onewa Road Light Industry Highbury Town Centre Highbury Highbury Light Industry Mixed Use

Chelsea Light Industry

Makoia Road Local Centre

Verrans Corner Light Industry


Beach Haven Local Centre

Kahika Light Industry

Glenfield Town Centre

Wairau Valley Mixed Use Wairau Valley General Business

Sunnynook Local Centre

Apollo Drive Light Industry Interplex Rosedale Road/Tawa Road Light Industry Light Industry North Harbour Industrial Estate Constellation Drive Light Industry Light Industry Constellation Drive General Business

North Harbour Industrial Estate Rosedale Road/Tawa Road General Business General Business

Greville Road Local Centre Albany Business Park

Albany Village Light Industry Albany Village Local Centre Albany Metropolitan Centre

Browns Bay Mixed Use

Browns Bay Town Centre

Road



Local Centre

Town Centre

Motorway

Metropolitan Area

Metropolitan Limits

Metropolitan Centre

City Centre

Business Area Type

Path: U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\Maps\1_Workspaces\Business Areas\Appendix - Location of Business Areas, by Type Map 3.m xd Date S aved: 24/03/2014 12:50:50 p.m. User: CraigF

Huapai Town Centre Huapai Light Industry Kumeu Town Centre Kumeu Kumeu Light Industry Mixed Use

Rail

Major Parks and Reserves Rural Area



Heavy Industry

Light Industry

General Business

Rural Town Business Park

Mixed Use

Metropolitan Area

Glendene Local Centre

Cartwright Light Industry

Span Farm Heavy Industry

Macleod Road Light Industry

Mt Albert Mixed Use

Pt Chevalier Town Centre

Verrans Corner Light Industry

New Lynn Metropolitan Centre

Blockhouse Bay Local Centre


Titirangi Local Centre

Avondale Mixed Use Avondale Town Centre

Beach Haven Local Centre

Kahika Light Industry

! °

North Harbour Industrial Estate Light Industry

New Lynn General Business Wolverton Street New Lynn Light Industry Light Industry Wolverton Street Mixed Use

Rosebank Road Light Industry

Rosebank Road Heavy Industry

Waikaukau Road Waikumete Westech Place Light Industry Light Industry Light Industry Waikaukau Road Glen Eden Kelston Neighbourhood Centre Town Centre Local Centre

Henderson South Mixed Use

Henderson South Light Industry

Henderson Metropolitan Centre

Swanson-Brick Street Light Industry

Te Atatu Peninsula Town Centre Te Atatu Peninsula Mixed Use

Wharf Road Light Industry

Te Atatu South Local Centre

The Concourse Lincoln Radio Heavy Industry Light Industry

Hobsonville Corridor Light Industry

Hobsonville Village Local Centre Hobsonville Village Mixed Use

Lincoln Road Mixed Use Lincoln Road Lincoln Road General Business Light Industry

Westgate Metropolitan Centre

Don Buck Road Local Centre


Road Local Centre

Town Centre


Motorway

Metropolitan Limits

Swanson Local Centre

Massey North General Business

Whenuapai Pinepac Light Industry Whenuapai Village Light Industry

Massey North Massey North Mixed Use Metropolitan Centre

Massey North Light Industry

Ranui Local Centre Swanson-Airdrie Light Industry

Riverhead Mixed Use

Metropolitan Centre

City Centre

Business Area Type

Huapai Mixed Use

Sawmill Road Light Industry

Devonport Naval Base Mixed Use Devonport Town Centre

Business Area Type City Centre Metropolitan Centre Town Centre Local Centre Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use Business Park General Business Light Industry Heavy Industry

User: CraigF

Date S aved: 24/03/2014 12:59:03 p.m.


Central Business District City Centre Jervois Road Three Lamps College Hill Local Centre Mixed Use Mixed Use Richmond Road General Business Richmond Road Mixed Use

Three Lamps Franklin Road Town Centre Mixed Use

Ponsonby Road Richmond Road Town Centre Local Centre Crummer Road Westlynn Newton Newmarket North Neighbourhood Centre Surrey Crescent Mixed Use Mixed Use Newton/Grafton Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Newmarket West Grey Lynn Mixed Use Pt Chevalier Local Centre Eden Terrace Mixed Use Mixed Use Boston Road Newmarket Light Industry Metropolitan Centre Pt Chevalier New North Road Town Centre Mt Eden/Normanby Mixed Use Mixed Use Kingsland Remuera Road Asquith Avenue Morningside Local Centre Mixed Use Mixed Use Light Industry Morningside Light Industry

Wolverton Street Light Industry New Lynn Light Industry Wolverton Street Mixed Use

Blockhouse Bay Local Centre

Orakei Mixed Use

Newmarket South Mixed Use

St Heliers Local Centre

Eastridge Local Centre

Glen Innes Light Industry Glen Innes Town Centre Glen Innes Mixed Use

Meadowbank Local Centre

Market Road Upland Road Remuera Local Centre Town Centre Neighbourhood Centre Market Road Mt Eden Stonefields Pilkington Road Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Light Industry Manukau Road North Greenlane Balmoral Stonefields Morin Road Mixed Use Mixed Use Local Centre Local Centre Light Industry Mt Albert Ellerslie Racecourse Balmoral Business Park Morin Road Mixed Use Mixed Use Sandringham Lunn Ave/Marua Road Mixed Use Greenlane West Greenlane Local Centre Light Industry Local Centre Light Industry Great South Road/Ellerslie West Manukau Road South Mixed Use Panmure Mixed Use Mixed Use Great South Road/Ellerslie West Banks Road Duke Street Light Industry Mt Roskill Light Industry Mt Wellington North Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use Mixed Use Greenwoods Corner Stoddard Road Mt Wellington North Local Centre Town Centre Stoddard Road Ellerslie Hunters Park Drive Great South Road/Ellerslie West Panmure Mt Roskill General Business Light Industry Ellerslie South General Business Business Park Town Centre Mixed Use Local Centre Light Industry Mt Wellington North Great South Road Stoddard Road Light Industry Ellerslie South Mixed Use Light Industry Mixed Use Three Kings Foodstuffs Mt Roskill Town Centre Light Industry Mt Wellington Royal Oak Local Centre Town Centre Pah Road Southdown Sylvia Park Carbine Road Light Industry Light Industry Mixed Use Mixed Use Carr Road Penrose Light Industry Sylvia Park Light Industry Metropolitan Centre Te Papapa/Penrose South Roskill South Carbine Road Light Industry Neighbourhood Centre Southdown Heavy Industry Onehunga General Business Carbine Road Town Centre Onehunga East Light Industry Lynfield Mixed Use Onehunga West Local Centre Mixed Use Te Papapa/Penrose South Westfield/Mt Wellington Highway Onehunga East Heavy Industry Light Industry Onehunga West Light Industry Light Industry Onehunga South Southdown Heavy Industry Mt Wellington Highway Heavy Industry Mixed Use Onehunga South Light Industry

Mt Albert Mixed Use Mt Albert Town Centre

Avondale Mixed Use Avondale Town Centre

St Lukes Town Centre St Lukes Mixed Use

Valley Road Local Centre Dominion Road Mixed Use

Mission Bay Mixed Use

Parnell North Light Industry Stanley Street/Carlaw Park Parnell North Mixed Use Mixed Use Parnell Grafton Mixed Use Parnell Mixed Use Town Centre

Mt Eden Local Centre

Portage Road Light Industry Mangere Bridge Local Centre Mangere Bridge Mixed Use Mahunga Drive Light Industry

°

Metropolitan Limits Motorway Arterial or Major Road Road Rail Metropolitan Area Major Parks and Reserves Rural Town Rural Area

Luke Street Mixed Use

Highland Park Town Centre Highland Park Mixed Use Pakuranga Mixed Use Pakuranga Town Centre Cascades Road Light Industry

East Tamaki North Light Industry Highbrook Light Industry

Howick Town Centre Howick Mixed Use Moore Street Light Industry

Meadowlands Local Centre

Botany Mixed Use Botany Metropolitan Centre

Otahuhu Industrial Light Industry

Favona Light Industry

Otahuhu West Otahuhu West Light Industry Heavy Industry

Otahuhu Town Centre Otahuhu Industrial Mixed Use Otahuhu Mixed Use Otahuhu South Mixed Use

Bairds Road Light Industry

East Tamaki Heavy Industry Otahuhu East Light Industry

East Tamaki South Light Industry

Flat Bush Light Industry




User: CraigF

Date S aved: 24/03/2014 1:01:32 p.m.


Mangere Bridge Local Centre Mangere Bridge Mixed Use Mahunga Drive Light Industry

Westfield/Mt Wellington Highway Light Industry Portage Road Light Industry

°

Otahuhu Industrial Light Industry

Favona Light Industry

Otahuhu West Heavy Industry

Otahuhu Town Centre Otahuhu Industrial Mixed Use Otahuhu Mixed Use

Otahuhu West Light Industry

Massey Road Mixed Use

East Tamaki Heavy Industry

Mangere Town Centre

Ascot Park Light Industry

Oruarangi Road Light Industry

East Tamaki South Light Industry

Otahuhu East Light Industry

Otahuhu South Mixed Use

Flat Bush Light Industry Otara Light Industry

Bairds Road Light Industry

Otara Town Centre

Massey Road Local Centre Ascot Park Mixed Use

Botany Metropolitan Centre

Highbrook Light Industry

Luke Street Mixed Use

Ormiston Road Light Industry

East Tamaki Road Neighbourhood Centre

Ormiston Road Ormiston Local Centre Town Centre

Hunters Corner Town Centre

Mangere East Light Industry

Dawson Local Centre

Papatoetoe Town Centre

Manukau North Mixed Use

Manukau North Manukau West Light Industry Light Industry Manukau General Business Manukau West Manukau General Business Metropolitan Centre Puhinui Plunket Avenue Light Industry Manukau Heavy Industry Mixed Use Plunket Avenue Light Industry

Wiri Heavy Industry

Puhinui Heavy Industry

Pacific Events Drive Mixed Use

Wiri East Light Industry

Wiri West Light Industry Wiri West General Business

Business Area Type Metropolitan Limits City Centre Road Network Metropolitan Centre Motorway Town Centre Arterial or Major Road Local Centre Road Neighbourhood Centre Rail Mixed Use Metropolitan Area Business Park Major Parks and Reserves General Business Rural Town Light Industry Rural Area Heavy Industry

Clendon Local Centre

Manurewa Light Industry Manurewa Town Centre

Te Mahia Light Industry

Takanini North Light Industry

Addison Local Centre Takanini Mixed Use Takanini Takanini Light Industry Town Centre

Papakura East Light Industry Papakura Mixed Use




Path: U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\Maps\1_Workspaces\Business Areas\Appendix - Location of Business Areas, by Type Map 6.m xd Date S aved: 24/03/2014 1:10:22 p.m . User: CraigF

Hingaia Light Industry

Hingaia Mixed Use

Manukau Road (Pukekohe) General Business Manukau Road (Pukekohe) Light Industry

Pukekohe Pak n Save Manukau Road (Pukekohe) Mixed Use General Business

Franklin Road (Pukekohe) Pukekohe Mixed Use Mixed Use Pukekohe Stadium Drive Town Centre Mixed Use

Adams Drive Light Industry

Paerata Light Industry

Waiuku East Light Industry

City Centre

Drury Local Centre

Hunua Road Heavy Industry

Hunua Road Light Industry

Rail

Rural Town Business Park


Heavy Industry

Light Industry

General Business


Metropolitan Area Mixed Use


Road Local Centre

Town Centre


Motorway

Metropolitan Limits

! °

Metropolitan Centre

Business Area Type

Drury Mixed Use

Drury Light Industry



Inset 4

Belgium Street Business Area Light Industry

Waikuku South Mixed Use

Kitchener Road Mixed Use Waiuku Kitchener Road Local Centre Light Industry

Glenbrook Heavy Industry

Papakura East Light Industry Papakura Mixed Use Papakura Metropolitan Centre Papakura West Light Industry

Takanini Takanini Light Industry Town Centre

Appendix C: Map of location and extent of special areas


215

Auckland Council Boundary

Special Areas (excl. roll overs) Urban Area Rural Town

°

Date Saved: 24/03/2014 11:20:14 a.m.

Location and extent of Special Areas

User: CraigF

Path: U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\Maps\1_Workspaces\Location of Strucutre Plans and Special Areas.mxd

Rural Area



Appendix D: Map and list of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan designations (as used in the modelling process)


217

Auckland Council Boundary Desginations Urban Area

User: CraigF

Date Saved: 24/03/2014 11:21:24 a.m. Path: U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\Maps\1_Workspaces\Location and Extent of District Plan Designations.mxd

Rural Area

°

Location and extent of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Designations (used in Modelling Processes) Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan


Appendix E: Modelling rules for apportioning dwelling count from the rates assessment polygon to parcel polygon


219

Figure 73: Modelling rules for apportioning dwelling count from the rates assessment polygon to parcel polygon

Rates Assessment Parcel Count (SPATIAL Dataset) ONE Parcel (spatial) [PC = Parcel Count]

MANY Parcels (spatial) [PC = Parcel Count]

MANY Dwellings (non-spatial) [DC = Dwelling Count]

(NON –SPATIAL Dataset)

Rates Assessment Dwelling Count

ONE Dwelling (non-spatial) [DC = Dwelling Count]

Scenario (1)

Scenario (2)

Apportionment Rule (B): DC/PC = 1 Assign the Rates Assessment Dwelling Count to the Parcel ** Annotated inside FME Workbench as (B)

Apportionment Rule (A): 0 < DC/PC < 1 Assign the Rates Assessment Dwelling Count to the largest Parcel (by area) ** Annotated inside FME Workbench as (A)

Apportionment Rule (C): DC/PC > 1 Assign the Rates Assessment Dwelling Count to the Parcel ** Annotated inside FME Workbench as (C)

Apportionment Rule (D1): 0 < DC/PC < 1 Assign the Rates Assessment Dwelling Count (x) to the ranked (x) largest Parcels (by area) ** Annotated inside FME Workbench as (D1)

Apportionment Rule (D2): DC/PC ≥ 1 Prorate the Rates Assessment Dwelling Count by Parcel area and round to the nearest whole number ** Annotated inside FME Workbench as (D2)

The relationship between Rates Assessment polygons and Parcel polygons is a MANY:MANY relationship ONE Parcel may have MANY Rates Assessments, for example an Access Lots MANY Parcels may have ONE Rates Assessment, for example a Retirement Village The unique identifier for the Rates Assessment polygon “footprint” is held under the CRCGEOMETRYID field Dwelling Count data (on-spatial) is sourced from Property-IQ and can be linked to Auckland Council's Rates Assessment data (spatial) by joining on a common VALUATIONREF field (requires a common roll/assessment/suffix format standard) Dwelling Count is not the same as Building Count - a single Building may comprise more than one Dwelling There is always ONE VALUATIONREF per Dwelling, but there may be MANY VALUATIONREFs per Rates Assessment Property-IQ Dwelling Count data does not exist for Rural Auckland - only a measure of whether a Dwelling exists or not is provided. Mike Oberdries and Kyle Balderston | 14 September 2012


220

Appendix F: Data and sources utilised in study, with description and source


221

Business

Rural residential

Source

Sourced from council’s geospatial repository (SDE)

Table 53: Data and sources utilised in study, with description and source





Land Information New Zealand








Auckland Council



Auckland Council





Auckland Council







Auckland Council











Auckland Council

Extents of zoning, precincts and overlays, defined by polygons for the district plan section of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013.









Auckland Council



District plan designations

Designations as listed and defined by the district plan section of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, by polygons. Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013.







Auckland Council



Special featured identified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Special features (such as SEAs) defined by polygons, polylines and points, created for the district plan section of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013.



Auckland Council



Dwelling counts

Count of dwellings per valuation assessment, as at July 2013



CRS road polygons

Polygonal cadastral land parcel boundaries for parcels classified as being road. Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013.






CRS road centrelines

Polylines of all current road centrelines as per LINZ LandOnline Cadastral database. Includes some access ways and tracks as well as some that are paper roads only Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013.






Building footprints

Building outlines defining the extent of permanent building or structures, captured from high resolution aerial photography. Data was captured from 2010/2011 aerial photography by Auckland Council's Geospatial Unit. Some additional data in rural towns that are outside the extent of the higher resolution aerial photography was captured by RIMU. Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013.





Auckland Council



Metropolitan urban limits

Metropolitan urban limits of Auckland, as at 1 November 2010.





Auckland Council

Partially

Rural urban boundary

Rural urban boundary as notified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.







Auckland Council



Rural town extents

Extent of rural towns, created from reviewing PAUP zoning information. Rural towns defined as ‘urban’ (specific residential, business and mixed use) type zoned outside of the metropolitan limits. Created by Research, Investigations and Monitoring (AC). As September 2013.







Auckland Council

Rural area extent

Extent of rural area, created from reviewing PAUP zoning information. Rural area defined as ‘non-urban’ type zoned, in most cases outside of the metropolitan limits. Created by Research, Investigations and Monitoring (AC). As at September 2013.







Auckland Council

Special areas extents

Created by Research, Investigations and Monitoring (AC), using extracts from the PAUP. As at September 2013.







Auckland Council

Business areas and centres extents

Extent of business areas and centres across Auckland. Area extents, names provided by Economic Development (AC), created as part of the technical work undertaken for The Auckland Plan. Edited to confirm to parcel boundaries and PAUP zoning by Research, Investigations and Monitoring (AC). As at September 2013.



Auckland Council

Lakes

Identifies the location of lakes, as shown in the New Zealand Topographic Map series.








Rivers

Identifies the location of rivers, as shown in the New Zealand Topographic Map series.








CRS Parcel

Polygonal cadastral land parcel boundaries. Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013



CRS Titles

Polygonal title land boundaries. Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013

Local board boundaries

Polygons of Auckland's local board areas.

Local board groups

Polygons of groups of Auckland’s form local board areas. As per Appendix Q:Local board groups.







Rates assessment areas

Rates assessment area polygons. Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013





Property valuation values

Property valuation data based on 2011 valuation assessments, stored as part of the rates assessment area polygons (see above). Snapshot of data extracted 30 September 2013



District plan rules from the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The planning rules as set out in the region’s district planning documents.

Zoning, precincts and overlays from the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan






Other

Description

Business redevelopment

Data

Residential

Data used to assess





PropertyIQ Ltd.



222

Source

Sourced from council’s geospatial repository (SDE)

Auckland Council



Business redevelopment

Rural residential

Residential

Data used to assess

Coast (DCBD)

Used as a proxy to indicate the location of the coastline. Created from the parcel (DCDB) boundaries that have a sea or coastal abutment.

Floor space (residential, non-residential)

Amount of floor space (m2), by floor space type by valuation assessment, converted from Rates Assessment Area to parcel geography, as at July 2013.



PropertyIQ Ltd.

Employee counts (EC)

Count of employees, by meshblock. Collected by Statistics NZ via the Linked Employee Employer Database (LEED) and released as part of the Business Demographics data series, converted from meshblock to Business Area geography. Business Demographic data as at February 2013.



Statistics New Zealand




Other

Description

Business

Data

223

Appendix G: FME workbench processing inventory


224

Table 54: FME workbench processing inventory

Legend Mandatory data preparation (run once)

Processing order

FME workbench name

Mandatory geo-processing

Model type Residential

1

Data_Prep_RA_Format_VREF_1.fmw

Business Special Other

Residential 1.1

Data_Prep_RA_Floor_Space_Apportionment_1.1.fmw

Business

(OPTIONAL)

** this processing is optional

Special Other

Residential 2

Data_Prep_Parcel_RA_Dwelling_Cnt_Apportionment_2.f mw


Workbench description

Formats the VALUATIONREF strings held against the Rates Assessment polygons to allow Property-IQ datasets to be linked

Optional supplementary processing

Workbench published parameters

Workbench input datasets

Workbench output datasets

Input datasets

Rates Assessments (All Auckland)

RA VRef Formatted (All Auckland)

Output datasets

** (RA) denotes Rates Assessments

** writes to Master_Data_Input

Parcels (All Auckland)

RA Footprints VRef Formatted (All Auckland)

Builds data relationships between Rates Assessments and PIQ Floor Space attributes. Rates Assessments are output as both Stratum features (stacked polygons) and Footprint features (non-stacked polygons with floor space attributes aggregated)

Builds data relationships between Parcel features and Rates Assessment features so the Property-IQ dwelling count data can be apportioned from the Rates Assessment to the Parcel

Input datasets

RA VRef Formatted (All Auckland)

Output datasets

Floor Space Data (Property-IQ) Categories LUT (Property-IQ)

CRS Parcels (All Auckland) Input datasets Output datasets

RA VRef Formatted (All Auckland) Dwelling Counts Data (Property-IQ) Dwelling Age Data (Property-IQ) Categories LUT (Property-IQ)

RA Stratum VRef Formatted (All Auckland)

FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)

Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland


** with floor space attributes attached ** writes to Master_Data_Input

CRS Parcel RA Dwelling Counts (All Auckland) CRS Parcel RA Dwelling Counts With Age As Centroids (All Auckland)


** with dwelling counts, dwelling age and valuation assessment attributes attached ** writes to Master_Data_Input

Residential 3

Data_Prep_Parcel_RA_Clip_By_LBG_3.0.fmw

Business Special

Clips Parcel Rates Assessment polygons to LBG extents

Input datasets Output datasets

CRS Parcel RA Dwelling Counts (All Auckland) Extent LB

Other

CRS Parcel RA (by LBG) ** with dwelling counts, dwelling age and valuation assessment attributes attached



Residential 4

Data_Prep_Building_Footprint_Clip_By_LBG_3.1.fmw

Business Special

Clips Building Footprint polygons to LBG extents.

Input datasets

Building Footprints (All Auckland)

Building Footprints (by LBG)

Output datasets

Extent LB



Other Residential 5

Data_Prep_Zone_GDB_Resolved_3.2.fmw


Resolves ArcSDE Geodatabase Domains into code/value attribute pairs Resolves ArcSDE Geodatabase Subtypes into code/value attribute pairs

Zones UP GDB Resolved (All Auckland) Input datasets Output datasets

Clips Zone | Precinct | Overlay polygons to LBG extents. Residential 6

Data_Prep_Zone_Clip_By_LBG_3.3.fmw



Remove overlap slivers on Zones and Precincts (overlaps valid on Overlays) Only those Overlay feature classes that are used in the CfGS UP modelling rules are carried forward.

Zones UP (All Auckland)

** output may be subject to some manual editing with respect to sub-precincts while the UP datasets are in transition


Extent LB Zones UP GDB Resolved (All Auckland) Input datasets

Precincts UP GDB Resolved (All Auckland)

Output datasets

Overlays UP GDB Resolved (All Auckland)

Zones UP (All Auckland with LBG) Precincts UP (All Auckland with LBG)


Overlays UP (All Auckland with LBG)

** overlay filter based on Overlay_Feature_Class_List.xlsx

225

Processing order

FME workbench name

Model type

Residentia l 7

Data_Prep_Zone_UP_LUT_GIS_Dump_3.4.fmw


Workbench description Provides the raw data dump from the GIS for Zone, Precinct and Overlay datasets to be used as input for CfGS_ ZONECLASS_LUT.xlsx and the CfGS_ZONE_LUT.xlsx lookup table builds.



In addition to providing the CfGS modelling rules the lookup tables also manage the data mappings between the UP Schema and the CfGS Schema. Maps the UP Zone, Precinct and Overlay schema to the CfGS Zone and Overlay schema and links zone-specific modelling attributes held in the zone lookup tables

Residentia l 8

Data_Prep_Zones_LUT_4.fmw ** typically run as an overnight process


** this geoprocess can be run with all Overlay feature classes selected (slow) or only those feature classes that contribute to the CfGS Zones (fast)


IF RUN WITH ALL OVERLAY FEATURE CLASSES SELECTED THIS IS A COMPUTATIONAL INTENSIVE TASK AND SHOULD BE RUN AS AN OVERNIGHT PROCESS!

Residentia l 9

Data_Prep_Roads_5.fmw

Business

Translates CRS Road polygons into CRS Road lines and clips to LBG

Special

LBG Acronym Input Datasets Output Datasets

10

Data_Prep_Parcels_6.fmw

Business Special

Tags Parcel polygons with road frontage attributes Tags Parcel polygons with extent polygon attributes

Zones UP (All Auckland with LBG)

Manual processing undertaken by Kyle uses these raw data inputs to create:

Precincts UP (All Auckland with LBG) Overlays UP (All Auckland with LBG)

CfGS_ZONECLASS_LUT.xlsx



CfGS_ZONE_LUT.xlsx


CfGS Residential Zones (by LBG)

Precincts UP (All Auckland with LBG)

CfGS Business Zones (by LBG)

Overlays UP (All Auckland with LBG)

CfGS Special Zones (by LBG)

CfGS_ZONECLASS_LUT.xlsx

CfGS Overlays (by LBG | by Geometry)

CfGS_ZONE_LUT.xlsx

** writes to Master_Data_Enhanced

CRS Road Polygons (All Auckland)

CRS Road Lines

Extent Local Board

** writes to Master_Data_Enhanced


MASTER_Data_Prep_Roads_5.fmw


Creates a unique parcel feature ID as PAR_ID is not unique and parcel multipart geometries may also be split by MODEL_TYPE Residentia l


CRS Parcel RA (by LBG)

Processes by LBG

Tags Parcel polygons with CfGS Zone polygon attributes


CfGS Residential Zones (by LBG) CfGS Business Zones (by LBG) CfGS Special Zones (by LBG) LBG Acronym

Designations UP

Designation Inverse Buffer Distance


Input Datasets

Extent 2010MUL

Output Datasets

Extent Rural Towns

Extent RUB

Splits Building Footprint features straddling parcel polygons

Extent Business Area

Tags Parcel polygons with designation overlay status

CfGS_ASSESS_RES_LUT.xlsx

Building Footprints enhanced (by LBG) CRS Parcels Residential enhanced (by LBG) CRS Parcels Business enhanced (by LBG)

MASTER_Data_Prep_Parcels_6.fmw

CRS Parcels Special enhanced (by LBG) ** writes to Master_Data_Enhanced

CRS Road Lines (by LBG) CfGS_ASSESS_BUS_LUT.xlsx CfGS_ASSESS_SPL_LUT.xlsx


226

Processing order

FME workbench name

Model type


Geoprocessing algorithm to assess residential infill capacity and residential vacant potential capacity Geoprocessing_Vacant_Capacity_1.fmw

11

** typically run as an overnight process

Residentia l

THIS GEOPROCESS RUNS A COMPUTATIONALLY INTENSIVE ALGORITHM AND SHOULD TYPICALLY BE RUN AS AN OVERNIGHT PROCESS WHEN EXECUTED IN BATCH MODE!




Residential Parcels enhanced

Residential Infill Candidates

Building Footprints enhanced

Residential VP Candidates

Building; Parcel; Infill Feature Types to read


Residential Infill Candidates With Access


Residential Infill Candidates Without Access

Input Datasets

Residential Infill Candidates


LBG Acronym Assessment Area Threshold for VP versus Infill Minimum Building Footprint Area Minimum Dimension for a Building Platform

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Vacant_Capacity_1.fmw

Input Datasets Output Datasets LBG Acronym

12

Geoprocessing_Infill_Access_2.fmw

Residentia l

Geoprocessing algorithm to assess residential infill capacity candidate accessibility

CRS Road Lines

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Infill_Access_2.fmw

Output Datasets

13

Geoprocessing_Vacant_Capacity_Yields_3.fmw

Residentia l

Geoprocessing algorithm to aggregate yields at the parcel level for Infill capacity and for Vacant Potential capacity

LBG Acronym


Input Datasets

Residential Infill Candidates With Access

Output Datasets

Residential VP Candidates

Residential Parcel Yields Infill Residential Parcel Yields Infill Failed Residential Parcel Yields VP

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Vacant_Capacity_Yields_3 .fmw

Residential Parcel Yields VP Failed

LBG Acronym Minimum Building Footprint Area

14

Geoprocessing_Vacant_Yields_4.fmw

Residentia l

Geoprocessing algorithm to aggregate yields at the parcel level for Vacant capacity

Minimum Dimension for a Building Platform Assumed Level 3 Dwelling Area

Residential Parcels Vacant Residential Parcels enhanced Building Footprints enhanced

Residential Parcels Vacant Failed Dwelling Count

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Vacant_Yields_4.fmw

Residential Parcels Vacant Failed Shape Factor

Input Datasets Output Datasets


15

Geoprocessing_Redevelopment_Yields_5.fmw

Residentia l

Geoprocessing algorithm to aggregate yields at the parcel level for Redevelopment capacity


Minimum Dimension for a Building Platform


Assumed Level 3 Dwelling Area

Residential Parcels VP

Residential Parcels Vacant

Residential Parcel Yields Redevelopment

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Redevelopment_Yields_5.f mw

Parcel Rates Assessments


15.1

Residential_Infill_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)

** no HG Residential inputs

Residentia l

Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase. FME workbench location: ..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Residentia l\Infill_Assessment\



Infill (By LBG)

Infill (All Auckland)

Infill With Access (By LBG)

Infill With Access (All Auckland)

Infill Without Access (By LBG)

Infill Without Access (All Auckland)

Parcel Infill Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Infill Yield (All Auckland)

Parcel Infill Yield Failed (By LBG)

Parcel Infill Yield Failed (All Auckland)


227

Processing order

FME workbench name

15.2

Residential_Redevelopment_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)


Model type

Residentia l



Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.

Input Datasets

FME workbench location:

Output Datasets




Parcel Redevelopment Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Redevelopment Yield (All Auckland)


..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Residentia l\Redevelopment_Assessment\

15.3

Residential_Vacant_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)


Residentia l


Input Datasets

Parcel Vacant Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Vacant Yield (All Auckland)


Output Datasets

Parcel Vacant Yield Failed (By LBG)

Parcel Vacant Yield Failed (All Auckland)


Input Datasets

Vacant Potential (By LBG)

Vacant Potential (All Auckland)


Output Datasets

Parcel Vacant Potential Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Vacant Potential Yield (All Auckland)


..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Residentia l\Vacant_Assessment\

15.4

Residential_Vacant_Potential_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)


Residentia l


..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Residentia l\Vacant_Potential_Assessment\ LBG Acronym

16

Geoprocessing_Total_Land_Yields_1.fmw

Business

Geoprocessing algorithm to determine the Total business parcel yields (in hectares)

Minimum Business Parcel Area Threshold

Business Parcels enhanced CFGS_ASSESS_SPL_BUS_LUT.xlsx

Business Parcel Yields Total Land

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Total_Land_Yields_1.fmw

Business Parcel Yields Vacant

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Vacant_Yields_2.fmw

Business Parcel Yields VP Commercial

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Vacant_Potential_Yields_3 .fmw

Input Datasets Output Datasets LBG Acronym Minimum Building Footprint Area

17

Geoprocessing_Vacant_Yields_2.fmw

Business

Geoprocessing algorithm to determine the Vacant business parcel yields (in hectares)

Minimum Business Parcel Area Threshold

Business Parcels enhanced Building Footprints enhanced CFGS_ASSESS_SPL_BUS_LUT.xlsx

Input Datasets Output Datasets LBG Acronym Minimum Building Footprint Area

18

Geoprocessing_Vacant_Potential_Yields_3.fmw

Business

Geoprocessing algorithm to determine the Vacant Potential business parcel yields (in hectares)

Minimum Business Parcel Area Threshold Minimum Business Net Parcel Area Threshold

Business Parcels enhanced Building Footprints enhanced CFGS_ASSESS_SPL_BUS_LUT.xlsx

Business Parcel Yields VP Industrial



228

Processing order

FME workbench name

Model type






Business Parcel Yields Brownfield

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Brownfield_Yields_4.fmw


19

Geoprocessing_Brownfield_Yields_4.fmw

Business

Geoprocessing algorithm to aggregate yields at the parcel level for Brownfield capacity (in hectares)

Business Parcels enhanced

Assessment Area Threshold for Brownfield

Business Parcels enhanced

Minimum LIV / LCV Score

CFGS_ASSESS_SPL_BUS_LUT.xlsx



Zig1 Interface: Zig1_1_Business_ex_Ind_MC30m Zig1_A_SH_MHS Zig2 Interface: Zig2_1_Business_ex_Ind_MC30m Zig2_B_MHU Zig3 Interface: Zig3_2_Business_ex_Ind Zig3_C_THAB Zig4 Interface:

Data_Prep_Zone_Neighbour_Ziggurat_1.fmw 20

..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropolitan_And_Rural_Town\ Business\Floor_Space_Assessment\

Business

Creates building envelope constraint "ziggurats" across 8 different source-zone to destination-zone interfaces. Land parcels that reside in the destination-zone will be subject to these neighbour ziggurat constraints.

Zig4_3_MC_TC Zig4_D_MU_GB Input Datasets

Zig5 Interface:

Output Datasets

Zig5_4_MC Zig5_E_POS_on_3_MC

Business Zone Neighbour Ziggurats (All Auckland) ** writes to Master_Data_Floor_Space_Enhanced


Zig6 Interface: Zig6_5_TC_MU Zig6_E_POS_on_4_TC_MU Zig7 Interface: Zig7_6_LC_GB Zig7_E_POS_on_5_LC_GB Zig8 Interface: Zig8_7_Industry Zig8_F_POS_Residential ** reads from Master_Data_Floor_Space_Input

Data_Prep_Zone_Exclusion_Ziggurat_2.fmw 21


Business

Merges Neighbour Ziggurats with other Exclusion Ziggurats which account for upper level setback overlays, yard setback overlays, and height restriction overlays.

Business Zone Neighbour Ziggurats (All Auckland) Input Datasets Output Datasets

Upper Level Setback Overlays (All Auckland) Yard Setback Overlays (All Auckland)

Business Zone Exclusion Ziggurats (All Auckland) ** writes to Master_Data_Floor_Space_Enhanced


Height Restriction Overlays (All Auckland) Processes by LBG Data_Prep_Zone_Parcel_Ziggurat_3.fmw 22

** no CBD Residential inputs ..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropolitan_And_Rural_Town\ Business\Floor_Space_Assessment\


Business

Extrudes parcels to the storey height permitted by the underlying business zone and then clips these extrusions with the Exclusion Ziggurats to create the Parcel Building Envelope Ziggurats permitted under the Unitary Plan.

LBG Acronym Assumed Storey Height Storey Setback (L7 and above) Floor Space Minimum Input Datasets

Business Parcels enhanced (by LBG) Business Zone Exclusion Ziggurats (All Auckland)

Business Parcel Ziggurats as a fGDB (All Auckland)

Height Restriction Overlays (All Auckland)

Business Parcel Ziggurats as a GeoPDF (All Auckland)

Volcanic Viewshaft Height Overlays (All Auckland)

** writes to Master_Data_Floor_Space_Enhanced

MASTER_Data_Parcel_Ziggurat_3.fmw

Output Datasets

229

Processing order

FME workbench name

Model type

Newmarket_Fly_Through.fmw

22.1 (OPTIONAL)


Business

Workbench description Geoprocessing algorithm to create a 3D floor space extrusion in the Newmarket business zone. Extrusions are qualified for the Mount Eden Volcanic viewsheds




Input Datasets

Business Parcel Ziggurats (UC)

Business_Parcel_Ziggurats_Newmarket – GEoPDF

Output Datasets

** clip to Newmarket search envelope

Business_Parcel_Ziggurats_Newmarket – Collada (.dae)



LBG Acronym

23

Geoprocessing_Floor_Space_Yields_5.fmw

Business

Geoprocessing algorithm to aggregate storey floor area space yields at the parcel level for Floor Space capacity

Minimum Business Parcel Area Threshold Maximum Tower Area

Business Parcels enhanced (by LBG)

Business Parcel Yields Floor Space

MASTER_Geoprocessing_Floor_Space_Yields_5.fm w

Business Parcel Ziggurats (All Auckland)

Business Parcel Yields Floor Space By Storey (All Auckland)


Parcel Brownfield Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Brownfield Yield (All Auckland)


Parcel Total Land Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Total Land Yield (All Auckland)


Parcel Vacant Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Vacant Yield (All Auckland)


Business Parcel Ziggurats (by LBG)

Maximum Tower Site Area Input Datasets Output Datasets LBG Acronym

24

Geoprocessing_Floor_Space_Yields_By_Storey_6.fmw

Business

Geoprocessing algorithm to aggregate storey floor area space yields at the ParcelStorey-Level for floor space capacity

Minimum Business Parcel Area Threshold Maximum Tower Area

Business Parcels enhanced (All Auckland)

Maximum Tower Site Area Input Datasets Output Datasets

24.1

Business_Brownfield_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)

Business


Input Datasets


Output Datasets

..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Business\ Brownfield_Assessment\

24.2

Business_Total_Land_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)

Business


Input Datasets


Output Datasets

..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Business\ Total_Land_Assessment\

24.3

Business_Vacant_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)

Business


Input Datasets


Output Datasets

..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Business\ Vacant_Assessment\


230

Processing order

24.4

FME workbench name

Business_Commercial_VP_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)

24.5

Business_Industrial_VP_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)

Workbench description Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.

Business

FME workbench location: ..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Business\ Vacant_Potential_Assessment\C ommercial\

(MERGE)

24.6

Model type

Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase. Business

FME workbench location: ..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Business\ Vacant_Potential_Assessment\In dustrial\

Business_Floor_Space_Merge_ALL.fmw

Business





Input Datasets


Output Datasets




Parcel Commercial VP Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Commercial VP Yield (All Auckland)


Parcel Industrial VP Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Industrial VP Yield (All Auckland)


Parcel Floor Space Yield (By LBG)

Parcel Floor Space Yield (All Auckland)


..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Business\ Floor_Space_Assessment\ Derive a single Title Footprint polygon from M:M relationships existing between Title polygons and Parcel polygons. Accumulate attribution to reflect these relationships.

Data_Prep_Rural_Titles_1.fmw 25

** Titles may exist as multi-part polygons

Rural

Clip Title Footprint Rural polygons to Local Board Group extents

LINZ CRS Titles (All Auckland) Extent LB Input Datasets

Extent Rural Towns

Output Datasets

Base Zones Unitary Plan Designations UP CfGS Rural Zones (Merged ALL)

Filter out Title Footprint Rural polygons by overlaying the CfGS Rural Zone extents

Data_Prep_FU_Titles_1.1.fmw 26


Future Urban

Derive a single Title Footprint polygon from M:M relationships existing between Title polygons and Parcel polygons. Accumulate attribution to reflect these relationships. Clip Title Footprint Future Urban polygons to Local Board Group extents

27



Rural

** writes to Master_Data_Input Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland Title Footprints Rural (by LBG) ** writes to Master_Data_Rural_Input

LINZ CRS Titles (All Auckland) Extent LB Input Datasets

Extent Rural Towns

Title Footprints Future Urban (by LBG)

Output Datasets

Base Zones Unitary Plan

** writes to Master_Data_Rural_Input


Designations UP Extent Future Urban

Filter out Title Footprint Future Urban polygons by overlaying the CfGS Rural Zone extents

Data_Prep_Rural_Title_Footprints_Enhanced_2.fmw

Title Footprints (All Auckland)

Appends Zone, Building Footprint and Rates Assessments attributes to Rural Title Footprint features by Local Board Group.

LBG Acronym


Tags Title polygons with road frontage attributes

Minimum Building Footprint Area


NOTE: Rural Dwelling Count data from Property-IQ is not an actual count but an indication as to whether a dwelling exists or not.

Input Datasets

Extent 2010MUL

Output Datasets

Extent Rural Towns

Title Footprints Rural (by LBG) CfGS Rural Zones (by LBG)

Extent RUB

Title Footprints Rural enhanced ** writes to Master_Data_Rural_Enhanced

MASTER_ Data_Prep_Rural_Title_Footprints_Enhanced_2.fmw

CRS Road Lines (by LBG) CfGS_ASSESS_RUR_LUT.xlsx

231

Processing order

FME workbench name

Model type

Appends Zone, Building Footprint and Rates Assessments attributes to Future Urban Title Footprint features by Local Board Group.

Data_Prep_FU_Title_Footprints_Enhanced_2.1.fmw 28



Future Urban

Tags Title polygons with road frontage attributes NOTE: Rural Dwelling Count data from Property-IQ is not an actual count but an indication as to whether a dwelling exists or not.






Title Footprints Rural (by LBG) Building Footprints (by LBG) LBG Acronym


Minimum Building Footprint Area

Extent Future Urban Extent RUB

Input Datasets

Extent 2010MUL

Output Datasets

Extent Rural Towns

Title Footprints Future Urban enhanced ** writes to Master_Data_Rural_Enhanced

MASTER_ Data_Prep_FU_Title_Footprints_Enhanced_2.1.fmw

CRS Road Lines (by LBG) CfGS_ASSESS_FU_LUT.xlsx

232

Processing order

FME workbench name

Model type






Minimum CSL Title Road Frontage Minimum Title Footprint Subdivision Building Platform Area Minimum Title Footprint Subdivision Building Platform Area (SEA + Yard Setback) Minimum Vacant Title Area Minimum Vacant Donor Title Area Qualifier Minimum Vacant Donor Amalgamation Title Area Minimum Vacant Donor Building Platform Area Assumed Minimum Title Age Date

Geoprocessing_Rural_Title_Yields_3.fmw 29


Rural

Geoprocessing algorithm to determine the total Rural Title Footprint yields (as dwelling counts).

Minimum Vacant Receiver Title Area Qualifier

Title Footprint Rural Yield Subdiv 1A 150 Title Footprints Rural Enhanced (All Auckland) Building Platform Subdivision Constraints CSL Locations Non CSL Receiver Building Platform Exclusions Non CSL Receiver Building Platform Constraints

Minimum Vacant Receiver Title Area

CSL Receiver Building Platform Constraints

Minimum Vacant Receiver Building Platform Area

Second / Third Dwelling Rural Coastal Exclusions

Minimum Wetland Inclusion Overlay Area Minimum Wetland Inclusion Overlay Bonus Area Minimum SEA Inclusion Overlay Area

SEA Donor Inclusions

Building Platform Rodney Landscape Constraints

Title Footprint Rural Yield Subdiv 1B CSLpreTRSS Title Footprint Rural Yield Vacant (Occupied and Unoccupied) Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2A1 Vacant Donor Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2A2 Vacant Receiver Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2B1 SEA Donor Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2B2 SEA Receiver


Title Footprint Rural Yield 3B1 GreenhitheA

Clevedon Subprecinct Overlays

Title Footprint Rural Yield 3B2 RodneyLandscape

Building Platform Runciman Constraints

Title Footprint Rural Yield 3B3 Clevedon-3

** CSL Location Constraints links to CfGS_ASSESS_RUR_CSL_LUT.xlsx

Title Footprint Rural Yield 3B4 RuncimanAB Title Footprint Rural Yield 3C second third Rural Dwelling

Minimum SEA Inclusion Overlay Bonus Area Minimum SEA Donor Building Platform Area Minimum Rare Area Inclusion Overlay Area Minimum Rural Title Area for 2 Dwellings Minimum Rural Title Area for 3 Dwellings Input Datasets Output Datasets


233

Processing order

FME workbench name

Model type






Title Footprints Future Urban Enhanced (All Auckland)

Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2A1 Vacant Donor Future Urban


Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield (All Auckland)


Title Footprint Rural Yield With Yield Class Count (All Auckland)


Minimum Vacant Donor Title Area Qualifier Geoprocessing_FU_Title_Yields_3.1.fmw

30


Future Urban

Geoprocessing algorithm to determine the total Future Urban Title Footprint yields (as dwelling counts).

Minimum Vacant Donor Amalgamation Title Area Assumed Minimum Title Age Date Input Datasets Output Datasets

Title Footprints Future Urban Enhanced (All Auckland) Title Footprint Rural Yield Subdiv 1A 150 Title Footprint Rural Yield Subdiv 1B CSLpreTRSS Title Footprint Rural Yield Vacant (Occupied and Unoccupied) Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2A1 Vacant Donor

30.1

Rural_Title_Yield_Merge_ALL.fmw

(MERGE)

Rural

Merges 13x Rural Yield determinations (including 1x Future Urban determination) into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.

Input Datasets


Output Datasets

Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2A1 Vacant Donor Future Urban

..\\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Rural_R esidential\Yield_Assessment\Dat a_Output

Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2A2 Vacant Receiver Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2B1 SEA Donor Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2B2 SEA Receiver Title Footprint Rural Yield 3B1 GreenhitheA Title Footprint Rural Yield 3B2 RodneyLandscape Title Footprint Rural Yield 3B3 Clevedon-3 Title Footprint Rural Yield 3B4 RuncimanAB Title Footprint Rural Yield 3C second third Rural Dwelling

31

Geoprocessing_Title_Yield_Class_Counts_4.fmw ** Titles may exist as multi-part polygons


Rural

Geoprocessing algorithm to determine the count of different yield classes, with values greater than zero, a Rural Title Footprint is subject to.


Title Footprint Rural Yield (All Auckland)

234

Appendix H: FME workbench schematics


235

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Data_Prep_RA_Format_VREF_1.fmw - Data_Prep_RA_Format_VREF_1.fmw - FME Workbench

Standardise Delimiters

fGDB - Rates_Assessments Valuations as at 16-July-2013 Drop unwanted attributes Rates_Assess...

Copy VALUATIONREF to _valuationref_tmp

Replace "-" delimiter with "/" delimiter

Process delimited parts of VREF string separately

Build a list of the delimited VREF string parts

Split _valuationref_tmp on delimiter "/"

No delimiters so extract_val as a substring - can include _suffix

No delimiters so extract _roll as a 5 char substring

AttributeKeeper

AttributeCopier

StringReplacer

AttributeSplitter

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

VALUATIONREF

VALUATIONREF

LCV

_valuationref_t...

LLV

LCV

Replace " " delimiter with "/" delimiter

Identify the number of list elements

LIV

LLV

LATESTVALU...

LIV

VALUATIONREF

LANDAREA

LATESTVALU...

RATESASSES...

AREAUNIT

LANDAREA

HOUSENOSTART

AREALABEL

AREAUNIT

FORMATTEDST...

CRCGEOMET...

AREALABEL

index = 1

CRCGEOMET...

index = 2

TLACODE TLADESCRIPTI... EXTRACTDATE... RATEACCOUNT... RATEACCOUNT...

CHECKDIGITO... PROPERTYKEY PROPERTYID

FORMATTEDA... STREET

SUBURB

StringReplacer_2

ListElementCounter

SubstringExtractor

Filter on list _element_index

TestFilter

SubstringExtractor...

Create valutionref parts being _roll, _val

AttributeCreator_3

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

index = 0

OUTPUT

index >= 3

_element_index = _element_count - 1

Pg 1/1

Create valutionref parts being _roll, _val, _suffix

Trim leading zeros on the left of _val

Trim leading zeros on the left of _roll

AttributeTrimmer

AttributeTrimmer_2

Concatenate _roll, _val, _suffix to create a formatted valuationref _valuationref_formatted

fGDB - Rates_Assessments_VREF_Formatted Drop unwanted attributes

No dataset fanout

LEGAL CV LV IV RV

AttributeCreator

AttributeCreator_4

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

VALUATIONREF

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

_valuationref_f...

VALUATIONREF

LCV

LCV

LLV

LLV

LIV

LIV

LATESTVALUA...

LLV

Create valutionref parts being _roll, _val

Trim _roll from the left of _val

Search for [A-Z] in the _val

If [A-Z] found then _suffix is last list element

LATESTVALU... LANDAREA

LATESTVALUA... OBJECTION

AttributeCreator_5

AttributeTrimmer_4

StringSearcher

AttributeCreator_6

AREAUNIT

IMPROVEMENT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

AREALABEL

LANDUSE

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

MATCHED

OUTPUT

CRCGEOMET...

LANDUSEDES...

_valuationref_f...

NOT_MATCHED

RATEABILITY RIDPRIVACYC... RIDPRIVACYD...

Trim _suffix from the right of _val

MAILNAME MAILADDRESS1

AttributeTrimmer_3

MAILADDRESS2 MAILADDRESS3 MAILADDRESS4

INPUT OUTPUT

MAILADDRES... FORMATTEDM... CT

TRANSITIONRA...

Drop unwanted "/" delimiters from _val

WASTEWATER... TLATOTALRATES

StringReplacer_3

BALANCEOUT... LANDAREA AREAUNIT AREALABEL CRCGEOMETR... DISPLAYFLAG CREATEBY CREATEDATE MODIFYBY MODIFYDATE PREADJUSTE... SHAPE_Length SHAPE_Area

Rates_Assess...

INPUT

OUTPUT

LCV

LRV

AttributeRemover

INPUT

VALUATIONDA...

LIV

AttributeCreator_7

INPUT OUTPUT

LANDAREA AREAUNIT AREALABEL CRCGEOMETR...

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Data_Prep_RA_Floor_Space_Apportionment_1.1.fmw - Data_Prep_RA_Floor_Space_Apportionment_1.1.fmw - FME Workbench

Pg 1/1

DATA TYPES: =========== The relationship between Parels and Rates Assessments is a M:M 1. ONE Parcel may have MANY Rates Assessments - for example, Access Lots 2. MANY Parcels may have ONE Rates Assessment - for example, Retirement Villages There is 1 VALUATIONREF per Dwelling and there may be MANY VALUATIONREFs per Rates Asessment Dwelling count is not the same as Building count A single Building may comprise more than one Dwelling

Join Floor Space attributes against Rates Assessment stratum features (Parent and Child)

Configure Rates Assessments and PIQ Floor Space attributes

The Rates Assessment polygon identfier is the CRCGEOMETRYID, where there is a MANY:1 or a 1:1 relationship between the "stacked" VALUATIONREF polygon and the CRCGEOMETRYID polygon

fGDB - RA_Stratum_VREF_Formatted_With_Floor_Space.gdb "Stratum" implies polygon stacking exists in output

Drop valuationref suffix to create _vref_formatted_less_suffix

Copy attribute _valuationref_formatted to _vref_formatted_less_suffix

Sort on _valuationref_formatted

Typically this is the "Parent" valuation reference as "Child" references are generally denoted with a 1 or 2 letter suffix

This insures that where the CRCGEOMETRYID is repeated, that it is ordered on valuation ref meaning the "Parent" valuation ref record is listed first.

Regex suffix search = [A-Z]+$

Required for DuplicateRemover

No dataset fanout

Join PIQ Floor Space attributes to the VALUATIONREF polygon features

Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes

Join on _valuationref_formatted Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper

RA_Stratum_E...

FeatureMerger_5

QPID

INPUT

REQUESTOR

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

VALUATIONREF

COMPLETE

LCV

INCOMPLETE

LLV

EMPTY

LCV

LANDAREA

LIV

LLV

REFERENCED

AREAUNIT

LATESTVALU...

UNREFERENC...

AREALABEL

fGDB - Rates_Assessments_VREF_Formatted Valuations as at 16-July-2013 AttributeCopier

StringReplacer

Rates_Assess...

INPUT

INPUT

Sorter_2 INPUT

VALUATIONREF

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

SORTED

LIV

LANDAREA

LATESTVALUA... LANDAREA AREAUNIT

AREALABEL CRCGEOMETR...

VALUATIONREF _valuationref_f... CRCGEOMETR...

LATESTVALUA...

Category_Code

DUPLICATE_S...

AREAUNIT

Category_Desc...

AREALABEL

Apportionment_...

CRCGEOMET...

LUD_Bldg_Floo...

_valuationref_f...

LUD_Bldg_Site...

_valuationref_f...

Join Floor Space attributes against Rates Assessment footprint features (Parent only)

Reomoves stacked rates assessment polygon duplicates The first CRCGEOMETRYID feature encountered should have the "Parent" _valuationref_formatted GroupBy on CRCGEOMETRYID Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper_2

fGDB - RA_Footprints_VREF_Formatted_With_Floor_Space.gdb

DuplicateRemover

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE UNIQUE

"Footprints" implies NO polygon stacking exists in output - this is a Parent Polygon output Join PIQ Parent Floor Space attributes (0,3,5,6) to unique CRCGEOMETRYID polygon features

Join Floor Area and Site Cover sum attributes

Join on _valuationref_formatted

Join on CRCGEOMETRYID

Overwrite sum attributes for Auckland Council TA only LUD_Bldg_Floor_Area LUD_Bldg_Site_cover

No dataset fanout Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes

Drop unwanted attributes

Property IQ

This insures that where the CRCGEOMETRYID is repeated, that it is ordered on valuation ref meaning the "Parent" valuation ref record is listed first

Typically this is the "Parent" valuation reference as "Child" refernces are generally denoted with a 1 or 2 letter suffix

Required for FeatureMerger_2

Concatenate Roll/Assessment CSV - PIQ900295_Floor_Space Data Source - Property IQ (Richard Deakin) 16-July-2013

Filter on Apportionment_Adjusted - exclude CHILD records in RA Footprint join




Join Category_Description matching on Category_Code in PIQ_Categories_Lookup.csv

0 = Apportionment Not Applicable 1 = Rating Apportionment (child of 5) 2 = Separate Apportionment (child of 6) 3 = Part Property in SRA (rare) 5 = Parent of 1 - same owner; different Category 6 = Parent of 2 - different owners

FeatureMerger_2

AttributeKeeper_7

REQUESTOR SUPPLIER COMPLETE INCOMPLETE EMPTY

Join PIQ Parent Floor Space attributes (0,3,5,6) to unique CRCGEOMETRYID polygon features Join on _vref_formatted_less_suffix

REFERENCED StringConcatenator

AttributeKeeper_5

Sorter

Joiner_2

AttributeFilter

UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...

FeatureMerger_6

QPID

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

VALUATIONREF

VALUATIONREF

COMPLETE

LATESTVALU...

INCOMPLETE

LANDAREA

EMPTY

AREAUNIT

REFERENCED

AREALABEL

UNREFERENC...

CRCGEOMET...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

_valuationref_f...

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

SORTED

JOINED

0

SUPPLIER

QPID

Val_Ref

QPID

1

COMPLETE

Category_Code

Roll

_valuationref_f...

2

INCOMPLETE

Apportionment_...

Category_Code

3

EMPTY

LUD_Bldg_Flo...

Apportionment_...

5

REFERENCED

LUD_Bldg_Site...

LUD_Bldg_Flo...

6

UNREFERENC...

Category_Desc...

DUPLICATE_S...

Suffix Category Apportionment

AttributeRenamer

Apportionment_...

INPUT

LUD_Bldg_Floo... LUD_Bldg_Site...

LUD_Bldg_Site... _vref_formatted...

OUTPUT

Category_Desc...

QPID

_matched_reco...

_valuationref_f...

Join PIQ Child Floor Space attributes (0,1,2) to stacked valuation reference polygon features

Join PIQ Child Floor Space attributes (0,1,2) to stacked valuation reference polygon features


Join on _vref_formatted_less_suffix

Category_Code Apportionment_...


LUD_Bldg_Flo... LUD_Bldg_Site... _vref_formatted...

AttributeKeeper_4

FeatureMerger_3

FeatureMerger_7

INPUT

REQUESTOR

REQUESTOR

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

SUPPLIER

CRCGEOMET...

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

_valuationref_f...

INCOMPLETE

INCOMPLETE

_vref_formatted...

EMPTY

EMPTY

REFERENCED

REFERENCED

UNREFERENC...

UNREFERENC...

DUPLICATE_S...

DUPLICATE_S...

AUCKLAND CITY Apportionment Rules (Child only)

Join Auckland TA PIQ Floor Space attributes to unique CRCGEOMETRYID point features Replace CRCGEOMETRYID polygon footprint with polygon centroids

InsidePointReplacer

Extract Auckland Council RA footprint polygon centroids only _overlaps_ak_ta = 1

Tester_2

Join on CRCGEOMETRYID Create list for 1:M being _list_floor space

FeatureMerger_4

Sum list for Floor Area

ListSummer

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INSIDEPOINT

PASSED

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

UNTOUCHED

FAILED

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

fGDB - TLA_2010 TLA_2010 [TL... NAME TA_Code TA_DP_Code

Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper_3

Filter on Auckland TA TA_Code = ACC

EMPTY Overlay points with Auckland TA

Tester

PointOnAreaOverl...

INPUT

INPUT

POINT

OUTPUT

PASSED

AREA

TA_Code

FAILED

Sum list for Site Cover

REFERENCED UNREFERENC... Apportionment codes are not complete for the AUCKLAND CITY - the Parent/Child hierarchy is not expressed through the roll/assessment/suffix, rather separate valuation references may exist on the same CRCGOEMETRYID footprint

DUPLICATE_S...

ListSummer_2 INPUT OUTPUT

POINT AREA

Parent valuation reference polygons may have been retired by Auckland Council Valuers. Accordingly it is necessary to determine the total Floor Area and Site Cover values as a sum of the child record references common to a CRCGEOMETRYID footprint, instead of a join on the parent valuation reference

RA_Footprints...

INPUT

QPID

Rename attributes

AttributeCreator

REQUESTOR

PIQ900295_Fl...

Assessment

FeatureMerger

INPUT


AttributeKeeper_6 INPUT OUTPUT CRCGEOMET... _sum_lud_bldg... _sum_lud_bldg...

DUPLICATE_S...

_valuationref_f... CRCGEOMETR...

LATESTVALUA... LANDAREA AREAUNIT

AREALABEL Category_Code Category_Desc... Apportionment_... LUD_Bldg_Floo... LUD_Bldg_Site...

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Data_Prep_Parcel_RA_Dwelling_Cnt_Apportionment_2.fmw - Data_Prep_Parcel_RA_Dwelling_Cnt_Apportionment_2.fmw - FME Workbench

DATA TYPES: ===========

SOURCE DATA: =============

The relationship between Parels and Rates Assessments is a M:M 1. ONE Parcel may have MANY Rates Assessments - for example, Access Lots 2. MANY Parcels may have ONE Rates Assessment - for example, Retirement Villages

Dwelling count data comes from Property-IQ

There is 1 VALUATIONREF per Dwelling and there may be MANY VALUATIONREFs per Rates Asessment

Dwelling Count data does not exist for Rural locations; only an indication that a dwelling exists or not

Pg 1/1

Tony Fowlie's group (Auckland Council) will build the Property-IQ data links to the VALUATIONREF Dwelling Count can then be linked to Auckland Council's Rates Assessment dataest by joining the PIQ Dwellling Count data using a common VALUATIONREF field

It is important that the modelling dataests (parcel, rates assessment and dwelling count) all subscribe to the same extract date.

Dwelling count is not the same as Building count A single Building may comprise more than one Dwelling

The relationship between Parcels and Rates Assessments and Dwelling Counts are derived from spatial overlays. The resultant dataest will have wider uses outside the CfGS.

The Rates Assessment polygon identfier is the CRCGEOMETRYID, where there is a MANY:1 or a 1:1 relationship between the "stacked" VALUATIONREF polygon and the CRCGEOMETRYID polygon

Join and accumulate attributes on Rates Assessments' CRCGEOMETRYID feature

Configure Rates Assessments attributes

Drop valuationref suffix to create _vref_formatted_less_suffix Typically this is the "Parent" valuation reference as "Child" references are generally denoted with a 1 or 2 letter suffix Copy attribute _valuationref_formatted to _vref_formatted_less_suffix


Regex suffix search = [A-Z]+$



fGDB - Rates_Assessments_VREF_Formatted Valuations as at 16-July-2013

AttributeCopier

StringReplacer

AttributeKeeper

Rates_Assess...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

VALUATIONREF

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Sorter_5

VALUATIONREF

LCV LLV

LIV

Join PIQ DWELLING COUNT to the VALUATIONREF polygon features

LATESTVALU...


LLV

LATESTVALUA... LANDAREA

CRCGEOMETR...

AREALABEL

_valuationref_f...

CRCGEOMET...

REQUESTOR

_valuationref_f...

SUPPLIER

_vref_formatted...

COMPLETE


Property IQ

Required for FeatureMerger_5

Concatenate Roll/Assessment Drop unwanted attributes

PIQ900226_Dwelling_Counts Data Source - Property IQ (Richard Deakin)

StringConcatenator PIQ900226_D... QPID

INPUT OUTPUT

Roll Assessment

AttributeKeeper_5 INPUT

Rename attributes

AttributeRenamer INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

QPID

QPID

Val_Ref

_valuationref_f...


Category

Category_Code


Count_of_Estim...

_count_dwellings

_val_ref_less_s...

_vref_formatted...

Count_of_Estim... Units_Of_Use

Concatenate Roll/Assessment

Suffix Val_Ref Category

StringConcatenat...

AttributeKeeper_6

INPUT SORTED

REFERENCED UNREFERENC... Join Category_Description matching on Category_Code in PIQ_Categories_Lookup.csv

DUPLICATE_S...

Sorter_4

INPUT

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE

COMPLETE

LATESTVALU...

UNIQUE

INCOMPLETE

LANDAREA

EMPTY

AREAUNIT

REFERENCED

AREALABEL

INPUT JOINED

Joiner_3


FeatureMerger_4 REQUESTOR

Roll

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

SORTED

JOINED

SUPPLIER

QPID

COMPLETE

Val_Ref

_valuationref_f...

INCOMPLETE

Category LUD_Age MAS_Estimate...

EMPTY

LUD_Age

REFERENCED

MAS_Estimate...

UNREFERENC...

Building_Age_... _vref_formatted...

REQUESTOR SUPPLIER

Category_Code

Building_Age_... _val_ref_less_s...

EMPTY

Concatenate attributes: QPID, VALUATIONREF, _valuationref_formatted, LUD_Age, MAS_estimated_Year_Built and Building_Age_Adjusted_EYB_Title

UNREFERENC...

Retain attributes that vary across a CRCGEOMETRYID group


FeatureMerger_7

QPID

TA

Aggregate features GroupBy on CRCGEOMETRYID

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE_S...

Rename sum attributes to reflect that they are totals

Aggregator

Create count attribute _count_parcels_by_ra Create list attribute _list_parcels_by_ra

GeometryOGCVali...

INPUT

INPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

Assign final Parcel level dwelling counts

INPUT OUTPUT

AttributeCreator_14 RA Dwelling Count / Parcel Count Ratio

A SpatialRealator was substituted for a PointOnAreaOverlayer to avoid FME FATAL runtime errors

LIV CRCGEOMET...

Tester

BASE

INPUT

PASSED

CANDIDATE

PASSED

FAILED

OUTPUT

FAILED

Calculate _count_dwellings_parcels_ratio_by_ra = _count_dwellings_by_ra/_count_parcels_by_ra

AttributeCreator_4

Parcel relationship RA => 1:1 Parcel _dwelling_count = RA _dwelling_count

FeatureMerger_2

Filter matched parcels polygons on _count_dwellings_parcels_ratio_by_ra Set _count_dwellings = _count_dwellings_by_ra

TestFilter_3

INPUT

REQUESTOR

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

DC/PC = 0

COMPLETE

DC/PC = 1

INCOMPLETE

DC/PC > 1

EMPTY

Trim comma delimeters on null concatenated fields

INPUT

B

B = One Dwelling / One Parcel

AttributeCreator_15 INPUT OUTPUT

REFERENCED RA Parcel count filter AttributeTrimmer_4

EMPTY

_valuationref_f...

REFERENCED

QPID

INPUT

LUD_Age

UNREFERENC...

_count_dwellings

OUTPUT

MAS_Estimate...

DUPLICATE_S...

LUD_Age MAS_Estimate...

INPUT

ONE Parcel : dwelling count apportionment scenarios

OUTPUT Avoid divide by zero issue created by rare rates assessments without overlapping parcels _count_parcels_by_ra > 0

SpatialRelator

Set _count_dwellings = _count_dwellings_by_ra

ListIndexer

LCV

INCOMPLETE

Building_Age_...

AttributeRenamer_2

Overlay parcel centroid points on rates assessment polygons to append parcel area attribution

Validate geometry to avoid separate polygon geometry with self-intersecting rings

INPUT

VALUATIONREF

LLV

COMPLETE

DUPLICATE_S...

REFERENCED

Sum attributes: LCV, LLV, LIV and _count_dwellings


INPUT

TA_Name

SUPPLIER COMPLETE

INPUT


INPUT

Val_Ref

OUTPUT

Index list {0} so list attributes of the largest parcel are demoted to the feature attributes

REQUESTOR

Category_Desc...

SORTED

Join PIQ DWELLING AGE to the VALUATIONREF polygon features

Join Category_Description matching on Category_Code in PIQ_Categories_Lookup.csv

INPUT

FeatureMerger

Category_Code

Sorter_6

ListSorter

Join on CRCGEOMETRYID

CRCGEOMET...

Sort on _valuationref_formatted This insures that where the CRCGEOMETRYID is repeated, that it is ordered on valuation ref meaning the "Parent" valuation ref record is listed first.

Sort _list_parcels_by_ra by _area_parcel_calculated (descending)

Join aggregated attributes back on to core attributes

INCOMPLETE

INPUT

Category

Build Parcels / Rates Assessments relationships

DuplicateRemover

INPUT

INPUT

Suffix

GroupBy on CRCGEOMETRYID

INPUT SORTED

INPUT

QPID

AttributeKeeper_2

REQUESTOR SUPPLIER

PIQ900102_D...

Assessment

Retain attributes that are unchanged across a CRCGEOMETRYID group


Sorter

The first CRCGEONETRYID feature encountered should have the "Parent" _valuationref_formatted

Required for DuplicateRemover

FeatureMerger_6

DUPLICATE_S...

Joiner_4


Rename attributes

AttributeRenamer_3

EMPTY

Reomoves stacked rates assessment polygon duplicates



UNREFERENC... Sorter_2

Required for FeatureMerger_4 Drop unwanted attributes

PIQ900102_Dwelling_Age Data Source - Property IQ (Richard Deakin)

FeatureMerger_5

INCOMPLETE




SORTED


LANDAREA AREAUNIT


RA Footprint on VREF of "Parent" polygon

INPUT

LCV

LIV

AREAUNIT AREALABEL

Bad_Geomet...

ANOMALY_...


Set _count_dwellings = _count_dwellings_by_ra

C

Filter rates assessment polygons on _count_parcels_by_ra

C = Many Dwellings / One Parcel

AttributeCreator_13 INPUT

Building_Age_... MANY Parcels : dwelling count apportionment modelling

TestFilter

OUTPUT

INPUT RA Parcel Cou... RA Parcel Cou... Build Parcel centroids

Drop unwanted attributes fGDB - CRS_Parcel_ALL

Calculate the parcel area

Replace the parcel polygon with a parcel centroid point

Explode the rates assessment parcel list _list_parcels_by_ra _element_index_parcel

Derive Rates Assessment total LIV and LCV ratios and score attributes for the Parcel polygons

Parcel relationship RA => MANY:1 Parcel _dwelling_count => "Prorate" RA _dwelling_count There are duplicate PAR_ID values on the SUPPLIER dataset but these have been sorted so the PAR_ID with the largest area is the first element in the list and whose attributes have been demoted to the feature attributes. This record becomes the PAR_ID that gets matched insuring that when the DC/PC ratio is = 1

OUTPUT

PARCEL_ID

_area_parcel_c...

POLY_ SUFI TOC_CODE PARCEL_INTENT FEATCODE FEN_ID LEGAL1 TOTAL_AREA LEGAL LABEL CREATEBY

MODIFYDATE

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

No dataset fanout Feature Type = CRS_Parcels_RA_Enhanced Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes Calculate parcel area _area_parcel_calculated

TestFilter_4

AreaCalculator_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

LCV > 0

OUTPUT

PAR_ID

LCV = 0

PAR_ID

REFERENCED

LATESTVALU...

UNREFERENC...

LANDAREA

INCOMPLETE

0 < DC/PC < 1

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE_S...

AREAUNIT Icrement the parcel list element index by 1 _element_index_parcel_adj

For (0 < DC/PC < 1) assign Dwelling Count only to the (x) largest area Parcels where (x) = _count_dwellings_by_ra

Set _count_dwellings = 1 If you group this category of parcel by RA then the 1's will sum to _count_dwellings_by_RA

AttributeCreator_16

TestFilter_5

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

Index > RA D... Index = 1

Parcels without rates assessments - railway land - pedestrian accessways - access lots, etc Set Rates Assessment attributes to Unknown Set _count_dwellings = 0 Set _count_dwellings_by_ra = 0 Set _count_parcels_by_ra = 0 Set _count_dwellings_parcels_ratio_by_ra = 0

No dataset fanout Feature Type = CRS_Parcels_RA_Enhanced_As_Centroids

_area_parcel_c...

AttributeCreator_6

Reformat comma delimited year string as a list for attribute _estimated_year_built

Test attribute _estimated_year_built is EMPTY

Tester_2

AttributeSplitter

Extract the min and max year built values from the list

ListRangeExtractor

Set attribute _best_estimated_year_built = _min_year_built

AttributeCreator_10

Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes Replace parcel polygons with parcel polygon centroids (points)

InsidePointReplac...

Drop unwanted lists

AttributeRemover

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PAR_ID

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

INSIDEPOINT

OUTPUT

QPID

UNTOUCHED

PAR_ID

FAILED

LATESTVALU... LANDAREA AREAUNIT Set attribute _estimated_year_built = Building_Age_Adjusted_EYB_Title

Test attribute _estimated_year_built is EMPTY


PAR_ID VALUATIONREF

Tester_3

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

PASSED FAILED

CRCGEOMET...

TOTAL_RA_LIV

Set attribute _estimated_year_built = LUD_Age

LATESTVALU... LANDAREA AREAUNIT

CRCGEOMET...

Category_Desc... VALUATIONREF TOTAL_RA_LCV TOTAL_RA_LLV TOTAL_RA_LIV _valuationref_f...

TOTAL_RA_LCV TOTAL_RA_LLV

AREALABEL

Category_Code AttributeCreator_8

OUTPUT

_valuationref_f...

CRS_Parcels_...

INPUT

AttributeCreator_9

AREALABEL

INPUT

_count_dwellings

OUTPUT

VALUATIONREF _valuationref_f... CRCGEOMETR... LATESTVALUA... TOTAL_RA_LCV TOTAL_RA_LLV TOTAL_RA_LIV LUD_Age MAS_Estimate... Building_Age_... _best_estimate... LANDAREA AREAUNIT AREALABEL

QPID

Category_Code

_count_dwellin...

Category_Desc...

LUD_Age

_area_parcel_c...

MAS_Estimate...

_count_dwellings

Building_Age_...

_count_dwellin...

_validateFailCo...

_count_parcels...

_validateFailCo...

_count_dwellin...

_validateFailRe...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_count_dwellin...

_validateFailRe...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_count_parcels...

de9im

_count_dwellin...

pass{} _count_parcels... _count_dwellin... _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _total_ra_liv_lc... _area_parcel_c... _estimated_yea... _max_year_built _min_year_built _best_estimate...

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Data_Prep_Parcel_RA_Clip_By_LBG_3.0.fmw - Data_Prep_Parcel_RA_Clip_By_LBG_3.0.fmw - FME Workbench

Clip Parcel RA polygons with Local Board Group (LBG) extent polygons

fGDB - CRS_Parcels_RA_

Merge Attributes = Yes Create Aggregates = No On rare occassions a Parcel may straddle a LBG boundary

fGDB - CRS_Parcel_RA_Dwelling_Counts_ALL Valuations as at 16-July-2013

Clipper_2

Pg 1/1

Feature fanout = None Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_parcels _fanout_dataset_parcel_ra = CRS_Parcels_RA_.gdb

AttributeCreator_17


CRS_Parcels_...

CLIPPER

INPUT

PAR_ID

CRS_Parcels_...

CLIPPEE

OUTPUT

LB_Code

PAR_ID

INSIDE

QPID

CLIPPED_INS...

VALUATIONREF

CLIPPED_OU...

_valuationref_f...

OUTSIDE

LBG_Code QPID VALUATIONREF

_valuationref_f... CRCGEOMETR...

CRCGEOMETR...

LATESTVALUA...

LATESTVALUA...

TOTAL_RA_LCV

TOTAL_RA_LCV

Failed_Parce...

TOTAL_RA_LLV

TOTAL_RA_LIV

TOTAL_RA_LIV

LUD_Age

LUD_Age

MAS_Estimate...

MAS_Estimate...

Building_Age_...

Building_Age_...

LANDAREA

LANDAREA

AREAUNIT

AREAUNIT

AREALABEL

AREALABEL

Category_Code

Category_Code

Category_Desc...

Category_Desc...

_area_parcel_c...

_area_parcel_c...

_count_dwellings

_count_dwellings

_count_dwellin...

_count_dwellin...

_count_parcels...

_count_parcels...

_count_dwellin...

_count_dwellin...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

fGDB - Local Board (LB) Auckland Council is made up of 7 LBGs

LB [Extent_LB ...


AttributeKeeper_2

CREATEDATE

INPUT

MODIFYBY

OUTPUT

MODIFYDATE

LBG_Code

LB_Name

LB_Code

LBG_Name LBG_Code LB_Code SHAPE_Length

TOTAL_RA_LLV

Drop sliver gaps and overlaps

SHAPE_Area SliverRemover INPUT INVALID REPAIRED

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Data_Prep_Building_Footprint_Clip_By_LBG_3.1.fmw - Data_Prep_Building_Footprint_Clip_By_LBG_3.1.fmw - FME Workbench

Clip Building Footprints with Local Board Group (LBG) extent polygons

fGDB - Building_Footprints_

Merge Attributes = Yes Create Aggregates = No On rare a occassions a Building Footprint may straddle a LBG boundary

Clipper

fGDB - Building_Footprints_ALL

Pg 1/1

Feature fanout = none Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_building _fanout_dataset_building = Building_Footprints_.gdb

AttributeCreator_17


Building_Footp...

CLIPPER

INPUT

ID

Building_Footp...

CLIPPEE

OUTPUT

LB_Code

ABANUMBER

INSIDE

BUILDINGNAME

CLIPPED_INS...

BUILDINGUSA...

CLIPPED_OU...

BUILDINGUSA...

OUTSIDE

LBG_Code TLA

ABANUMBER BUILDINGNAME BUILDINGUSA...

METHODCAPT...

BUILDINGUSA...

RECORDSTATUS

METHODCAPT...

INACTIVEREC...

RECORDSTATUS

REMARKS

Failed_Buildi...

ID

REMARKS

TLA

MODIFIEDREA...

MODIFIEDREA...

CREATEBY

CREATEBY

CREATEDATE

CREATEDATE

MODIFYBY

MODIFYBY

MODIFYDATE

MODIFYDATE


LB [Extent_LB ...


AttributeKeeper_5

CREATEDATE

INPUT

MODIFYBY

OUTPUT

MODIFYDATE

LBG_Code

LB_Name

LB_Code

LBG_Name LBG_Code LB_Code

INACTIVEREC...

Drop sliver gaps and overlaps SliverRemover INPUT INVALID REPAIRED

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Data_Prep_Zone_GDB_Resolved_3.2.fmw - Data_Prep_Zone_GDB_Resolved_3.2.fmw - FME Workbench

fGDB - Zones_UP_ALL Resolved Domains = Yes Resolved Subtypes = Yes

fGDB - Zones_UP_GDB_Resolved_ALL

Merged Schema Drop unwanted ESRI feature classes whose names beigin with an underscore (Kyle)

DYNAMIC Schema - with resolved domains - with resolved subtypes

Uncheck unwanted system attributes on the fGDB Reader

Attributes to Remove match the unchecked system attributes on the fGDB Reader

[Zones_... TYPE SUBTYPE

SCHEDULE NAME WORKFLOWID PLAN_REFERE... Category Site_Type1 GROUPZONE_r... Name SUBPRECINCT COMPUTERNU PRECINCT

ZONE SUBPRECINCT...

NZAA_Site_ STATUS

TYPE_resolved Cnt_Site_T F6 SETTLEMENT_... ZONEHEIGHT WORKFLOWJO... PRECINCTGRO...

Buffer ZONE_resolved Unsure Site_Type PRECINCT_res... PRECINCTGRO...

Site_Typ_1 GROUPZONE

Significan

NewFeatureTy...

Pg 1/1

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Data_Prep_Zone_Clip_By_LBG_3.3.fmw - Data_Prep_Zones_UP_Clip_By_LBG_3.3.fmw - FME Workbench

Local Board Clipper

Remove sliver gaps and overlaps




SliverRemover

AttributeKeeper_5

LB [Extent_LB ...

INPUT

INPUT

CREATEDATE

INVALID

OUTPUT

MODIFYBY

REPAIRED

LBG_Code LB_Code

MODIFYDATE LB_Name LBG_Name LBG_Code LB_Code

Local_Boards

Zones Data Preparation

Remove sliver gaps and overlaps on Zones

fGDB - Zones_UP_GDB_Resolved_ALL.gdb Feature Type = BaseZone Resolve Domains = Yes Set _fanout_dataset = Zones Include OBJECTID for Dissolver

BaseZone [Zo... OBJECTID WORKFLOWJO... NAME

Expose attributes: fme_feature_type

AttributeExposer

Overlay to resolve any slivers - No multipart polys on Zones

AreaOnAreaOverl...

GROUPZONE_r...

Merge Attributes = Yes Create Aggregates = No

Clipper

For attributes partcipating in UID set NULLs to zero

NullAttributeRepla...

AREA

INPUT

CLIPPER

INPUT

OUTPUT

AREA

AREA

CLIPPEE

OUTPUT

INTERIOR_LINE

INSIDE

NON_POLYGON

CLIPPED_INS...

ZONE

ZONE_resolved

Dissolver

Feature fanout = fme_feature_type Dataset fanout = NONE

Clip Base Zone with Local Board (LB) extent polygons

INPUT

ZONEHEIGHT

GROUPZONE

fGDB - Zones_LBG_ALL.gdb

Dissolve slivers GroupBy on OBJECTID_SRC No Overlaps Accumulate Attributes = Yes

Rename attributes to resolve fGDB domains

An AreaOnAreaOverlayer and a Dissolver are used first in place of a SliverRemover which is fatally crashing FME

$(CIRCULARITY_MIN) OR _shortside_triangle > $(SHAPE_FACTOR)

INPUT OUTPUT

GeometryCoercer

The residual "dog-leg" polygons have a high "angularity" measure and can be filtered out using this in conjunction with a residual area threshold. The residual area threshold used is the area difference between the building platform and a circle of the same diameter within it - divided by 4 to reflect a single dog-leg bend

AttributeKeeper_8

INPUT

Coerce circle lines to circle polygons

Candidate Dwelling Yield Determinations

Use an inverse-buffer with a buffer distance equal to half the $(SHAPE_FACTOR_MIN) value - for example a value of 6m denotes a 12m x 12m building platform WARNING: For this analysis of "dog-leg" polygons are problematic as an inverse-buffer will stroke the arcs around the bend leaving an unwanted "residual" polygon.

Replace the polygon with an "oriented" bounding box

BoundingBoxRepl...

INPUT

INPUT

COERCED

BOX

INPUT

Clip out the building footprint bbox (setback or not) from the infill polygon No GroupBy as buildings may be contiguous with parcel boundaries

Where a parcel has 2 or more overlapping bbox then dissolve internal boundaries

Dissolver_2 INPUT

AreaOnAreaOverl...

Expose fme_type

Valid candidates will pass the following test _residual_area >=_residual_area_threshold AND _residual_angularity < $(ANGULARITY_MAX)

AttributeExposer

Tester_5

Accumulate attributes GroupBy on _par_id_crc Mode = Traditional

AREA

NON_POLYGON

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

FAILED

_par_id_crc

VACANT_POT...

PAR_ID

fme_type fme_no_geom

Create an ID for dissolved areas _dissolved_area_id

Tester_7

VACANT_POT...

AREA

AREA

AREA

AREA

_overlaps_bbox_parcel > 1 AND _overlaps_infill_setback = 1

Counter_2

Drop unwanted attributes AttributeRemover_2

_overlaps_circle_parcel > 1 AND _count_buildings EXISTS

INPUT OUTPUT

Tester_2 INPUT

_overlaps_bbox_parcel > 1 AND _count_buildings EXISTS

FAILED OUTPUT

PASSED

Join on _dissolved_area_id

PASSED

INPUT

Create the dog-leg test parameters

AttributeCreator

AreaCalculator_5

FeatureMerger_4

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

CFGS_UID


INFILL

AttributeRounder

Tester_8

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

_dissolved_are...

Set attribute _count_buildings = 0

AttributeCreator_7

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

PASSED

OUTPUT

FAILED

FAILED

_inverse_buffer... _residual_area...

Create an inverse-buffer based on $(SHAPE_FACTOR_MIN) GroupBy _dissolved_area_id

The AngularityCalculator may generate odd angularity values of the form "-1.#IND". Trim the ".#IND" from these values to leave a numeric value of -1

DonutHoleExtractor


AttributeRemover

AttributeFilter

1 ha calculate candidate dwelling yields

ACCESS_WIDT... BLDG_SETBA...

VAR_6

INPUT

Counter

OUTPUT

Tester_9

AttributeRounder_3 INPUT

VAR_4

INPUT

Featuretype fanout on _fanout_feature_vacant_capacity { Residential_Infill | Residential_Vacant_Potential }


OUTPUT

Parcel Area >...

AngularityCalculat...

Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_vacant_capacity { Infill_Assessment_ | Vacant_Potential_Assessment_ } - outputs to separate directories

Split the dataset on _assessment_type

OUTPUT

VAR_3

AttributeKeeper_4

Create _candidate_element_by_parcel Counter Name = _par_id_crc (like a GroupBy)

These tiny holes can create problems for downstream geoprocessing so are best removed.

INPUT

FAILED

_overlaps_bbox_parcel > 1 AND _count_dwellings EXISTS AND _count_buildings NOT EXISTS

For _count_candidate_dwelling_yield_decimal round to NEAREST 1 decimal place

fGDB - Vacant_Capacity polygons

Data Integrity Fix

The preceding geoprocessing may create unwanted very small holes inside some candidate polygons.

OUTPUT

PASSED

_overlaps_circle_parcel > 1 AND _count_dwellings EXISTS AND _count_buildings NOT EXISTS

FAILED

INPUT

FAILED


PASSED

AttributeCreator_4

PASSED

Include Parcels WITH Dwellings but WITHOUT Buildings

INPUT

OUTPUT

For VACANT POTENTIAL: Set assessment type Create _fanout_dataset_vacant_capacity Create _fanout_featuretype_vacant_capacity Create _access_potential = Yes (default) - Access Test NOT required

VAR_2

Calc angularity of residual from inverse buffer _residual_angularity

INPUT

CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT...

REFERENCED

Tester

AttributeRounder_2

UP_ZONECLA...

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

Round _area_candidate_calculated to NEAREST 1 decimal place

YIELD TEST FILTER: Accept only those individual vacant capacity candidates with a dwelling yield of 1 or greater

For _count_candidate_dwelling_yield_integer round DOWN to 0 decimal places

INPUT

CFGS_NAME

SUPPLIER

EMPTY

FAILED

Tester_6

LBG_Code

UP_BASEZONE

REQUESTOR

Calc area of residual from inverse buffer _residual_area

INPUT

Match compliant invers buffers against original dissolved areas

For INFILL: Set assessment type Calculate candidate dwelling yields Create_fanout_dataset_vacant_capacity Create _fanout_featuretype_vacant_capacity Create _access_potential = No (default) - Access Test required

TestFilter_6

INPUT

Tester_10

TestFilter_5 [TestFilter] INFILL: TEST "@Value(ASSESSMENT_TYPE)" IN "Infill Frontage" TEST "@Value(_area_parcel_calculated)" "0" TEST "@Value(_count_buildings)" > "0" TEST "@Value(_area_parcel_calculated)" >= "@Value(PARCEL_AREA_MIN_QUALIFIER)" TEST "@Value(_area_net_parcel_calculated)" >= "@Value(PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL)" Test Expression: "1 AND 2 AND (3 OR 4) AND 5 AND 6" VACANT_POTENTIAL: TEST "@Value(ASSESSMENT_TYPE)" IN "Infill

AreaCalculator_3

LB_Code

Identify where the polygon bbox overlaps parcel GroupBy on _par_id_crc

AreaOnAreaOverl...

AttributeRemover_7 INPUT

INPUT AreaOnAreaOverl...


Split Infill Assessments from Vacant Potential Assessments

INPUT

INTERIOR_LINE AREA

Calculate the area of each candidate _area_candidate_calculated

INPUT

AREA

Identify where circle overlaps parcel GroupBy on _par_id_crc

AttributeCreator_3

OUTPUT Building Setback Clip

INPUT INFILL

Prepare Data Schema and calculate Vacant Capacity Yields for individual Candidates

Test Candidate for Minimum Building Platform SHAPE Factor

STROKED

INPUT BOX

INPUT

Drop unwanted attributes and lists

BoundingBoxRepl...

_length_parcel... _count_parcel_...

AttributeKeeper_14

_par_id_crc

_par_id_crc

INPUT BOX

INPUT

INPUT

AGGREGATE

ArcStroker_3

Tester_4

INPUT OUTPUT

AreaCalculator

INPUT

OUTPUT


Replace Candidate Vacant Capacity CIRCLE Features with Oriented BBOX Features | Clip for Building Setbacks | Test for Minimal Building Platform Shape Factor

SETBACK > 0

Replace the polygon with an "oriented" bounding box to square the buffer corners

AttributeCreator_2

INPUT

Converts arc features into interpolated lines converting arcs geometries to chords

Progress the 4th and 5th largest short-side candidates for a VACANT POTENTIAL Assessment only: where _area_parcel_calculated > $(ASSESSMENT_AREA_THRESHOLD)

INPUT

SETBACK = 0

Create the "Arc by 3 points" XML

Candidate_T...

Progress the 1st, 2nd and 3rd largest short-side candidates for both an INFILL Assessment and a VACANT POTENTIAL Assessment

REFERENCED

DUPLICATE_S...

Aggregator

DUPLICATE_S...

UNREFERENC... TestFilter_3

AttributeExposer_3

Aggregate triangle vertices by _par_id_crc and _triangle_id

Rank the 5 largest candidate Triangles from each Parcel by its short-side value

COMPLETE

AreaCalculator_4

Business_Area...

FeatureMerger_6

INPUT

MINIMAL_BO...

Calculate area of each triangle

Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area...

AttributeRemover_5

REQUESTOR

OUTPUT

MUL_Category

_area_parcel_c...

TestFilter_7

INPUT

CONVEX_HUL...

Filter on BLDG_SETBACK_MIN

Drop unwanted lists

UNTOUCHED

NET_PARCEL

VAR_1

FeatureMerger_5

Expose _par_id_crc and and _triangle_id

TRIANGLES

INPUT

BLDG_SETBA...

_count_design...

ListSorter

Join the parcel triangle list (sorted on short-side) back onto the triangle features Join on _par_id_crc GroupBy on _par_id_crc

TIN_SURFACE

TestFilter_4

ACCESS_WIDT...

_desig_schedule

Sort parcel triangle list (desc) by _area_triangle

_list_triangle_ar...

CFGS_ZONEC...

_count_dwellings

"Circularity is a measure of how elongated an area feature is where a value of 1 indicates a perfect circle and a value of 0 indicates a line.

Triangulator

UP_ZONECLASS

ASSESSMENT...

Turn the arc into a full circle

ArcPropertySetter

Triangulate Parcels and Build Triangle Measures

Filter Parcels

Building_Foo...

GeometryReplacer

AREA

INPUT OUTPUT

AREA

fGDB - CRS_Parcels__Residential_Enhanced RESIDENTIAL only

Replace the triangle geometry with the Arc geometry

Triangle_Area_...

Replace the polygon with an "oriented" bounding box to square the buffer corners

REFERENCED AttributeKeeper_5

TestFilter

Pg 1/1

AttributeCreator_6

SECOND_DWE... VAR_1

Rural_Town_N...

INPUT

VAR_2

Business_Area...

OUTPUT

VAR_3

Business_Area...

VAR_4

_area_parcel_c...

VAR_5

_area_parcel_...

VAR_6

_length_parcel...

ZONE_HEIGHT

_count_parcel_...

ZONE_STOREYS

_count_dwellings

MUL_Category

_count_design...

RUB_Category

_desig_schedule

Rural_Town_Na...

AttributeTrimmer

_multi_zone_pa...

Business_Area...

INPUT

INPUT

ZONE_HEIGHT

Business_Area...

BUFFERED

OUTPUT

ZONE_STORE...

_candidate_id

RUB_Category

_assessment_t...

Bufferer_5

_area_building... _count_buildings _area_net_par...

_area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_... _area_net_parc... _area_building... _area_candidat... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _count_candid... _count_candid... _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa... _access_potent...

Access_Line

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Residential\Geoprocessing_Infill_Access_2.fmw - Geoprocessing_Infill_Access_2.fmw - FME Workbench

Parcel CRS Road Line Features

Pg 1/1

Geoprocess Access-Potential for Infill-Candidates that are located in FRONTof the Existing Dwellings and DO have ROAD FRONTAGE (1st Subset)

Unreferenced Infill Candidates Services by ACCESS LOTS Identify which Infill candidates already have road frontage - test OVERLAPS with the road casing buffer (no GroupBy)

GroupBy on RD_PAR_ID

Drop unwanted attributes - passed features - extra processing required

UNREFERNCED = Suppliers not used by the Requester

fGDB - CRS_Road_Lines SpatialRelator

Bufferer_2

These are Infill candidates who get their road frontage via a shared Access Lot (no Parcel road frontage)

AttributeRemover_3

CRS_Road_Li...

INPUT

BASE

INPUT

RD_PAR_ID

BUFFERED

CANDIDATE

OUTPUT

LB_Code

RD_PAR_ID

OUTPUT

LBG_Code

LB_Code

Find the closest interpollated point along the road casing line features to the Access Lot Infill candidate polygons - Treat polgons as lines - Search distance = 500m - No GroupBy

LBG_Code

Infill candidates WITHOUT road frontage _related_candidates_infill_frontage = 0

Keep only _candidate_id because we are working with Infill features, not Parcel features

Drop unwanted attributes - failed features - no extra processing required

Match Against 2nd Subset Tester CRS_Road_...

AttributeRemover

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

NeighborFinder_3 Join the Infill candidate count to the parcel road frontage midpoint feature (1:M)

FAILED

Build a list of Duplicates Suppliers: - insures that there is one parcel road frontage line midpoint for each vacant capacity candidate - required for ShortestPathFinder

Set Access Potential - FRONT Drop unwanted attributes - passed features - extra processing required Only keep _par_id_crc and _candidate_id

Set _access_potential = Yes Create writer _fanout_attributes

AttributeKeeper_11

BASE

INPUT

CANDIDATE

OUTPUT

MATCHED

_candidate_id

UNMATCHED_... UNMATCHED_...

REQUESTER = Midpoint Join on _par_id_crc

Create a point from _closest_candidate_x _closest_candidate_y

AttributeCreator INPUT

AttributeKeeper_4

Infill Assessment Candidates (polygons)

FeatureMerger

OUTPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

SUPPLIER

POINT

SUPPLIER

_par_id_crc

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

INCOMPLETE

INCOMPLETE

EMPTY

EMPTY

REFERENCED

REFERENCED

UNREFERENC...

UNREFERENC...

DUPLICATE_S...

DUPLICATE_S...

_candidate_id

fGDB - Residential_Infill RESIDENTIAL Infill only _par_id_crc _candidate_id _assessment_t... _area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_... _area_net_parc... _area_building... _area_candidat... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _count_candid... _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa... _access_potent... ACCESS_WIDT... ASSESSMENT... ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS RUB_Category BLDG_SETBA... SECOND_DWE... VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 VAR_5 VAR_6 MUL_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... PARCEL_ARE... PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE Residential_Infi...

Tester_10

Join the Infill candidate count to the nearest interpolated point on the road_casing (1:M)

FeatureMerger_3

REQUESTOR

OUTPUT Infill_Candid...

Only INFILL Candidates need to be processed for Access Potential VACANT POTENTIAL candidates are assumed to have Access Potential already on account of their area

Parcels WITH Dwellings but WITHOUT Buildings are assumed to have Access _count_buildings = 0

2DPointReplacer_3

INPUT

There should be no list data because we are working with Infill features: - still insures that there is one parcel road frontage interpolated point for each vacant capacity candidate - required for ShortestPathFinder REQUESTER = Interpolated Join on _candidate_id

Expose attribute fme_basename

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

Tester_3

FAILED

Only Parcel road frontage line segments will fall WITHIN the road casing buffer (no GroupBy)

Expose attribute fme_basename

AttributeExposer_4

SpatialRelator_2 Infill_Candid...

INPUT OUTPUT

Extract parcel road frontage line midpoint X,Y

Clone features where duplicate suppliers exist

Parcel segments with road frontage _related_candidates_road_frontage > 0

AttributeExposer

INPUT

ListExploder

CoordinateExtract...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

LIST_FOUND

OUTPUT

FAILED

NOT_FOUND

Parcel Road Frontage (Line) Join road frontage segments on _par_id_crc

LineJoiner

BASE

INPUT

CANDIDATE

LINE

OUTPUT

INVALID

Set Access Potential

Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper

Parcel Road Frontage (Line Midpoint) Get midpoint of parcel road frontage line


Snipper

AttributeCreator_3

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Building Footprints and Parcel (polygons)

Geoprocess Access-Potenial for Infill-Candidates that are located in FRONT of the Existing Dwellings but DO NOT have ROAD FRONTAGE (2nd Subset)

Match Against 1st Subset fGDB - Building_Footprints_Enhanced Residential and Business _par_id_crc _area_building... PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code Building_Footp...

_area_building_calculated >= $(BLDG_AREA_MIN)

Tester_2

Match the _par_id_crc of other data sources against the Infill candidate data set (M:1)

InlineQuerier_2

INPUT

Building_Footp...

PASSED

Residential_Pa...

FAILED

Residential_Infill

Match Against 2nd Subset

Parcels Drop unwanted attributes InlineQuerier Transformer uses Private Parameters: FEATURE_TYPES_BLDG, FEATURE_TYPES_PARCEL, FEATURE_TYPES_INFILL

FeatureMerger_2

INPUT

Candidate_Bui...

OUTPUT Convert Parcel polygons to lines GroupBy on _par_id_crc Max coords per line = 2

_par_id_crc

Identify Parcels that match with with Infill candidate road frontage line midpoint subset (1:M)

Expose _par_id_crc Build a list of Duplicate Suppliers: - one Parcel for each Infillcandidate

_par_id_crc _area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_dwellings _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa... ACCESS_WIDT... ASSESSMENT... ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS RUB_Category BLDG_SETBA... SECOND_DWE... VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 VAR_5 VAR_6 MUL_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... PARCEL_ARE... PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE Residential_Pa...

TopologyBuilder_3 Building_Foo...

AttributeExposer_2

NODE

INPUT

LINE

OUTPUT

Replace the parcel polygon with its parcel centreline

Create connecting line start-point at road frontage line midpoint

Create line end-point to the nearest interpolated point on parcel centreline

Extend the DESTINATION connecting line to guarantee an intersect

GroupBy on _candidate_id

Set Access Potential - MIDDLE


AttributeKeeper_3

Candidate_Par...

fGDB - Residential_Parcels_Enhanced RESIDENTIAL only


If the Infill polygon centroid (based on centre-of-gravity) is not CONTAINED within the Infill polygon then we have a "donut-shaped" Infill polygon which fails previous testing but is still has MIDDLE access - this test should capture these outliers

Interpolate the closest point on the parcel centreline to the parcel road frontage line midpoint Create vertex on BASE GroupBy on _icandidate_id Search Distance = 500m

ListExploder_2

CenterLineReplacer

NeighborFinder

2DPointReplacer

2DPointAdder

Identify Infill candidates that are located in front of the existing buildings but do not have road frontage.

Extender

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INPUT

BASE

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

SUPPLIER

LIST_FOUND

CENTERLINE

CANDIDATE

POINT

OUTPUT

BEGINNING

COMPLETE

NOT_FOUND

MATCHED

END

INCOMPLETE

UNMATCHED_...

STRETCHED

EMPTY

UNMATCHED_...

Test for OVERLAYS, CROSSES, WITHIN of Infill cadidate's shortest path lines (to road frontage) with Building Footpring polygons.

REFERENCED

REQUESTER = Parcel Join on _par_id_crc


Deaggregate parcel centreline into its component line segments identifiable through _part_num_centreline Recursive = No

AREA NODE

Replace the vacant capacity poly with a centre of mass point

LINE

Match Against 2nd Subset

SpatialRelator_5

Intersect parcel centreline and its connections Split self-interesecting = Yes GroupBy on _candidate_id Separate Collinear Segments = Yes

Snap end nodes on intersected line features GroupBy on _candidate_id

Create shortest path from the vacant capacity polygon centroid to the parcel road frontage line midpoint.

If the shortest path line overlaps no building footprints then the Infill candidate is located in FRONT of the existing dwellings

**There can be only one Source and one Destination for each group

GroupBy on _par_id_crc - because buildings do not have a _candidate_id value


Join the path segments into a single line GroupBy on _candidate_id and _par_id_crc

AttributeCreator_4

BASE

INPUT

CANDIDATE

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Infill_Candid...

Join _related_candidates_buildings onto the Infill candidate polygons Join on _candidate_id

Infill candidates NOT located in front of existing buildings _related_candidates_buildings > 0 AND _related_candidates_centroids > 0


AREA CenterOfGravityR...

UNIVERSE

Match Against 3rd Subset

FeatureMerger_4

INPUT

REQUESTOR

CENTEROFGR...

SUPPLIER


COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

FeatureMerger_7

AttributeKeeper_8

REQUESTOR

INPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

EMPTY Extract centroid X,Y

EMPTY REFERENCED UNREFERENC...

Identify Buildings that match with the _par_id_crc subset still subject to processing (M:1) REQUESTER = Building Join on _par_id_crc

REFERENCED

CoordinateExtractor Identify building footprint bounding boxes that match with the _par_id_crc subset still subject to processing (M:1)

Intersector

INPUT DEAGGREGA... Interpolate the closest point on the parcel centreline to the vacant capacity polygon centroid Create vertex on BASE GroupBy on _candidate_id Search distance = 100m

Create connecting line start-point at vacant capacity polygon centroid

UNREFERENC...

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

Deaggregator_2

Create line end-point to the nearest interpolated point on parcel centreline

Snapper

ShortestPathFinder

LineJoiner_3

SpatialRelator_3

FeatureMerger_5

Tester_4

INPUT

INPUT

LINE

INPUT

BASE

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INTERSECTED

SNAPPED

SOURCE

LINE

CANDIDATE

SUPPLIER

PASSED

NODE

UNTOUCHED

DESTINATION

INVALID

OUTPUT

COMPLETE

FAILED

Extend the SOURCE connecting line to guarantee an intersect

PATH

INCOMPLETE

UNUSED

EMPTY Drop unwanted attributes

INVALID

AttributeKeeper_7 INPUT OUTPUT _par_id_crc _candidate_id

REFERENCED UNREFERENC...

DUPLICATE_S... NeighborFinder_2

INPUT OUTPUT

REQUESTER = Building Join on _par_id_crc

DUPLICATE_S...

2DPointReplacer_2

2DPointAdder_2

Extender_2

AttributeKeeper_5

BASE

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

CANDIDATE

POINT

OUTPUT

BEGINNING

OUTPUT

MATCHED

END

_candidate_id

UNMATCHED_...

STRETCHED

DUPLICATE_S...

Logger Shortest_Path

PAR_ID

INPUT

_related_candi...

UNMATCHED_...

Geoprocess Access-Potential for Infill-Candidates that are located BEHIND the Existing Dwellings and DO NOT have ROAD FRONTAGE (3rd Subset)

Inverse Parcel Buffer based on Access Width minimum values

Match Against 3rd Subset

Only keep attributes: _candidate_id, _par_id_crc and ACCESS_WIDTH_MIN

Shortestpath Parcel Centeline - one per vacant capacity candidate

Passed Infill candidates requiring additional rear access potential - minimal attributes

NOTE: This may not account for access available through the middle of a parcel

REQUESTOR

INPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT


AttributeKeeper_12

Test for ACCESS_WIDTH_MIN compliance: 1. Test to see if the Residual area touches the Infill area 2. Identify the common line segments between the Residual area and the Inverse Buffer 3. Test if the common line segments cross the shortestpath Parcel Centreline

Overlay the following area features (GroupBy on _candidate_id) 1. The Whole-Parcel polygons (that match the Infill candidate subset still subject to additional processing) 2. An inverse-buffer of the Whole-Parcel where the buffer width equals @value[ACCESS_WIDTH_MIN] 3. The Building Footprints (that match the Infill candidate subset) 4. The Infill candidates (that match the Infill candidate subset)

Inverse buffer parcel polygon to identify accessway widths relative to the parcel boundary @value[ACCESS_WIDTH_MIN]

FeatureMerger_6

FRONT Access Potential

Identify the Residual-No-Overlap polygons that determine Accessibility

COMPLETE

AreaOnAreaOverl... AREA AREA Passed Infill candidates requiring additional rear access potential - all attributes

INCOMPLETE EMPTY REFERENCED UNREFERENC...

Bufferer INPUT

Extract the _overlaps_no_where =1

BUFFERED

DUPLICATE_S...

MIDDLE Access Potential Tester_7

Identify the Parcels that match with the _par_id_crc subset still subject to processing (1:M) Build a list of Duplicate Suppliers: - one Parcel for each Infill candidate REQUESTER = Parcel Join on _par_id_crc

Expose fme_type

AttributeExposer_6

ListExploder_3

LINE

PASSED

AREA

FAILED

Set Access Potential - REAR (passed)

AREA

OUTPUT

Tester_6

Overlay the residual polygon with the shared boundary line defining access GroupBy on _candidate_id

LINE

INPUT



LineOnAreaOverl...

INPUT

Buffer the residual polygon GroupBy on _candidate_id

Bufferer_3


AttributeKeeper_6

Overlay the buffered residual polygon with the inverse buffer line segments GroupBy on _candidate_id

LineOnAreaOverl...

Overlay access lines with the shortestpath lines and test for a CROSSES GroupBy _candidate_id

SpatialRelator_4


Identify if the Infill candidtes meet the access criteria _overlaps_access_line > 0

Tester_5


AttributeRemover_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

LINE

BASE

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

BUFFERED

OUTPUT

AREA

CANDIDATE

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

LINE

OUTPUT

FAILED

INPUT



FAILED

NOT_FOUND

0

Identify access lines that CROSS the shortestpath lines _related_candidates_shortestpath > 0

DonutBuilder_2 INPUT AREA INVALID

AttributeExposer_3

INPUT

Tester_9

Tester_8

NODE

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

LINE

OUTPUT

PASSED

PASSED

FAILED

FAILED

LBG_Code CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME

AttributeRemover_4

OUTPUT

UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS Infill_Candid...


Set Access Potential - REAR (failed)

PARCEL_ARE... PARCEL_ARE...

NODE

ACCESS_WIDT...

LINE AREA

TestFilter_2


INPUT TopologyBuilder_4

AREA Filter on area geometry components

Infill_Candid...


Join lines with a common _candidate_id value

Reset _access_potential = No Create writer _fanout_attributes

UNIVERSE

BLDG_SETBA... SECOND_DWE... VAR_1

AttributeKeeper_9

LineJoiner_2

AttributeCreator_6

VAR_2

OUTERSHELL

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

VAR_3

DONUT

OUTPUT

LINE

OUTPUT

VAR_4

INVALID

VAR_5 VAR_6 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... Business_Area... ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS _candidate_id _assessment_t... _area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_... _area_net_parc... _area_building... _area_candidat... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _count_candid... _count_candid... _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa... _access_potent...

Feature Type fanout on _fanout_feature_type { Residential_Infill_With_Access | Residential_Infill_Without_Access } Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Residential\Geoprocessing_Vacant_Capacity_Yields_3.fmw - Geoprocessing_Vacant_Capacity_Yields_3.fmw - FME Workbench

Pg 1/1

Aggregate INFILL Assessment Yields at the Parcel Level | Factor Existing Dwellings into the Parcel-Area-Infill-Minimum Test

Aggregate yield candidates GroupBy on PAR_ID

Drop candidate specific attributes that cannot be summarised at the parcel feature level _par_id_crc _candidate_id

SUM: _area_candidate_calculated _count_buildings _count_candidate_dwelling_yield_integer _count_candidate_dwelling_yield_decimal COUNT: _count_candidates_by_parcel

Calculate the parcel area required for the existing dwelling count and the proposed dwelling count _area_parcel_required

Flag that no yield adjustment was required to accommodate the existing dwelling count as well _yields_adjusted_for_existing_dwelling_count = No FINAL PARCEL YIELD TEST FILTER _area_parcel_multipart_calculated >= _area_parcel_required

Create _count_parcel_dwelling_yield_integer Create _count_parcel_dwelling_yield_decimal

Drop unwanted attributes - interim calc attributes - candidate specifc attributes

Create writer _fanout attributes

fGDB - Infill With Access RESIDENTIAL only

AttributeRemover

Aggregator_2

AttributeCreator

Tester

AttributeCreator_4

AttributeRemover_2

AttributeCreator_7

Residential_Infi...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

_par_id_crc

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

FAILED

PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code


Join on PAR_ID

Infill_Yields_...

CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME

Swap Infill Candidate geometry for Parcel geometry because Infill Candidates have been aggregated at the Parcel level

fGDB - Parcel_Yields__Residential_Infill_Assessment Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_infill { Parcel_Yields__Residential_Infill_Assessment | Parcel_Yields__Residential_Infill_Assessment_Failed } Feature Type fanout on _fanout_feature_type_infill { Residential_Infill_Yield | Residential_Infill_Yield_Failed }

AttributeKeeper

UP_BASEZONE

INPUT

UP_ZONECLASS

OUTPUT

FeatureMerger REQUESTOR

CFGS_ZONEC...

PAR_ID

SUPPLIER

MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT... PARCEL_ARE...

Reprocess Parcel Candidates that do not meet the Parcel Yield Test by Decrementing the Yield Count


COMPLETE

0

INPUT

BLDG_SETBA...

OUTPUT

SECOND_DWE... VAR_1

_candidate_id AttributeCreator_3

_assessment_t...

AttributeRounder_2

_area_parcel_c...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

_area_parcel_...

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

PASSED

_area_net_parc...

VAR_2

Tester_2

VAR_3

Infill_Yields_...

VAR_4 VAR_5

FAILED

_area_building... _area_candidat...

Adjust the yield counts to reflect the area shortfalls _count_parcel_dwelling_yield_decimal _count_parcel_dwelling_yield_integer

_length_parcel... _count_parcel_...

Flag that a yield adjustment was required to accomodate the existing dwelling count as well _yields_adjusted_for_existing_dwelling_count = Yes

AttributeCreator_6

MUL_Category RUB_Category

AttributeCreator_9

_count_buildings _count_dwellings

VAR_6 Create writer _fanout attributes

AttributeCreator_5

Rural_Town_Na...

INPUT

Business_Area...

OUTPUT

Business_Area... ZONE_HEIGHT

_count_candid...

INPUT

INPUT

_count_candid...

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

ZONE_STOREYS Infill_Yields_...

_count_design...

_assessment_t... _area_parcel_c...

_desig_schedule

_area_parcel_...

_multi_zone_pa...

_area_net_parc...

_access_potent...

_area_building...

RUB_Category

_area_candidat...

ZONE_HEIGHT

_length_parcel...

ZONE_STOREYS

_count_parcel_... _count_buildings _count_dwellings

Aggregate VACANT POTENTIAL Assessment Yields at the Parcel Level

_count_design... _count_candid... _count_parcel_... _count_parcel_...

Swap Vacant Potential Candidate geometry for Parcel geometry because Infill Candidates have been aggregated at the Parcel level Drop unwanted attributes

Join on PAR_ID

fGDB - Residential_Parcels_Enhanced RESIDENTIAL only

AttributeKeeper_2 _par_id_crc _area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_dwellings _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa... ACCESS_WIDT... ASSESSMENT... ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS RUB_Category BLDG_SETBA... SECOND_DWE... VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 VAR_5 VAR_6 MUL_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... PARCEL_ARE... PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE Residential_Pa...

FeatureMerger_2

INPUT

_desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa...

Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_vacant_potential Parcel_Yields__Residential_Vacant_Potential_Assessment

_access_potent...


REQUESTOR

OUTPUT PAR_ID

SUPPLIER Aggregate yield candidates GroupBy on PAR_ID

Drop candidate specific attributes that cannot be summarised at the parcel feature level _par_id_crc _candidate_id

_yields_adjuste... fGDB - Parcel_Yields__Residential_Vacant_Potential_Assessment

SUM: _area_candidate_calculated _count_candidate_dwelling_yield_integer _count_candidate_dwelling_yield_decimal

Flag that no yield adjustment was required to accomodate the existing dwelling count as well _yields_adjusted_for_existing_dwelling_count = No

COUNT: _count_candidates_by_parcel

Create _count_parcel_dwelling_yield_integer Create _count_parcel_dwelling_yield_decimal

Drop unwanted attributes - interim calc attributes - candidate specifc attributes

Create attribute _fanout_dataset_vacant_potential

COMPLETE

Residential_Va...

INCOMPLETE

PAR_ID

EMPTY

LB_Code

REFERENCED

LBG_Code

UNREFERENC...

CFGS_UID

DUPLICATE_S...

CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE

fGDB - Residential_Vacant_Potential RESIDENTIAL only

UP_ZONECLASS AttributeRemover_4

Aggregator_3

AttributeCreator_10

AttributeRemover_5

CFGS_ZONEC...

AttributeCreator_11

Residential_Va...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

_par_id_crc

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Vacant_Pote...

MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT... PARCEL_ARE...

PAR_ID

PARCEL_ARE...

LB_Code

ACCESS_WIDT...

LBG_Code

BLDG_SETBA...

CFGS_UID

SECOND_DWE...

CFGS_NAME

VAR_1

UP_BASEZONE

VAR_2

UP_ZONECLASS

VAR_3

CFGS_ZONEC...

VAR_4

MODEL_TYPE

VAR_5

ASSESSMENT...

VAR_6

PARCEL_ARE...

MUL_Category

PARCEL_ARE...

RUB_Category

ACCESS_WIDT...

Rural_Town_Na...

BLDG_SETBA...

Business_Area...

SECOND_DWE...

Business_Area...

VAR_1

ZONE_HEIGHT

VAR_2

ZONE_STOREYS

VAR_3

_assessment_t...

VAR_4

_area_parcel_c...

VAR_5

_area_parcel_...

VAR_6

_area_net_parc...

MUL_Category

_area_building...

Rural_Town_Na...

_area_candidat...

Business_Area...

_length_parcel...

Business_Area...

_count_parcel_...

_candidate_id

_count_buildings

_assessment_t...

_count_dwellings

_area_parcel_c...

_count_design...

_area_parcel_...

_count_candid...

_area_net_parc...

_count_parcel_...

_area_building...

_count_parcel_...

_area_candidat...

_yields_adjuste...

_length_parcel...

_desig_schedule

_count_parcel_...

_multi_zone_pa...

_count_buildings

_access_potent...

_count_dwellings _count_candid... _count_candid... _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa... _access_potent... ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS RUB_Category

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Residential\Geoprocessing_Vacant_Yields_4.fmw - Geoprocessing_Vacant_Yields_4.fmw - FME Workbench

Building Count by Parcel | Filter Parcels WITHOUT Dwellings and Buildings

Pg 1/1

Standard + MHZ Vacant Yield Determinations

Exclude Vacant Access Lots using the SHAPE Factor Test

Use an inverse-buffer with a buffer distance equal to half the $(SHAPE_FACTOR_MIN) value - for example a value of 6m denotes a 12m x 12m building platform WARNING: For this analysis of "dog-leg" polygons are problematic as an inverse-buffer will stroke the arcs around the bend leaving an unwanted "residual" polygon.


The residual "dog-leg" polygons have a high "angularity" measure and can be filtered out using this in conjunction with a residual area threshold. The residual area threshold used is the area difference between the building platform and a circle of the same diameter within it - divided by 4 to reflect a single dog-leg bend

fGDB - Building_Footprints_Enhanced Residential and Business

For _count_candidate_dwelling_yield_integer round DOWN to 0 decimal places

For _count_candidate_dwelling_yield_decimal round to NEAREST 1 decimal place

Tester_5 Building_Footp...

INPUT

_par_id_crc

PASSED

PAR_ID

FAILED

LB_Code LBG_Code


Vacant Parcels: _count_buildings = 0 _count_dwellings = 0 Set attribute _count_buildings = 0

Create writer fanout attributes - PASSED

AttributeRounder_2

Resolve Net Parcel Area

Calculate net parcel area when _count_dwellings = 0

Create the dog-leg test parameters


Valid candidates will pass the following test _residual_area >=_residual_area_threshold AND _residual_angularity < $(ANGULARITY_MAX)

AttributeRounder_3

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

_area_building... AttributeKeeper_5

Building_Foo...

AttributeCreator_3

AttributeCreator_4


INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

PASSED

PASSED

FAILED

FAILED

_area_net_parcel_area_calculated is used in the yeild calculations later on instead of area_parcel_calculated to allow a yield to be calculated for failed candidates without a building footprint but with a dwelling count greater of 1 or more

INPUT Dwellings = 0 Join parcel with their building footprints on _par_id_crc

Dwellings > 0

Pass only those parcels WITHOUT building footprints fGDB - Residential_Parcels_Enhanced RESIDENTIAL only

FeatureMerger_2 Residential_Pa...

REQUESTOR

_par_id_crc

SUPPLIER

PAR_ID

COMPLETE

EMPTY

CFGS_UID

REFERENCED

UP_ZONECLASS

UNREFERENC...

Calc area of residual from inverse buffer _residual_area

AreaCalculator_5

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AttributeCreator_7

Calculate Infill net parcel area when _count_dwellings > 0

AttributeCreator_9

Create an inverse-buffer based on $(SHAPE_FACTOR_MIN) GroupBy _par_id_crc

Calc angularity of residual from inverse buffer _residual_angularity

Filter MHZ Zones (large parcels only) Valid_Vacan...

Initialise MHZ dwelling count attributes: _count_mhz_frontage_limited_dwellings = 0 _count_mhz_large_parcel_multilevel_dwellings = 0 _yield_mhz_vacant = 0

Access_Lots

Join on _par_id_crc

FeatureMerger_4


AttributeRemover_7

Rules for Vacant Parcel Dwelling Yields depend on Parcel Area

AngularityCalculat...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

BUFFERED

OUTPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

Parcel Area < ...

OUTPUT

COMPLETE

2000 ...

PASSED

Calculate VP dwelling yields (net) Parcel Area >= 2000

Filter THAB Zones

Filter THAB Zones where CFGS_UID = ZN_2_8


Calculate _yield_mhz_1, _yield_mhz_2a, _yield_mhz_2b

Filter on 1 AND (2 OR (3 AND 4 AND 5) OR (6 AND 7 AND 8)) 1 = ASSESSMENT_TYPE = Frontage (MHZ zones) 2 = _area_parcel_multipart_calculated >= VAR_4 (being 1200) 3 = _area_parcel_multipart_calculated >= (PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL * 2) (being 600 or 800) 4 = _area_parcel_multipart_calculated < (PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL * 3) (being 900 or 1200) 5 = _length_parcel_rd_frontage < VAR_1 (being 15) 6 = _area_parcel_multipart_calculated >= (PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL * 3) (being 900 or 1200) 7 = _area_parcel_multipart_calculated < (PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL * 4) (being 1200 or 1600) 8 = _length_parcel_rd_frontage < VAR_2 (being 20 or 22.5)


Expose fme_type

FAILED

INPUT

UNREFERENC...

The AngularityCalculator may generate odd angularity values of the form "-1.#IND". Trim the ".#IND" from these values to leave a numeric value of -1

INPUT

AttributeCreator_15

OUTPUT

REFERENCED

DUPLICATE_S...

Tester_19

AttributeCreator_2

REQUESTOR

EMPTY Bufferer_5

INPUT

Calculate Infill dwelling yields (net) Parcel Area < 2000

TestFilter_2

ASSESSMENT_TYPE = Frontage (MHZ zones)

Initialise THAB dwelling count attributes: _count_thab_3level_dwellings = 0 _count_thab_dwellings = 0 _storey_max = 0 _yield_thab_3level_vacant = 0 _yield_thab_vacant = 0

Match compliant invers buffers against original dissolved areas

OUTPUT

No minimum area LUT attribute values!

DUPLICATE_S... AttributeExposer


AttributeKeeper_4

Vacant Parcel Failed: _count_buildings = 0 _count_dwellings > 0 Create writer fanout attributes - FAILED

Zones where redevelopment is not allowed because heritage dwellings are NOT excluded for Vacant Assessments, but are excluded for Redvelopment Assessments.


INCOMPLETE

LBG_Code

UP_BASEZONE

Tester_4

INPUT

OUTPUT

TestFilter

CFGS_NAME

Tester_7

INPUT

OUTPUT

Test Filter _count_dwellings = 0 _count_dwellings > 0

LB_Code

AttributeCreator

INPUT

Parcels

AttributeTrimmer

AttributeRemover_6

AttributeCreator_38

YIELD TEST FILTER: Accept only those parcel candidates with a dwelling yield of 1 or greater

Tester INPUT PASSED FAILED Calculate _max_count_mhz as the MAX of _yield_mhz_1, yield_mhz_2 Use TCL as AttributeCreator as @max math function buggy

TCLCaller_4

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Calculate _yield_mhz_2 as the MIN of _yield_mhz_2a, _yield_mhz_2b Use TCL as AttributeCreator as @max math function buggy

Round new yield determinations DOWN (zero decimal places)

TestFilter_4

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

THAB Zone

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

PARCEL_ARE...

Tester_2

PARCEL_ARE...

TCLCaller_3

AttributeRounder_6

FAILED

ACCESS_WIDT... BLDG_SETBA... SECOND_DWE... VAR_1 VAR_2

Calculate MHZ Dwelling Counts (large parcels)

VAR_3

Calculate _yield_mhz_vacant

Bad SHAPE FACTOR Candidates

VAR_4 For Frontage = $(PARCEL_AREA_MIN) AND INCLUSION =1

REFERENCED UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...

MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT... DWG_MIN

Tester_2

DWG_MAX

INPUT

FAR_MIN

PASSED

FAR_MAX

FAILED

GFA_MAX_M2 ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1

Drop attribute INCLUSION

VAR_2 VAR_3 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na...

AttributeRemover_2 INPUT OUTPUT

Business_Area... Business_Area... _area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_dwellings _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa...

Access_Line

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Business\Geoprocessing_Vacant_Potential_Yields_3.fmw - Geoprocessing_Vacant_Potential_Yields_3.fmw - FME Workbench

Pg 1/1

Building Count By Parcel

fGDB - Building_Footprints_Enhanced Residential and Business

Building_Footp...


Tester_3

Join parcel with their building footprints on _par_id_crc

A count of the building list elements is _count_buildings

FeatureMerger_3

ListElementCount...

_par_id_crc

INPUT

REQUESTOR

INPUT

PAR_ID

PASSED

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

LB_Code

FAILED

COMPLETE

LBG_Code

INCOMPLETE

_area_building...

EMPTY

Dop unwanted list

REFERENCED Building_Foo...



Business Parcel Filtering for Vacant Potential Determination

A single building may straddle a parcel boundary so the building polygons have been split where this occurs during data prep fGDB - Business_Parcels_Enhanced BUSINESS only

Business_Parc...


Parcels

AttributeKeeper

_par_id_crc

INPUT

PAR_ID

OUTPUT

LB_Code

_par_id_crc

Overlay building footprints with residential parcels GroupBy on _par_id_crc

AreaOnAreaOverl... AREA AREA

LBG_Code Separate component geometries: - Building Footprint - Net Parcel (parcel less building)

CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS

TestFilter_4

CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE

INPUT

ASSESSMENT...

BUILDING

ASSESSMENT...

NET_PARCEL

ZONE_HEIGHT

ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2

Calculate "net parcel area" - parcel area less building footprint areas _area_net_parcel_calculated

VAR_3 VAR_4 VAR_5 VAR_6

AreaCalculator_4

MUL_Category

INPUT

Rural_Town_Na...

OUTPUT

Business_Area... Business_Area... _area_parcel_c...


_area_parcel_... _length_parcel...

AttributeKeeper_3

_count_parcel_...

INPUT

_count_dwellings

OUTPUT

_count_design...

_par_id_crc

_desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa... RUB_Category

fGDB - Business_Parcels_Enhanced SPECIAL only (subset inclusion)

Special_Parcel...

JOINER Transformer: Join on Precinct_UID (1:1)

_area_building...

Join against CFGS_ASSESS_SPL_BUS_LUT.xlsx to append attributes: MODEL_TYPE_EXTRA ASSESSMENT_TYPE_EXTRA INCLUSION

_area_net_par...

Link Excel Worksheet SPLZone

_count_buildings

AttributeCreator_7 Join new attributes back on to the original parcel features Join on _par_id_crc

REQUESTOR

PAR_ID

JOINED

SUPPLIER

LB_Code

COMPLETE

LBG_Code

CFGS_ZONEC...

Exclude small business parcels _area_parcel_multipart_calculated >= $(PARCEL_AREA_MIN) AND INCLUSION =1

MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT... DWG_MIN DWG_MAX FAR_MIN FAR_MAX

Calculate standard deviation on _area_parcel_multipart_calculated

Composite test manipulating standard deviation on _stdev_net_parcel_site_area_vacant_percent _area_parcel_multipart_calculated

Primary Vacant Potential Data Filter

EMPTY

StatisticsCalculato...

Tester_5 INPUT PASSED

Business Parcel Yield Determination in Hectares (ha)

Tester

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

STATISTICS

STATISTICS

PASSED FAILED

PRIMARY DATA FILTER

Create business yield attribute _area_net_parcel_ha_yield_calculated

For _area_net_parcel_yield_ha_calculated round DOWN to 4 decimal places

Create attributes _fanout_dataset_vacant_potential _fanout_feature_type_vacant_potential

Create attributes _assessment_type = VACANT POTENTIAL _yields_adjusted_for_existing_dwelling_count = No _access_potential = Yes

Drop unwanted list attributes

Split the dataset on MODEL_TYPE


INPUT

AttributeCreator_11

NOTE: With this approach Commercial and Industrial can be subjected to different data filtering rule sets

AttributeRounder_5

AttributeCreator_12

AttributeRemover_2

Calculate standard deviation on _net_parcel_site_area_vacant_percent

Calculate standard deviation on _area_parcel_multipart_calculated

AttributeFilter

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Business

INDUSTRIAL

Special

Composite test manipulating standard deviation on _stdev_net_parcel_site_area_vacant_percent _area_parcel_multipart_calculated

ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS Drop attribute INCLUSION

StatisticsCalculato...

INPUT

INPUT

STATISTICS

STATISTICS

PASSED


Tester_2

INPUT

OUTPUT

Create attributes _fanaout_dataset_vacant_potential _fanout_feature_type_vacant_potential

FAILED StatisticsCalculato...


TESTER data filtering rules should be reviewed in conjunction with Excel Distribution Graphs showing _area_parcel_calculated (X) versus_net_parcel_site_area_vacant_percent (Y) for each DP

TestFilter_5

COMMERCIAL

GFA_MAX_M2

VAR_1

StatisticsCalculator

INCOMPLETE

CFGS_UID

UP_ZONECLASS

OUTPUT

FeatureMerger_2

INPUT

UP_BASEZONE

INPUT

Calculate standard deviation on _net_parcel_site_area_vacant_percent Joiner

_par_id_crc

CFGS_NAME

Calculate the parcel multipart coverage percentage of the net parcel area _net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent

TestFilter_5 [TestFilter] COMMERCIAL: TEST "@Value(ASSESSMENT_TYPE)" = "Commercial" TEST "@Value(ASSESSMENT_TYPE_EXTRA)" = "Commercial" TEST "@Value(_count_buildings)" > "0" TEST "@Value(_area_parcel_multipart_calculated)" > "$(PARCEL_AREA_MIN)" TEST "@Value(_area_net_parcel_calculated)" > "$(NET_PARCEL_AREA_MIN)" Test Expression: "(1 OR 2) AND 3 AND 4 AND 5" INDUSTRIAL: TEST "@Value(ASSESSMENT_TYPE)" = "Industrial" TEST "@Value(ASSESSMENT_TYPE_EXTRA)" = "Industrial" TEST "@Value(_count_buildings)" > "0"

OUTPUT

FAILED

VAR_2 VAR_3

INPUT

RUB_Category

OUTPUT

SUM _count_buildings _area_building_calculated _area_net_parcel_calculated _area_net_parcel_ha_yield_calculated COUNT: _count_candidates_by_parcel

AttributeRemover_5

MUL_Category

fGDB - Parcel_Yields__Vacant_Pontential polygons Aggregate yield candidates GroupBy on PAR_ID

Aggregator_2


INPUT

Business_Area...

AGGREGATE

Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_vacant_potential { Parcel_Yields__Commercial_VP_Assessment | Parcel_Yields__Industrial_VP_Assessment } - outputs to separate directories Featuretype fanout on _fanout_feature_type_vacant_potential { Commercial_Vacant_Potential | Industrial_Vacant_Potential } Recalculate the parcel coverage percentage of the net parcel area using the parcel area (not the multipart) _net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent

AttributeCreator_6


$(ASSESSMENT_AREA_THRESHOLD)

Tester_4

Join parcel with their building footprints on _par_id_crc

A count of the building list elements is _count_buildings

FeatureMerger_2

ListElementCount...

_par_id_crc

INPUT

REQUESTOR

INPUT

PAR_ID

PASSED

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

LB_Code

FAILED

COMPLETE

LBG_Code

INCOMPLETE

CFGS_UID

EMPTY

CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE

Parcels


UP_ZONECLASS

DUPLICATE_S...

CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT... ASSESSMENT...

Set attribute: _count_buildings = 0

ZONE_HEIGHT

Drop unwanted lists

Business Parcel Yield Determination in Hectares (ha)

ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1

AttributeCreator

VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4

AttributeRemover

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

VAR_5

Aggregate yield candidates GroupBy on PAR_ID SUM _count_buildings _area_building_calculated _area_parcel_ha_yield_calculated

Filter on Value

VAR_6 MUL_Category

Join rates assessment valuation attributes onto the parcel polygons


Join on PAR_ID

Filter parcels with: _total_ra_liv_lcv_score > $(LIV_LCV_SCORE_MIN)

Create business yield attribute _area_parcel_ha_yield_calculated

For _area_parcel_ha_yield_calculated round DOWN to 4 decimal places

fGDB - Brownfield Assessment polygons Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_brownfield { Parcel_Yields__Business_Brownfield_Assessment }

COUNT: _count_candidates_by_parcel

Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes Drop unwanted attributes

Business_Area... _area_parcel_c...

FeatureMerger_3

_area_parcel_...

Tester_5

AttributeCreator_2

AttributeRounder_2

Aggregator_2

AttributeRemover_3

Business_Brow...

_length_parcel...

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PAR_ID

_count_parcel_...

SUPPLIER

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

LB_Code

_count_dwellings

COMPLETE

FAILED

_count_design...

INCOMPLETE

_desig_schedule

EMPTY

_multi_zone_pa...

REFERENCED

Building_Foo...

RUB_Category

UNREFERENC...

LBG_Code CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME

Create attributes _assessment_type = BROWNFIELD _yields_adjusted_for_existing_dwelling_count = No _access_potential = Yes _fanout_dataset_brownfield

UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC...

DUPLICATE_S... fGDB - Building_Footprints_Enhanced Residential and Business


MODEL_TYPE AttributeCreator_3 INPUT OUTPUT

Building_Footp... _par_id_crc PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code

Tester_3

DROP attributes: _par_id_crc

ASSESSMENT... ASSESSMENT...

ADD attributes: _count_candidates_by_parcel _area_parcel_ha_yield_calculated

ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1

INPUT

VAR_2

PASSED

VAR_3

FAILED

VAR_4 VAR_5

_area_building...

VAR_6 MUL_Category RUB_Category JOINER Transformer: Join on Precinct_UID (1:1)

Rural_Town_Na...

Join against CFGS_ASSESS_SPL_BUS_LUT.xlsx to append attributes: MODEL_TYPE_EXTRA ASSESSMENT_TYPE_EXTRA INCLUSION

_area_parcel_c...

Business_Area... Business_Area... _area_parcel_... _area_building...

Link Excel Worksheet SPLZone fGDB - Business_Parcels_Enhanced SPECIAL only (subset inclusion)

_length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_dwellings

Special_Parcel... _par_id_crc PAR_ID

Joiner

_count_design...

JOINED

_desig_schedule _total_ra_liv_lc...

LB_Code

_total_ra_liv_lc...

LBG_Code CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS

_count_candid...

INPUT

_area_parcel_h... Exclude small business parcels _area_parcel_multipart_calculated >= $(PARCEL_AREA_MIN) AND INCLUSION =1

_yields_adjuste... _multi_zone_pa... _access_potent...


Tester_2

DWG_MIN

INPUT

DWG_MAX

PASSED

FAR_MIN

FAILED

FAR_MAX GFA_MAX_M2 ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS

Drop attribute INCLUSION

VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 MUL_Category RUB_Category


Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... Business_Area... _area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_dwellings _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa...

fGDB - CRS_Parcels_RA_ Rates Assessment valuation attributes attached

CRS_Parcels_... PAR_ID LB_Code


AttributeKeeper_4 INPUT OUTPUT

LBG_Code

PAR_ID

QPID

_total_ra_liv_lc...

VALUATIONREF

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_valuationref_f... CRCGEOMETR... LATESTVALUA... TOTAL_RA_LCV TOTAL_RA_LLV TOTAL_RA_LIV LUD_Age MAS_Estimate... Building_Age_... LANDAREA AREAUNIT AREALABEL Category_Code Category_Desc... _area_parcel_c... _count_dwellings _count_dwellin... _count_parcels... _count_dwellin... _total_ra_liv_lc... _total_ra_liv_lc...

Access_Line

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Business\Floor_Space_Assessment\Data_Prep_Zone_Neighbour_Ziggurat_1.fmw - Data_Prep_Zone_Neighbour_Ziggurat_1.fmw - FME Workbench

Interface for Ziggurat 1

Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig1_1_Business_ex_Ind_MC30m.gdb _1_Business_e... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name BuildingEnveloper DEST_Zone SRC_Zone Ziggurat

Source Ziggurat Zone Zig1_A_SH_MHS.gdb

A_SH_MHS [Z... zig_src_code zig_src_name


Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig2_1_Business_ex_Ind_MC30m.gdb _1_Business_e... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name

BuildingEnveloper... DEST_Zone SRC_Zone Ziggurat

Source Ziggurat Zone Zig2_B_MHU.gdb

B_MHU [Zig2_... zig_src_code zig_src_name


Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig3_2_Business_ex_Ind.gdb

_2_Business_e... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name BuildingEnveloper... DEST_Zone SRC_Zone Ziggurat

Source Ziggurat Zone Zig3_C_THAB.gdb C_THAB [Zig3... zig_src_code zig_src_name


Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig4_3_MC_TC.gdb

_3_Metro_Tow... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name


fGDB - Business_Zone_Neighbour_Ziggurats_ALL Clean-up Geometry

Source Ziggurat Zone Zig4_D_MU_GB.gdb D_MU_GB [Zi...


Drop NULL features by testing that attribute _storey_count EXISTS

Remove polygon self intersections

Filter Geometry

Sort by _zig_dest_code _zig_src_code _storey_count

Feature fanout = none Dataset fanout = none Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes

zig_src_code zig_src_name

AttributeKeeper

Tester

GeometryFilter

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

zig_dest_code

OUTPUT

PASSED

SELF_INTERS...

POINT

SORTED

zig_dest_name

zig_dest_code

FAILED

_zig_dest_uid

Validate Geometry

zig_src_code

Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig5_4_MC.gdb

zig_src_name env_angle

GeometryOGCVali... NULL_Featu...

env_bdy_height

_4_Metro_Cen...

storey_height zig_dest_code

_storey_count

zig_dest_name

BuildingEnveloper...

_storey_floor_h...

DEST_Zone

_storey_ceiling...

zig_dest_code

zig_src_code

ARC

zig_dest_name

zig_src_name

AREA

_zig_dest_uid

ELLIPSE

zig_src_code

TEXT

zig_src_name

LINE

zig_dest_name


INPUT

RASTER

PASSED

POINTCLOUD

FAILED

SURFACE SOLID COLLECTION NULL

SRC_Zone Ziggurat

Source Ziggurat Zone Zig5_E_POS_on_3_MC.gdb

Invalid_Geo...

E_POS [Zig5_... zig_src_code zig_src_name


Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig6_5_TC_MU.gdb

_5_TownCentr...

GeometryOGCVali...

zig_dest_code

INPUT

zig_dest_name


Source Ziggurat Zone Zig6_E_POS_on_4_TC_MU.gdb E_POS [Zig6_... zig_src_code zig_src_name


Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig7_6_LC_GB.gdb

_6_LocalCentr... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name


Source Ziggurat Zone Zig7_E_POS_on_5_LC_GB.gdb

E_POS [Zig7_... zig_src_code zig_src_name


Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig8_7_Industry.gdb _7_Industrial [... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name


F_POS_Residential F_POS_Resid... zig_src_code zig_src_name

PASSED FAILED

Sorter

Business_Zon...

SelfIntersector

INPUT

Line_Geometry

env_angle env_bdy_height storey_height _storey_count _storey_floor_h... _storey_ceiling... _segments

env_bdy_height env_angle storey_height _storey_count _storey_floor_h... _storey_ceiling...

Pg 1/1

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Business\Floor_Space_Assessment\Data_Prep_Zone_Exclusion_Ziggurat_2.fmw - Data_Prep_Zone_Exclusion_Ziggurat_2.fmw - FME Workbench

Fix self-intersections

Pg 1/1


fGDB - Business_Zone_Neighbour_Ziggurats SelfIntersector

AttributeKeeper

Business_Zon...

INPUT

INPUT

zig_dest_code

SELF_INTERS...

OUTPUT

zig_dest_name

storey_height

zig_src_code

_storey_count

zig_src_name

_storey_floor_h...

env_bdy_height

_storey_ceiling...

env_angle storey_height _storey_count _storey_floor_h... _storey_ceiling...

Resolve polygon overlaps and self-intersecting polygons at the same storey level.

Upper Level Road Setback Storeys

Upper_Level_Road_Setback - deaggregated polygons

Calculate _clone_count

AttributeCreator_2

Clone restriction features Clone Copy Number starts at 0

Calculate _storey_count

Cloner

AttributeCreator_4

Ensures only area features go forward (drops lines)

Calculate attributes _storey_floor_height_above_ground _storey_ceiling_height_above_ground

GroupBy on _storey_count

AttributeCreator_6

Upper_Level_...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

storey_count_u...

OUTPUT

COPY

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

storey_max_set...

storey_count_u...

storey_height

storey_max_set...

AreaOnAreaOverl... AREA AREA

fGDB - Business_Zone_Exclusion_Ziggurats_ALL Dissolve internal boundaries of storey polygons that intersect at the same storey level GroupBy on _storey_count Overlaps = No Accumulate Attributes = Yes

Dissolver INPUT

Feature fanout = none Dataset fanout = none

_storey_count > 0

Tester INPUT PASSED

SORTED

INTERIOR_LINE

FAILED

storey_height

_storey_floor_h...

_storey_count

_storey_ceiling...

_storey_ceiling... Fix self-intersections

SelfIntersector_2 INPUT SELF_INTERS...

Calculate _clone_count


Calculate _storey_count



AttributeCreator_7

AttributeKeeper_2

Validate Geometry AttributeCreator_3

Cloner_2

AttributeCreator_5

GeometryOGCVali...

Yard_Setback ...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

storey_count_u...

OUTPUT

COPY

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

storey_max_set...

storey_count_u...

storey_height

PASSED

storey_height

storey_max_set...

_storey_count

FAILED

storey_height

_storey_floor_h...

_clone_count

_storey_ceiling...

INPUT

Invalid_Geo... Height Overlay Storeys

Height_Overlays - deaggregated polygons

Calculate _clone_count AttributeCreator_8


Cloner_3

Calculate _storey_count AttributeCreator_9


AttributeCreator_10

Height_Overla...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

storey_count_u...

OUTPUT

COPY

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

storey_max_ov...

storey_count_u...

height_overlay...

storey_max_ov...

storey_height

height_overlay... storey_height _clone_count

storey_height

AREA

May create invalid polylines which do not move forward - unexplained red entries in log file

Yard Setback Storeys

Business_Zon...

INPUT

_storey_floor_h...

_clone_count

Yard_Setback - deaggregated polygons

Sorter


_storey_count

NON_POLYGON

storey_height

Sort by _storey_count

_segments

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Business\Floor_Space_Assessment\Data_Prep_Zone_Parcel_Ziggurat_3.fmw - Data_Prep_Zone_Parcel_Ziggurat_3.fmw - FME Workbench


Deaggregate multiparts

Pg 1/1

Dissolve internal boundaries of floor polygons that intersect at the same storey level GroupBy on _storey_count Overlaps = Yes (important)

fGDB - Business_Zone_Exclusion_Ziggurats_ALL Deaggregator

AttributeKeeper

Business_Zon...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

_storey_count

DEAGGREGA...

OUTPUT

AREA

_storey_count

INTERIOR_LINE

storey_height _storey_floor_h...

Dissolver_3

NON_POLYGON

_storey_ceiling...

Extrude Business Parcel Polygons by _parcel_extrusion_storey_count

Extrusion attribute _parcel_extrusion _storey_count is derived from the larger of the two values held by attributes ZONE_STOREYS (on Business Parcels Enhanced GDB) and storey_count_unaffected (on Height Overlays GDB)

CBD business parcels

Logger INPUT

Missing Height Data Fix

fGDB - Business_Parcels_Enhanced by LBG

Business_Parc...


AttributeKeeper_4

Test attribute ZONE_STOREYS Is Empty

Exclude CDB from ziggurat modelling ASSESSMENT_SUBTYPE = City Centre

Tester_6

Tester_3

_par_id_crc

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PAR_ID

OUTPUT

PASSED

PASSED

FAILED

FAILED

LB_Code

Reassign features WITHOUT a ZONE_STOREYS value

AttributeValueMa...


AttributeKeeper_10

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT _par_id_crc

LBG_Code

ASSESSMENT...

CFGS_UID

ZONE_STORE...

CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS

Parcel Extrusion Height Modification - Selected THAB Zone BONUS HEIGHT Overlays

CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT... ASSESSMENT... ZONE_HEIGHT

Replace business parcel polygons with centroids

Overlay parcel centroids with Height Overlay polygons

Test attributes _overlaps_height > 0 AND _storey_count_unaffected > ZONE_STOREYS

Set attribute _parcel_extrusion_storey_count = storey_count_unaffected


ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 VAR_5

InsidePointReplacer

PointOnAreaOverl...

Tester

AttributeCreator_2

AttributeKeeper_6

INPUT

POINT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INSIDEPOINT

AREA

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

UNTOUCHED

POINT

FAILED

_par_id_crc

AREA

VAR_6

_parcel_extrusi...

Set attribute _parcel_extrusion_storey_count = ZONE_STOREYS

MUL_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... Business_Area...

AttributeCreator_3

_area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_...

INPUT

_length_parcel...

OUTPUT

_count_parcel_... _count_dwellings _count_design... _desig_schedule

Parcel Extrusion Height Modification - Viewshaft CONSTRAINT HEIGHT Overlays

_multi_zone_pa... RUB_Category

fGDB - Height_Overlays - deaggregated polygons


Overlay parcel centroids with Volcanic Viewshaft polygons

Test attributes _overlaps_viewshaft > 0 AND _storey_height_viewshaft > 0 AND _storey_height_viewshaft < _parcel_extrusion_storey_count

Clip parcel polygon extrusions with the constraint ziggurats Group By on _storey_count Merge Attributes = No Create Aggregates = No

Set attribute _parcel_extrusion_storey_count = _storey_height_viewshaft


AttributeCreator_4

AttributeKeeper_8

AttributeKeeper_5 PointOnAreaOverl...

Tester_4

Clipper_2

Height_Overla...

INPUT

storey_count_u...

OUTPUT

POINT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

CLIPPER

storey_max_ov...

storey_count_u...

AREA

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

CLIPPEE

height_overlay...

POINT

FAILED

_par_id_crc

INSIDE

storey_height

AREA

_parcel_extrusi...

CLIPPED_INS... CLIPPED_OU... OUTSIDE

fGDB - Volcanic_Viewshaft_Polygons_ALL - expressed in storey height increments


Check for invalid geometry

AttributeKeeper_9

GeometryOGCVali...

Volcanic_View...

INPUT

INPUT

_storey_height...

OUTPUT

PASSED

_storey_height...

Dissolve internal boundaries of parcel neighbours with the same _parcel_extrusion_storey_count value GroupBy on _parcel_extrusion_storey_count Overlaps = Yes (maybe) Accumulate Attributes = No

Join _parcel_extrusion_storey_count onto the parcel polygon features Join on _par_id_crc Drop unwanted attributes FeatureMerger

AttributeKeeper_7

Dissolver_2

FAILED

Dissolve ziggurat boundaries of floor polygons that intersect at the same storey count GroupBy on _storey_count Overlaps = Yes Accumulate Attributes = Yes

Dissolver INPUT AREA INTERIOR_LINE NON_POLYGON

Calculate attributes _storey_count = _clone_copy_number + 1 _storey_height = $(ASSUMED_STOREY_HEIGHT)

AttributeCreator_11

Fix self intersectors

SliverRemover


REQUESTOR

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

AREA

OUTPUT

INVALID

OUTPUT

COMPLETE

_parcel_extrusi...

INTERIOR_LINE

REPAIRED

_storey_count

INCOMPLETE

_storey_height

NON_POLYGON

_storey_floor_h...

EMPTY REFERENCED

Clone parcel polygons by _parcel_extrusion_storey_count Clone Copy Number starts at 0



_storey_ceiling...

AttributeCreator_12 Cloner_4 INPUT

INPUT OUTPUT

COPY

Clip new parcel polygon building envelope ziggurats with parcel polygon footprints to get parcel-level ziggurat features Group By = None Merge Attributes = Yes Create Aggregates = No

Drop attributes except _par_id_crc

Filter by _storey_count AttributeKeeper_2 Clipper_3

INPUT

TestFilter

OUTPUT

CLIPPER

INPUT

_par_id_crc

CLIPPEE

6th Storey Minus

PAR_ID

INSIDE

7th Storey Plus

Business_Area...

CLIPPED_INS...

Business_Area...

CLIPPED_OU... OUTSIDE

fGDB - Business_Parcel_Ziggurats_

Create an inverse-buffer based on negative $(STOREY_7_SETBACK) Group By on _par_id_crc

Bufferer

Expose fme_type

AttributeExposer


Clip building envelope ziggurats storeys above level 7 by the $(STOREY_7_SETBACK) inverse buffer Group By on _par_id_crc Merge Attributes = No Create Aggregates = No

Calculate Floor Space

Create _fanout_dataset atrributes for fGDB and PDF dataset outputs

For each storey feature calculate _area_business_floor_space_calculated

Dataset fanout = _fanout_dataset_gdb Feature fanout = none Sort by _par_id_crc _storey_count


Tester_7

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

AttributeCreator

AreaCalculator

BUFFERED

OUTPUT

PASSED

CLIPPER

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

FAILED

Clipper_4

CLIPPEE

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

SORTED _par_id_crc

INSIDE CLIPPED_INS... CLIPPED_OU...

Sorter

Filter out small areas less than $(FLOOR_SPACE_MIN) m2

PAR_ID Business_Area... Business_Area...

OUTSIDE Tester_2 INPUT PASSED FAILED

_storey_count _storey_height

Business_Parc... _par_id_crc PAR_ID Business_Area... Business_Area... _storey_count _storey_height _storey_floor_h... _storey_ceiling... _area_business...

_storey_floor_h... _storey_ceiling... _fanout_datase...

Render in 3D

_fanout_datase...

GeoPDF - Business_Parcel_Ziggurats_LBG

_area_business...

Make storeys 3D 3DForcer

Extrude storeys by _storey_height

Extruder

Style GeoPDF

PDFStyler

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

STYLED

Dataset fanout = _fanout_dataset_pdf

Business_Parc... _par_id_crc PAR_ID Business_Area... Business_Area... _storey_count _storey_height _storey_floor_h... _storey_ceiling... _area_business...

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Business\Geoprocessing_Floor_Space_Yields_5.fmw - Geoprocessing_Floor_Space_Yields_5.fmw - FME Workbench

Pg 1/1

Aggregate business floor space yield determinations at the parcel level Filter out business parcels without ziggurats

Aggregate yield candidates GroupBy on PAR_ID Filter

Missing Height Data Fix

Exclude small business parcels _area_parcel_multipart_calculated >= $(PARCEL_AREA_MIN)

Exclude CDB from ziggurat modelling ASSESSMENT_SUBTYPE != City centre

Test attribute ZONE_STOREYS Is Empty

fGDB - Business_Parcels_Enhanced BUSINESS only Tester_2

Reassign features WITHOUT a ZONE_STOREYS value

Join floor space yield attributes on to the original parcel features Join on _par_id_crc Process Duplicate Supplier = Yes

fGDB - Parcel_Yields__Floor_Space_Assessment

SUM _area_business_floor_space_calculated _yield_business_floor_space_calculated

Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_floor_Space { Parcel_Yields__Business_Floor_Space_Assessment }

COUNT: _count_candidates_by_parcel Drop unwanted attributes


Tester_3 Tester_6

AttributeValueMa...

FeatureMerger

Aggregator_2

AttributeRemover

Business_Floor...

Business_Parc...

INPUT

INPUT

_par_id_crc

PASSED

PASSED

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INPUT

PAR_ID

PAR_ID

FAILED

FAILED

PASSED

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

LB_Code

LB_Code

FAILED

INCOMPLETE

CFGS_UID

EMPTY

CFGS_NAME

REFERENCED

UP_BASEZONE

UNREFERENC...

UP_ZONECLASS

CBD business parcels

CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME

Create attributes _yields_adjusted_for_existing_dwelling_count = No _access_potential = Yes _fanout_dataset_floor_space

DUPLICATE_S...

CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE

LBG_Code

COMPLETE

LBG_Code

Logger

UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE

AttributeCreator_5

ASSESSMENT... ASSESSMENT...

ASSESSMENT...

INPUT

ASSESSMENT...

INPUT

ZONE_HEIGHT

OUTPUT

ZONE_HEIGHT

ZONE_STOREYS

ZONE_STOREYS

VAR_1

VAR_1

VAR_2

VAR_2

VAR_3

VAR_3

VAR_4 VAR_5

VAR_4

VAR_6

VAR_5 Calculate business floor space yields by aggregate storeys by business parcel _par_id_crc

VAR_6

MUL_Category RUB_Category

MUL_Category

Rural_Town_Na...




Business_Area... Business_Area...

Business_Area... _area_parcel_c...

With respect to the Unitary Plan business floor space modelling rules:

AttributeKeeper_4

AttributeKeeper

_area_parcel_...

INPUT

INPUT

_length_parcel...

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

_count_parcel_...

_par_id_crc

_count_dwellings

_storey_count

_count_design...

_area_business...

_desig_schedule

For storey 6 and below: - the floor area is the yield area

_assessment_t... _area_parcel_c...

For storey 7 and above: - 1250 m2 is the maximun area of a tower with a diagonal dimension of 50m - 1710.26 m2 is the site size required to accomodate a tower of 1250 m2 when there is a 6m setback on two sides (assumes towers will occupy the corners of storeys with floor areas that can accommodate more than one tower)

_area_parcel_... _area_business... _yield_business... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_...

UP_BASEZONE

_multi_zone_pa...

_count_dwellings

_area_parcel_c...

RUB_Category

Append parcel attributes UP_BASEZONE and _area_parcel_multipart_calculated to the business parcel ziggurats

_count_design...

WITHOUT Site Coverage Yield Qualification @ 80%

_area_parcel_...

_count_candid...

_multi_zone_pa...

_count_storey_...

Filter by _storey_count

_desig_schedule

Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated

_yields_adjuste... _multi_zone_pa...

fGDB - Business_Parcel_Ziggurats TestFilter

FeatureMerger_2

AttributeCreator_4

Business_Parc...

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INPUT

_par_id_crc

SUPPLIER

6th Storey Minus

OUTPUT

_storey_count

COMPLETE

7th Storey Plus

_storey_height

INCOMPLETE

_storey_floor_h...

EMPTY

_storey_ceiling...

REFERENCED

_area_business... PAR_ID Business_Area...

_access_potent...


Filter


Filter on UP_BASEZONE

Filter by _area_business_floor_space_calculated


Business_Area... AttributeFilter

TestFilter_2

INPUT

INPUT

1710 m2

General Busin...

Heavy Industry

OUTPUT

Aggregate parcel candidates Group By on _par_id_crc


AttributeCreator_7

Light Industry

SUM _area_business_floor_space_calculated _yield_business_floor_space_calculated

Aggregator

Keep area and yield join attributes only

AttributeKeeper_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT _par_id_crc _area_business...

Aggregate parcel-storey candidates Group By on _par_id_crc, _storey_count

_yield_business...

WITH Site Coverage Yield Qualification @ 80%

** avoids double counting of storey count when parcels are split by constraint layers


TestFilter_3

Calculate _yield_1, _yield_2 AttributeCreator_2

Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated as MIN(_yield_1, _yield_2) using TCL

TCLCaller_3

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

6th Storey Minus

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Aggregator_3

Keep maximum story count join attributes only

AttributeKeeper_3

INPUT

INPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT _par_id_crc _count_storey_...

7th Storey Plus

Aggregate parcel candidates Group By on _par_id_crc

Calculate _yield_1, _yield_2 Filter by _area_business_floor_space_calculated

TestFilter_4

AttributeCreator_10


TCLCaller_2

COUNT: _count_storey_max

Aggregator_4

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

INPUT 1710 m2



TCLCaller_4

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Access_Line

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Business\Geoprocessing_Floor_Space_Yields_By_Storey_6.fmw - Geoprocessing_Floor_Space_Yields_By_Storey_6.fmw - FME Workbench

Pg 1/1

fGDB - Parcel_Yields_ALL_Floor_Space_Assessment_by_Storey

fGDB - CRS Parcels Business Enhanced (ALL) Merged Schema


Join business storey attributes with parcel features

Dataset fanout = none

Join on _par_id_crc Process Duplicate Suppliers = Yes


AttributeKeeper_2 ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS Rural_Town_Na... CFGS_UID CFGS_ZONEC... _par_id_crc _area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_... _length_parcel... _count_parcel_... _count_dwellings _count_design... _desig_schedule _multi_zone_pa... ASSESSMENT... RUB_Category VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 VAR_5 VAR_6 MUL_Category Business_Area... PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS MODEL_TYPE [CRS_Pa...

FeatureMerger

INPUT OUTPUT

REQUESTOR

_par_id_crc

SUPPLIER

PAR_ID

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

Calculate business floor space yields by aggregate storeys by business parcel _par_id_crc

Business_Floor... _par_id_crc PAR_ID Business_Area... Business_Area... _storey_height

EMPTY

_count_storey_...

REFERENCED

_area_business...

UNREFERENC...

_area_business...

DUPLICATE_S...

_area_business... _area_business...



INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT _par_id_crc Business_Area...

_area_business...

With respect to the Unitary Plan business floor space modelling rules:

_area_business...

For storey 6 and below: - the floor area is the yield area

Unwanted slivers and CBD rollover data

For storey 7 and above: - 1250 m2 is the maximun area of a tower with a diagonal dimension of 50m - 1710.26 m2 is the site size required to accomodate a tower of 1250 m2 when there is a 6m setback on two sides (assumes towers will occupy the corners of storeys with floor areas that can accommodate more than one tower)

INPUT

_area_business...


_storey_height Aggregated Parcel-Level attributes

WITHOUT Site Coverage Yield Qualification @ 80%

_area_business...

_area_business...

Aggregate parcel-storey candidates Group By on _par_id_crc, _storey_count

UP_BASEZONE _area_parcel_c... _area_parcel_...


_storey_count

fGDB - Business Parcel Ziggurats (ALL) Merged Schema


Logger

Business_Area...

Append parcel attributes UP_BASEZONE and _area_parcel_multipart_calculated to the business parcel ziggurats

_area_business...



** avoids double counting of storey count when parcels are split by constraint layers


Keep parcel-level attributes of interest


_multi_zone_pa...

_yield_business... TestFilter_4

FeatureMerger_2

AttributeCreator_2

Aggregator_3

AttributeKeeper_3

_yield_business...

[Business...

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

_yield_business...

_par_id_crc

SUPPLIER

6th Storey Minus

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

_yield_business...

PAR_ID

COMPLETE

7th Storey Plus

_par_id_crc

_yield_business...

Business_Area...

INCOMPLETE

Business_Area...

_yield_business...

Business_Area...

_yield_business...

_storey_height

_yield_business...

_count_storey_...

_yield_business...

Business_Area...

EMPTY

_storey_count

REFERENCED

_storey_height _storey_floor_h... _storey_ceiling...

Aggregate parcel candidates Group By on _par_id_crc Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated

Filter

COUNT: _count_storey_max

UNREFERENC...

DUPLICATE_S...

Filter on UP_BASEZONE

Filter by _area_business_floor_space_calculated

_area_business... AttributeFilter

TestFilter_5

INPUT

INPUT

1710 m2

General Busin...

Heavy Industry

_yield_business... AttributeCreator_3

Aggregator_4

_yield_business...

INPUT

INPUT

_yield_business...

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

_yield_business... _yield_business... _yield_business... _yield_business...


_yield_business... Derive new attributes for _storey_count < 19

AttributeCreator_5

Light Industry

Create attribute Name/Value pairs as a list + keep feature attributes _attr_name _attr_value

INPUT OUTPUT

AttributeKeeper_4

WITH Site Coverage Yield Qualification @ 80%


TestFilter_6


_yield_business...

Ziggurat Storey-Level attributes


TCLCaller_3

AttributeExploder_2

INPUT

INPUT

6th Storey Minus

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

ListSorter

Rename attributes with a suffix derived from their respective storey count

AttributeExpressio...

Expose renamed attributes for fGDB writer

AttributeExposer_5

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

_par_id_crc

_par_id_crc

_storey_count

_storey_count

_area_business...

_area_business...

_yield_business...

_yield_business... _attr_name _attr_value

INPUT

Sort list so values always at same list index _attr_list{0}._attr_value = floor area _attr_list{0}._attr_value = storey count _attr_list{0}._attr_value = floor yield

Expose list attributes of interest Drop unwanted attributes AttributeExposer_3 INPUT OUTPUT


7th Storey Plus

Calculate _yield_1, _yield_2 Filter by _area_business_floor_space_calculated

TestFilter_7

AttributeCreator_10


TCLCaller_2

Expose attribute Name/Value pairs list

Derive new attributes for _storey_count >= 19 AttributeExposer_2

TestFilter_3

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

Storeys < 19

INPUT

INPUT

_par_id_crc

Storeys >= 19

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

_storey_count

INPUT

_area_business...

1710 m2


Calculate _yield_1, _yield_2


TCLCaller_4

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT


StatisticsCalculator

AttributeRemover_3

INPUT

INPUT

STATISTICS

OUTPUT

_attr_name _attr_value _attr_list{}._attr... _attr_list{}._attr...

AttributeCreator_11

Sum floor area on storeys 19+ Group By _par_id_crc

Sum floor yield on storeys 19+ Group By _par_id_crc

StatisticsCalculato... INPUT STATISTICS

_yield_business...

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Rural_Residential\Data_Prep_Rural_Titles_1.fmw - Data_Prep_Rural_Titles_1.fmw - FME Workbench

In the RURAL RESIDENTIAL modelling we work with Titles data but actually we are modelling Parcel(s) associated with a Title. For modelling purposes this feature is called the "TITLE_FOOTPRINT_POLYGON" The Title : Polygon relationship is MANY : MANY Where the Polygon might comprise ONE or MANY Parcels 1. In an URBAN context it is not uncommon for MANY titles to reside on ONE polygon - this is captured as _count_titles_by_polygon 2. In a RURAL context it is not uncommon for ONE title to comprise MANY polygons - this is captured as _count_polygons_by_title

Derive the "Title Footprint" polygons

fGDB - CRS_Title_Footprints_ALL

NZ_Property_...

Identify unique geometries for aggregate and non-aggregate features _crc_geometry_id

CRCCalculator_2

Remove stacked title footprint polygon duplicates for aggregate and non-aggergate features GroupBy on _crc_geometry_id

AttributeKeeper

DuplicateRemover

id

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

title_no

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE

_crc_geometry...

UNIQUE

status

Unique Title Identifier (aggregated multiparts)


Rename attributes


type

OUTPUT

land_district

_title_footprint_...

issue_date guarantee_status estate_descripti... Drop unwanted attributes

number_owners spatial_extents...

Join unique title footprint polygon features with title attributes where ONE or MANY multi-part polygon features are related to ONE title footprint feature polygon

Identify duplicate aggregate polygon features


Create list _list_aggergate_poly_duplicates

OUTPUT

Count list elements and save as _count_titles_by_polygon

Remove Duplicates in list values for TITLE_TYPE

Remove Duplicates in list values for TITLE_GUARANTEE

Deaggregate title polygon aggergates into their component parts Recursive = No

Drop unwanted attributes and list

Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

title_no type

Matcher

issue_date guarantee_status

ListDuplicateRem...

ListDuplicateRem...

Deaggregator

AttributeRemover_2

FeatureMerger

Filter on aggregate and not aggregate features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

MATCHED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

DEAGGREGA...

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

AGGREGATE: Multi-part Title polgons (horizonally) May still be stacked

SINGLE_MAT...

number_owners _crc_geometry...

ListElementCounter

COMPLETE

NOT_MATCHED

INCOMPLETE Re-aggregate title polygon features GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

NOT_A_AGGREGATE: Many Title polygons stacked on top of each other (vertically)

Sum list owner attributes and save as _count_total_title_owners

Rename attributes

Concatenate list TITLE_TYPE as attribute TITLE_TYPE

Concatenate list TITLE_GUARANTEE as attribute TITLE_GUARANTEE

EMPTY REFERENCED

Count attributes: _count_polygons_by_title


AttributeRenamer_2

ListSummer

AggregateFilter

ListConcatenator_3

ListConcatenator_4

Aggregator_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

TITLE_REFER...

NOT_AGGRE...

AttributeKeeper_2 INPUT OUTPUT Join unique title footprint polygon features with title attributes where ONE or MANY polygon features are related to ONE title footprint feature polygon

Aggregate features GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

TITLE_TYPE TITLE_ISSUE_...

Concatenate attributes: TITLE_REFERENCE - longest string output is 9,362 char

TITLE_GUARA... _count_total_tit... _title_footprint_...

List attributes: TITLE_TYPE and TITLE_GUARANTEE


ListDuplicateRem...

Sum attributes: _count_total_title_owners


ListDuplicateRem...

Extract TITLE ISSUE DATE range - oldest date / newest date - for the rare cases where they differ

ListRangeExtractor

Set attribute _count_polygons_by_title = 1

Drop unwanted lists


AttributeRemover_3

AttributeCreator

FeatureMerger_3

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

_title_issue_dat...

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

_title_issue_dat...

COMPLETE Concatenate list TITLE_GUARANTEE as attribute TITLE_GUARANTEE

EMPTY REFERENCED

ListConcatenator

UNREFERENC...

ListConcatenator_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE_S...

Clip to LBG extents fGDB - Title_Footprints_ALL Test for attribute existence:

LB [Extent_LB ... LB_Name LBG_Name LBG_Code LB_Code

Clip Title Footprint polygons with Local Board Group (LBG) extent polygons


LBG_Code exists - drops coastal slivers outside LBG TITLE_REFERENCE exists - drops polygons that are not titles


AttributeKeeper_6

Re-aggregate Title Footprint polygon features disaggregated by the clip GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id AND LBG_Code

No dataset fanout Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes The concatenation on TITLE_REFRENCE requires a max char datatype length of 9,362

SliverRemover

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

INVALID

LBG_Code

REPAIRED

Tester_2

Clipper

INPUT

CLIPPER

LB_Code

PASSED

CLIPPEE

Aggregator_4

Title_Footprints...

INPUT


AGGREGATE

LB_Code

FAILED

INSIDE

LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE...

CLIPPED_INS... CLIPPED_OU...

TITLE_TYPE


OUTSIDE

TITLE_GUARA... _title_issue_dat... _title_issue_dat... _count_total_titl...

Deaggregator_2 On rare a occassions a Building Footprint may straddle a LBG boundary

_count_polygo...

INPUT Failed_Title_...

_count_titles_b...

DEAGGREGA...

Filter Title Footprints by INCLUSION Rural Zone polygons and append other attributes of interest

fGDB Extent_Rural_Limit.gdb needs work to get it to reflect the true UP Rural limits Drop unwanted attributes

AttributeKeeper_9

Replace the titles polygons with a title polygon centroids to avoid polygon boundary alignment issues on overlay

InsidePointReplacer

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

INSIDEPOINT

LBG_Code

UNTOUCHED

_title_footprint_... Inclusion and Attribute Overlays INCLUSION - Title Feature Filter

fGDB - CfGS_Zones__Rural_Enhanced Merged Schema on RN,RS,UN,US,UW Inclusion polygons only

MODEL_TYPE CFGS_UID LB_Code LBG_Code UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... UP_GROUPNA... CFGS_NAME [CFGS_Z...


AttributeKeeper_5

Overlay ALL title footprint centroids with Rural Zone polygons

_overlaps_rural_zone > 0

No Rural Zones in UC and HG


PointOnAreaOverl...

Tester_4

INPUT

POINT

INPUT

OUTPUT

AREA

PASSED

POINT

FAILED

AREA

fGDB - Extent Rural Town Appends Rural Town Name only

Rural_Town_Na... Rural_Town [E...

Overlay zone centroids with Rural Towns and the UP Base Zone


AttributeKeeper_7

PointOnAreaOverl...

Drop unwantde attributes

AttributeKeeper_10

INPUT

POINT

INPUT

OUTPUT

AREA

OUTPUT

Rural_Town_N...

POINT AREA

Join title footprint centroids and their new attributes back onto ALL title footprint polygons

fGDB - Zones_LBG_ALL (UP) Appends UP_BASEZONE only

ZONEHEIGHT Zone_UID LB_Code LBG_Code NAME ZONECODE ZONENAME GROUPZONEC... GROUPZONEN... WORKFLOWJO... BaseZone [UP...


Rename ZONENAME to UP_BASEZONE

AttributeKeeper_8

AttributeRenamer_3

Re-aggregate title polygon centroid features


GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id AND LBG_Code

GroupBy on LBG_Code

Aggregator_5


FeatureMerger_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

SUPPLIER

ZONENAME

UP_BASEZONE

LBG_Code

COMPLETE


INCOMPLETE

Rural_Town_N...

EMPTY

UP_BASEZONE


Filter Title Footprints by Designation count (Designation are a feature class in the Unitary Plan Overlays layer) fGDB - Title_Footprints_Rural_ Overlay (but do not intersect) parcels and designations - OVERLAPS, CONTAINS, WITHIN GroupBy on LBG_Code

fGDB - Desginations_UP All Auckland

Designations [...

Create an inverse buffer on designation polygons to negate the affect of sliver overlays due to poor designation digitising $(DESIG_INV_BUFFER) Drop unwanted attributes

AttributeKeeper_4

Bufferer

Only BASE features are output Determines _count_designations Expose fme_type

AttributeExposer

SpatialRelator_2

Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_titles

Re-aggregate Title Footprint polygon features disaggregated by the SpatialRelator GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id AND LBG_Code


Tester_7

Aggregator_3


_fanout_dataset_titles = Title_Footprints_Rural_.gdb

AttributeCreator_2

TYPE

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

BASE

INPUT

INPUT

SUBTYPE

OUTPUT

BUFFERED

OUTPUT

PASSED

CANDIDATE

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

SCHEDULE

FAILED

OUTPUT

NAME

The concatenation on TITLE_REFRENCE requires a max char datatype length of 239

Title_Footprints... _title_footprint_... LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE

PARCEL_BASED _cfgs_designati...

TITLE_GUARA...

_count_polygo...

OUTPUT

INCOMPLETE


TITLE_TYPE

_count_titles_b...

INPUT



TITLE_REFER...

_count_total_tit...

Count attributes: _count_titles_by_polygon

Aggregator



TITLE_GUARA... _title_issue_dat... _title_issue_dat...

AttributeRemover_4

_count_total_titl...

INPUT

_count_polygo...

OUTPUT

_count_titles_b... _count_design... Rural_Town_Na... UP_BASEZONE

Pg 1/1

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Rural_Residential\Data_Prep_FU_Titles_1.1.fmw - Data_Prep_FU_Titles_1.1.fmw - FME Workbench

In the RURAL RESIDENTIAL modelling we work with Titles data but actually we are modelling Parcel(s) associated with a Title. For modelling purposes this feature is called the "TITLE_FOOTPRINT_POLYGON" The Title : Polygon relationship is MANY : MANY Where the Polygon might comprise ONE or MANY Parcels 1. In an URBAN context it is not uncommon for MANY titles to reside on ONE polygon - this is captured as _count_titles_by_polygon 2. In a RURAL context it is not uncommon for ONE title to comprise MANY polygons - this is captured as _count_polygons_by_title

Derive the "Title Footprint" polygons

fGDB - CRS_Title_Footprints_ALL

NZ_Property_...

Identify unique geometries for aggregate and non-aggregate features _crc_geometry_id

CRCCalculator_2

Remove stacked title footprint polygon duplicates for aggregate and non-aggergate features GroupBy on _crc_geometry_id

AttributeKeeper

DuplicateRemover

id

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

title_no

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE

_crc_geometry...

UNIQUE

status

Unique Title Identifier (aggregated multiparts)


Rename attributes


type

OUTPUT

land_district


issue_date guarantee_status estate_descripti... Drop unwanted attributes

number_owners spatial_extents...

Join unique title footprint polygon features with title attributes where ONE or MANY multi-part polygon features are related to ONE title footprint feature polygon

Identify duplicate aggregate polygon features


Create list _list_aggergate_poly_duplicates

OUTPUT

Count list elements and save as _count_titles_by_polygon




Drop unwanted attributes and list


title_no type

Matcher

issue_date guarantee_status

ListDuplicateRem...

ListDuplicateRem...

Deaggregator

AttributeRemover_2

FeatureMerger

Filter on aggregate and not aggregate features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

MATCHED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

DEAGGREGA...

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

AGGREGATE: Multi-part Title polgons (horizonally) May still be stacked

SINGLE_MAT...

number_owners _crc_geometry...

ListElementCounter

COMPLETE

NOT_MATCHED

INCOMPLETE Re-aggregate title polygon features GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

NOT_A_AGGREGATE: Many Title polygons stacked on top of each other (vertically)

Sum list owner attributes and save as _count_total_title_owners

Rename attributes


Concatenate list TITLE_GUARANTEE as attribute TITLE_GUARANTEE

EMPTY REFERENCED

Count attributes: _count_polygons_by_title


AttributeRenamer_2

ListSummer

AggregateFilter

ListConcatenator_3

ListConcatenator_4

Aggregator_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

TITLE_REFER...

NOT_AGGRE...

AttributeKeeper_2 INPUT OUTPUT Join unique title footprint polygon features with title attributes where ONE or MANY polygon features are related to ONE title footprint feature polygon

Aggregate features GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

TITLE_TYPE TITLE_ISSUE_...

Concatenate attributes: TITLE_REFERENCE - longest string output is 9,362 char

TITLE_GUARA... _count_total_tit... _title_footprint_...

List attributes: TITLE_TYPE and TITLE_GUARANTEE


ListDuplicateRem...

Sum attributes: _count_total_title_owners


ListDuplicateRem...

Extract TITLE ISSUE DATE range - oldest date / newest date - for the rare cases where they differ

ListRangeExtractor

Set attribute _count_polygons_by_title = 1

Drop unwanted lists


AttributeRemover_3

AttributeCreator

FeatureMerger_3

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

_title_issue_dat...

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

SUPPLIER

_title_issue_dat...

COMPLETE Concatenate list TITLE_GUARANTEE as attribute TITLE_GUARANTEE

EMPTY REFERENCED

ListConcatenator

UNREFERENC...

ListConcatenator_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE_S...

Clip to LBG extents

Test for attribute existence:

LB [Extent_LB ... LB_Name LBG_Name LBG_Code LB_Code

Clip Title Footprint polygons with Local Board Group (LBG) extent polygons


LBG_Code exists - drops coastal slivers outside LBG TITLE_REFERENCE exists - drops polygons that are not titles


AttributeKeeper_6

Re-aggregate Title Footprint polygon features disaggregated by the clip GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id AND LBG_Code

SliverRemover

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

INVALID

LBG_Code

REPAIRED

Tester_2

Clipper

Aggregator_4

INPUT

CLIPPER

LB_Code

INPUT

PASSED

CLIPPEE

AGGREGATE

FAILED

INSIDE CLIPPED_INS... CLIPPED_OU...


OUTSIDE

Deaggregator_2 On rare a occassions a Building Footprint may straddle a LBG boundary

INPUT Failed_Title_...

DEAGGREGA...

Filter Title Footprints by INCLUSION Future Urban Zone polygons and append other attributes of interest

fGDB Extent_Rural_Limit.gdb needs work to get it to reflect the true UP Rural limits Drop unwanted attributes

AttributeKeeper_9

Replace the titles polygons with a title polygon centroids to avoid polygon boundary alignment issues on overlay

InsidePointReplacer

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

INSIDEPOINT

LBG_Code

UNTOUCHED

_title_footprint_... Inclusion and Attribute Overlays FutureUrban

INCLUSION - Title Feature Filter

fGDB - FutureUrban Extent Inclusion polygons only


MODEL_TYPE CFGS_UID UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... UP_GROUPNA... CFGS_NAME FutureUrban [E...

AttributeKeeper_5

Overlay ALL title footprint centroids with Rural Zone polygons

_overlaps_fu_zone > 0


No FU Zones in UC and HG

PointOnAreaOverl...

Tester_4

INPUT

POINT

INPUT

OUTPUT

AREA

PASSED

POINT

FAILED

AREA

fGDB - Extent Rural Town Appends Rural Town Name only

Rural_Town_Na... Rural_Town [E...

Overlay zone centroids with Rural Towns and the UP Base Zone


AttributeKeeper_7

PointOnAreaOverl...

Drop unwantde attributes

AttributeKeeper_10

INPUT

POINT

INPUT

OUTPUT

AREA

OUTPUT

Rural_Town_N...

POINT AREA

Join title footprint centroids and their new attributes back onto ALL title footprint polygons

fGDB - Zones_LBG_ALL (UP) Appends UP_BASEZONE only



Rename ZONENAME to UP_BASEZONE

AttributeKeeper_8

AttributeRenamer_3

Re-aggregate title polygon centroid features


GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id AND LBG_Code

GroupBy on LBG_Code

Aggregator_5


FeatureMerger_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

REQUESTOR

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AGGREGATE

SUPPLIER

ZONENAME

UP_BASEZONE

LBG_Code

COMPLETE


INCOMPLETE

Rural_Town_N...

EMPTY

UP_BASEZONE


Filter Title Footprints by Designation count (Designation are a feature class in the Unitary Plan Overlays layer) fGDB - Title_Footprints_FU_ Overlay (but do not intersect) parcels and designations - OVERLAPS, CONTAINS, WITHIN GroupBy on LBG_Code

fGDB - Desginations_UP All Auckland

Designations [...

Create an inverse buffer on designation polygons to negate the affect of sliver overlays due to poor designation digitising $(DESIG_INV_BUFFER) Drop unwanted attributes

AttributeKeeper_4

Bufferer

Only BASE features are output Determines _count_designations Expose fme_type

AttributeExposer

SpatialRelator_2

Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_titles

Re-aggregate Title Footprint polygon features disaggregated by the SpatialRelator GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id AND LBG_Code


Tester_7

Aggregator_3


_fanout_dataset_titles = Title_Footprints_FU_.gdb

AttributeCreator_2

TYPE

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

BASE

INPUT

INPUT

SUBTYPE

OUTPUT

BUFFERED

OUTPUT

PASSED

CANDIDATE

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

SCHEDULE

FAILED

OUTPUT

NAME

The concatenation on TITLE_REFRENCE requires a max char datatype length of 239

Title_Footprints... _title_footprint_... LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE

PARCEL_BASED _cfgs_designati...

TITLE_GUARA...

_count_polygo...

OUTPUT

INCOMPLETE


TITLE_TYPE

_count_titles_b...

INPUT



TITLE_REFER...

_count_total_tit...

Count attributes: _count_titles_by_polygon

Aggregator



TITLE_GUARA... _title_issue_dat... _title_issue_dat...

AttributeRemover_4


INPUT

_count_polygo...

OUTPUT

_count_titles_b... _count_design... Rural_Town_Na... UP_BASEZONE

Pg 1/1

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Rural_Residential\Data_Prep_Rural_Title_Footprints_Enhanced_2.fmw - Data_Prep_Rural_Title_Footprints_Enhanced_2.fmw - FME Workbench

Overlay zone data and append Zone specific modelling attributes to each Title Footprint polygon

NOTE: A single TITLE FOOTPRINTS polygon may be split by a ZONE polygon

Tag Title Footprints that are split by Zone Boundaries | Exclude Sliver Polygons due to Zone Boundaries not being conincident Fix Bad Data

Only pass valid geometry

fGDB - Title_Footprints_Rural_ - Multipart polygons

GeometryOGCVali... Title_Footprints...

INPUT


PASSED

LB_Code

FAILED

Overlay (and intersect) title footprints and zones

AreaOnAreaOverl...

Matcher

Set attribute _multi_zone_title_footprint = No


AttributeCreator_7

AttributeRemover_3

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

AREA

MATCHED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

SINGLE_MAT...

LBG_Code

_overlaps_title_footprint_zone > 1 AND _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id exists

TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE Invalid_Title...

TITLE_GUARA...

Match duplicate features on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

AREA

Tester

_title_issue_dat...

INPUT

_title_issue_dat...

PASSED


FAILED

_count_polygo... _count_titles_b... Identify duplicate features by _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

_count_design... Rural_Town_Na... UP_BASEZONE Append CfGS Modelling Parameters for Rural

DuplicateRemover INPUT

Join against CFGS_ASSESS_RUR_LUT.xlsx Link Excel Worksheet RESZone Join on CFGS_UID (1:1) Drop unwanted attributes

Separate legitimate MULTI-ZONE title footprints from sliver polygons Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

FeatureMerger

Dissolve MULTI-ZONE title footprint boundary Accumulate attributes = Yes

Dissolver_2

Create _fanout_dataset_titles Create _fanout_featuretype_titles


INPUT

AREA

OUTPUT

PASSED

COMPLETE

INTERIOR_LINE

INCOMPLETE

NON_POLYGON

FAILED

EMPTY

UNREFERENC...

Calculate area _area_title_footprint_calculated

Set attribute _multi_zone_title_footprint = Yes

DUPLICATE_S...

** this is a multipart area where multiparts exist

UNIQUE AttributeCreator_6

Calculate title_footprint area _area_title_footprint_dups_calculated

Dissolve duplicate _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id that shhare a common boundary to revert to the original title footprint polgon Accumulate attributes = Yes

INPUT AreaCalculator

OUTPUT

INPUT

AttributeRemover_5

Joiner

AreaCalculator_4

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

CFGS_UID

OUTPUT

JOINED

OUTPUT

AREA

LB_Code

INTERIOR_LINE

Filter on MODEL_TYPE Valid types only

NON_POLYGON

Fix Bad Data

UP_ZONECLASS

Capture legitimate MULTI-ZONE title footprints using an area filter _area_title_footprint_dups_calculated > $(SLIVER_AREA)

CFGS_ZONEC... CFGS_NAME

OUTPUT

Dissolver

Rural_Zones [...

UP_GROUPNA...

Tester_2

INPUT

SUPPLIER

fGDB - CfGS_Zones__Rural_Enhanced

LBG_Code

Test attribute CFGS_UID exists - drops slivers outside Zones

REQUESTOR

REFERENCED DUPLICATE

Append RURAL assessment parameters - has its own attribute schema

NOT_MATCHED

Rebuilds topological relationships across disparate data sources GroupBy on ALL


AttributeFilter Calculate title_footprint area _area_title_footprint_dups_calculated

INPUT Rural

MODEL_TYPE AreaBuilder

AttributeRemover_4

Tester_9

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

UNUSED_LINE

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

AREA

AreaCalculator_3

FAILED Drop sliver polygons using an area filter _area_title_footprint_dups_calculated > $(SLIVER_AREA)

INVALID

Tester_3



AttributeCreator

AttributeKeeper_4

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT _title_footprint_...

FAILED

Append Building Footprint attributes to Title Footprints

Building Area Filter Overlay titles with building footprint centroids fGDB - Building_Footprints__Enhanced

ABANUMBER BUILDINGNAME BUILDINGUSA... METHODCAPT... RECORDSTATUS INACTIVEREC... REMARKS MODIFIEDREA... CREATEBY CREATEDATE MODIFYBY MODIFYDATE ID LB_Code LBG_Code TLA Building_Footp...

_overlaps_title_building_poly = 2 Avoids internal building courtyards


AttributeKeeper_5

AreaOnAreaOverl...

INPUT OUTPUT

Tester_6

Calculate each buildings area _area_building_calculated

AreaCalculator_2


Tester_4


AttributeKeeper_2

Extract building footprint polygon centroids

Create list of buildings by title _list_building_centroids

PointOnAreaOverl...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

AREA

PASSED

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

INSIDEPOINT

POINT

FAILED

_area_building...

UNTOUCHED

AREA

FAILED

Copy _overlaps_title_building to _count_buildings


InsidePointReplacer

AREA

Overlay (and intersect) title footprints and building footprints

AttributeCreator_2

AttributeRemover_2

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

POINT AREA

Building footrprints that straddle titles will be split

Sum _area_building_calculated ** this is a multipart count where multiparts exist

ListSummer_2 Buildings

INPUT OUTPUT

Append Attributes - Rates Assessment attributes | UP Base Zone | Business Area | IRUB | Rural Towns

NOTE: The Rural Dwelling Count data provided by Property-IQ is not true count data in the rural context, rather more an indication of whether a dwelling exists on a rates assessment or not. fGDB - CRS_Parcels_RA_


Overlay titles with parcel polygon centroids

Extract parcel polygon centroids

Filter out Public Open Space (Titles)

Create list of buildings by title _list_parcel_centroids _overlaps_title_parcel > 0

_valuationref_f... _area_parcel_c... _count_dwellings _count_parcels... _count_dwellin... _total_ra_liv_lc... AREAUNIT AREALABEL Category_Code Category_Desc... CRCGEOMETR... LATESTVALUA... TOTAL_RA_LCV TOTAL_RA_LLV TOTAL_RA_LIV LUD_Age MAS_Estimate... Building_Age_... LANDAREA PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code QPID VALUATIONREF CRS_Parcels_...

AttributeKeeper_3

Sum _count_dwellings list ** this is a multipart count where multiparts exist

Concatenate PAR_ID list for dwellings


INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

INSIDEPOINT

PAR_ID

UNTOUCHED

PointOnAreaOverl...

Tester_7

ListSummer

POINT

INPUT

INPUT

AREA

PASSED

OUTPUT

VALUATIONREF

POINT

FAILED

_valuationref_f...

AREA

ListConcatenator INPUT OUTPUT

Concatenate VALUATIONREF list

_count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _total_ra_liv_lc...

ListConcatenator_2 INPUT OUTPUT

fGDB - Zones_LBG_ALL (UP)



AttributeKeeper

Concatenate _valuationref_formatted list

INPUT Append additional area attributes to parcel polygon centroids

OUTPUT

ListConcatenator_3

GROUPZONE... Determines new attributes - Original UP Base Zone Names - Business Area Name and Type - MUL_Category - Rural_Town_Name fGDB - Extent_Business_Area

Area_Ha Area_m2 Name Type Centre_Type Business_Area...


AttributeKeeper_8

Rename attributes

INPUT Filter out Public Open Space (Parcels)

GROUPZONECODE > 1

OUTPUT

Drop unwantde attributes Concatenate _total_ra_liv_lcv_ratio list

AttributeRenamer

PointOnAreaOverl...

Tester_5

AttributeRemover_6

INPUT

INPUT

POINT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AREA

PASSED

OUTPUT

Name

Business_Area...

POINT

FAILED

PAR_ID

Type

Business_Area...

AREA

fGDB - Extent_RUB All Auckland


VALUATIONREF _valuationref_f... _count_dwellings

Extent_RUB [E...

Concatenate _total_ra_liv_lcv_score list

_total_ra_liv_lc...

RUB_Category

_total_ra_liv_lc...

ListConcatenator_5

RUB_Category fGDB - Extent_MUL2010 All Auckland


Converts donuts to polys

INPUT

MUL_Category

OUTPUT

Rural_Town_N... AttributeKeeper_6

DonutBridgeBuild...

MUL [Extent_2...

INPUT

INPUT

MUL_Category

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

RUB_Category

INVALID


MUL_Category Rural_Town_N...

fGDB - Extent Rural Towns All Auckland

Rural_Town [E... Rural_Town_Na...

Calculate length of title road frontage



Convert title polygons to title lines

GeometryCoercer INPUT

Re-aggregate Title Footprint polygon features disaggregated by the overlay transformers

COERCED

GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id - already separated by LBG

fGDB - CRS_Road_Lines_

[CRS_Ro... RD_PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code


AttributeKeeper_7

Buffer Road Casing lines Buffer distance = $(RD_CASING_BUFFER)

Bufferer_2

Sum Attributes on multipart title footprints: _area_title_calculated _count_buildings _area_building_calculated _count_dwellings

Identify title lines features that overlap road casing buffer polygons

Concatenate Attributes on multipart footprints: PAR_ID_dwellings, VALUATION_REF _valuationref_formatted, _total_ra_liv_lcv_ratio _total_ra_liv_lcv_score

LineOnAreaOverl...

INPUT

INPUT

LINE

OUTPUT

BUFFERED

AREA

RD_PAR_ID

RD_PAR_ID

LINE AREA

Filter out valid overlaps _overlaps_road_casing > 0 and _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id Exists

Tester_8

** Other Sum Attributes and Count Attributes previously derived at the title level during Data_Prep_Titles_1.fmw processing, namely: _count_total_title_owners _count_polygons_by_title _count_titles_by_polygon _count_designations

Join road frontage attributes back on to title polygons Group road frontage parcel lines by _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id


Create a count of multipart geometries comprising the aggregate as _count_title_rd_frontage_parts

Titles serviced by Access Lots will not have a frontage but these INCOMPLETE features still need to go forward

Aggregator

FeatureMerger_3

Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_titles Featuretype fanout on _fanout_featuretype_titles Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes


AttributeRemover_9

fGDB - Title_Footprints___Enhanced Multipart polygons (again)

Aggregator_3

1 AND _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id exists

TITLE_GUARA...

Matcher

SINGLE_MAT...

LBG_Code


Match duplicate features on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

AREA

DuplicateRemover

NOT_MATCHED Separate legitimate MULTI-ZONE title footprints from sliver polygons Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

FeatureMerger

Dissolve MULTI-ZONE title footprint boundary Accumulate attributes = Yes

Dissolver_2

Create _fanout_dataset_titles Create _fanout_featuretype_titles

AttributeCreator_4

INPUT DUPLICATE

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

SUPPLIER

AREA

OUTPUT

PASSED

COMPLETE

INTERIOR_LINE

INCOMPLETE

NON_POLYGON

FAILED

EMPTY

UNREFERENC...

Calculate area _area_title_footprint_calculated

Set attribute _multi_zone_title_footprint = Yes

DUPLICATE_S...

** this is a multipart area where multiparts exist

UNIQUE

Join against CFGS_ASSESS_FU_LUT.xlsx Link Excel Worksheet RESZone Join on CFGS_UID (1:1)

AttributeCreator_6


Calculate title_footprint area _area_title_footprint_dups_calculated

Dissolve duplicate _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id that shhare a common boundary to revert to the original title footprint polgon Accumulate attributes = Yes

INPUT AreaCalculator

OUTPUT

INPUT

Joiner FutureUrban [E...

INPUT

CFGS_UID

JOINED

Tester_2

REQUESTOR

REFERENCED Append FUTURE URBAN assessment parameters - has its own attribute schema

Test attribute CFGS_UID exists - drops slivers outside Zones

AttributeRemover_4

AreaCalculator_4 INPUT

INPUT

UP_ZONECLASS

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AREA

CFGS_ZONEC...

CFGS_UID

UP_GROUPNA...

UP_ZONECLA...

CFGS_NAME

CFGS_ZONEC...

MODEL_TYPE

UP_GROUPN... CFGS_NAME

OUTPUT

Dissolver

INPUT

INTERIOR_LINE

Filter on MODEL_TYPE Valid types only

NON_POLYGON Capture legitimate MULTI-ZONE title footprints using an area filter _area_title_footprint_dups_calculated > $(SLIVER_AREA)

MODEL_TYPE

AttributeFilter Calculate title_footprint area _area_title_footprint_dups_calculated

INPUT Future Urban

ASSESSMENT... SECOND_DW... VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3

Tester_9

AreaCalculator_3

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

FAILED

VAR_4

Drop sliver polygons using an area filter _area_title_footprint_dups_calculated > $(SLIVER_AREA)

ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STORE...

Tester_3



AttributeCreator

AttributeKeeper_4

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT _title_footprint_...

FAILED

Append Building Footprint attributes to Title Footprints

Building Area Filter Overlay titles with building footprint centroids fGDB - Building_Footprints__Enhanced

ABANUMBER BUILDINGNAME BUILDINGUSA... METHODCAPT... RECORDSTATUS INACTIVEREC... REMARKS MODIFIEDREA... CREATEBY CREATEDATE MODIFYBY MODIFYDATE ID LB_Code LBG_Code TLA Building_Footp...

_overlaps_title_building_poly = 2 Avoids internal building courtyards


AttributeKeeper_5

AreaOnAreaOverl...

INPUT OUTPUT

Tester_6

Calculate each buildings area _area_building_calculated

AreaCalculator_2


Tester_4


AttributeKeeper_2

Extract building footprint polygon centroids

Create list of buildings by title _list_building_centroids

PointOnAreaOverl...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

AREA

PASSED

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

INSIDEPOINT

POINT

FAILED

_area_building...

UNTOUCHED

AREA

FAILED

Copy _overlaps_title_building to _count_buildings


InsidePointReplacer

AREA

Overlay (and intersect) title footprints and building footprints

AttributeCreator_2

AttributeRemover_2

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

POINT AREA

Building footrprints that straddle titles will be split

Sum _area_building_calculated ** this is a multipart count where multiparts exist

ListSummer_2 Buildings

INPUT OUTPUT

Append Attributes - Rates Assessment attributes | UP Base Zone | Business Area | IRUB | Rural Towns

NOTE: The Rural Dwelling Count data provided by Property-IQ is not true count data in the rural context, rather more an indication of whether a dwelling exists on a rates assessment or not. fGDB - CRS_Parcels_RA_


Overlay titles with parcel polygon centroids

Extract parcel polygon centroids

Filter out Public Open Space (Titles)

Create list of buildings by title _list_parcel_centroids _overlaps_title_parcel > 0

_valuationref_f... _area_parcel_c... _count_dwellings _count_parcels... _count_dwellin... _total_ra_liv_lc... AREAUNIT AREALABEL Category_Code Category_Desc... CRCGEOMETR... LATESTVALUA... TOTAL_RA_LCV TOTAL_RA_LLV TOTAL_RA_LIV LUD_Age MAS_Estimate... Building_Age_... LANDAREA PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code QPID VALUATIONREF CRS_Parcels_...

AttributeKeeper_3

Sum _count_dwellings list ** this is a multipart count where multiparts exist

Concatenate PAR_ID list for dwellings


INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

INSIDEPOINT

PAR_ID

UNTOUCHED

PointOnAreaOverl...

Tester_7

ListSummer

POINT

INPUT

INPUT

AREA

PASSED

OUTPUT

VALUATIONREF

POINT

FAILED

_valuationref_f...

AREA

ListConcatenator INPUT OUTPUT

Concatenate VALUATIONREF list

_count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _total_ra_liv_lc...


fGDB - Zones_LBG_ALL (UP)



AttributeKeeper

Concatenate _valuationref_formatted list

INPUT Append additional area attributes to parcel polygon centroids

OUTPUT

ListConcatenator_3

GROUPZONE... Determines new attributes - Original UP Base Zone Names - Business Area Name and Type - MUL_Category - Rural_Town_Name fGDB - Extent_Business_Area

Area_Ha Area_m2 Name Type Centre_Type Business_Area...


AttributeKeeper_8

Rename attributes

INPUT Filter out Public Open Space (Parcels)

GROUPZONECODE > 1

OUTPUT

Drop unwantde attributes Concatenate _total_ra_liv_lcv_ratio list

AttributeRenamer

PointOnAreaOverl...

Tester_5

AttributeRemover_6

INPUT

INPUT

POINT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AREA

PASSED

OUTPUT

Name

Business_Area...

POINT

FAILED

PAR_ID

Type

Business_Area...

AREA

fGDB - Extent_RUB All Auckland


VALUATIONREF _valuationref_f... _count_dwellings

Extent_RUB [E...

Concatenate _total_ra_liv_lcv_score list

_total_ra_liv_lc...

RUB_Category

_total_ra_liv_lc...

ListConcatenator_5

RUB_Category fGDB - Extent_MUL2010 All Auckland


Converts donuts to polys

INPUT

MUL_Category

OUTPUT

Rural_Town_N... AttributeKeeper_6

DonutBridgeBuild...

MUL [Extent_2...

INPUT

INPUT

MUL_Category

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

RUB_Category

INVALID


MUL_Category Rural_Town_N...

fGDB - Extent Rural Towns All Auckland

Rural_Town [E... Rural_Town_Na...

Calculate length of title road frontage



Convert title polygons to title lines

GeometryCoercer INPUT

Re-aggregate Title Footprint polygon features disaggregated by the overlay transformers

COERCED

GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id - already separated by LBG

fGDB - CRS_Road_Lines_

[CRS_Ro... RD_PAR_ID LB_Code LBG_Code


AttributeKeeper_7

Buffer Road Casing lines Buffer distance = $(RD_CASING_BUFFER)

Bufferer_2

Sum Attributes on multipart title footprints: _area_title_calculated _count_buildings _area_building_calculated _count_dwellings

Identify title lines features that overlap road casing buffer polygons

Concatenate Attributes on multipart footprints: PAR_ID_dwellings, VALUATION_REF _valuationref_formatted, _total_ra_liv_lcv_ratio _total_ra_liv_lcv_score

LineOnAreaOverl...

INPUT

INPUT

LINE

OUTPUT

BUFFERED

AREA

RD_PAR_ID

RD_PAR_ID

LINE AREA

Filter out valid overlaps _overlaps_road_casing > 0 and _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id Exists

Tester_8

** Other Sum Attributes and Count Attributes previously derived at the title level during Data_Prep_Titles_1.fmw processing, namely: _count_total_title_owners _count_polygons_by_title _count_titles_by_polygon _count_designations

Join road frontage attributes back on to title polygons Group road frontage parcel lines by _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id


Create a count of multipart geometries comprising the aggregate as _count_title_rd_frontage_parts

Titles serviced by Access Lots will not have a frontage but these INCOMPLETE features still need to go forward

Aggregator

FeatureMerger_3

Dataset fanout on _fanout_dataset_titles Featuretype fanout on _fanout_featuretype_titles Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes


AttributeRemover_9

fGDB - Title_Footprints___Enhanced Multipart polygons (again)

Aggregator_3

0

FAILED

_valuationref_f... _area_building... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _yield_subdiv_... _area_title_foot... _area_net_max... _length_title_rd... _count_title_rd... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b... _count_design... _multi_zone_titl... ASSESSMENT... _title_issue_dat... _title_footprint_... PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... Rural_Title_Yie...

AttributeRenamer

TestFilter

INPUT

Yield = 0

fGDB - Building_Platform_Constraints_Subdivision Merged schema

Yield < 0

NAME TYPE SUBTYPE SHAPE_Length SCHEDULE WORKFLOWID [Building_... Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper

NetAreaJoiner

Calculate _yield_2 AttributeCreator_3

Round _yield DOWN to the nearest integer

Set attribute _yield = 0

AttributeRounder_4

AttributeCreator_17

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

INPUT

COMPLETE

OUTPUT

INCOMPLETE

Minimum Site Area Subdivision - Subdiv_1B_CSL_preTRSS

Deaggregate any multi-parts

Overlay title centroids with CSL locations

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_Subdiv_1B_CLSpreTRSS No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield

Primary Filter

Deaggregator

Rename _yield attribute to _yield_subdiv_1b_cslpretrss

PointOnAreaOverl...

INPUT

POINT

DEAGGREGA...

AREA

Filter by area for Subdiv_1B_CSLpreTRSS

Filter by _dwelling_count

Calculate _yield as MIN _yield_1, _yield_2, _yield_3

Calculate _yield_1


Rename net max area attribute

Filter on _yield

POINT AREA

Tester_7

TestFilter_8


InsidePointReplacer

AttributeKeeper_3

TCLCaller_4

TestFilter_3

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

Dwellings > 0

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Yield > 0

OUTPUT

Dwellings = 0

Yield = 0

Yield < 0

_valuationref_f... _area_building... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _yield_subdiv_... _area_title_foot... _area_net_max... _length_title_rd... _count_title_rd... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b... _count_design... _multi_zone_titl... ASSESSMENT... _title_issue_dat... _title_footprint_... PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... Rural_Title_Yie...

AttributeRenamer_3

INPUT

FAILED Replace with title centroids

AttributeCreator_8

INPUT Constraints - CSL Locations

INSIDEPOINT UNTOUCHED

Calculate _yield_2

INPUT OUTPUT _title_footprint_... MIN_TITLE_A... MIN_TITLE_A...

fGDB - CSL_Locations

Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints NetAreaJoiner_2

Calculate _yield_1


AttributeCreator_38

OUTPUT



AttributeRounder_3

AttributeCreator_11

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Filter by CFGS_UID value list using regex notation Tester IN operator does not work!

Calculate _yield_permitted_unoccupied_title = 1


StringSearcher

AttributeCreator_25

COMPLETE Append CSL Location attributes to the title footprint features

CSL_PRECINC... CSL_UID TRSS_RECEIV... MIN_TITLE_AR... CSL_OVERLA... CSL_Locations...

INCOMPLETE Calculate _yield_3 $(CSL_RD_FRONTAGE_MIN)


FeatureMerger

AttributeCreator_19

REQUESTOR

INPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

COMPLETE Drop unwanted attributes

INCOMPLETE EMPTY

AttributeKeeper_2

REFERENCED

INPUT

UNREFERENC...

OUTPUT

DUPLICATE_S...

Vacant Title Assessment - 0A and 0B

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_Vacant No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield

Primary Filter

_count_dwellings = 0 Tester_19

fGDB - Second_Third_Dwelling_Exclusions_Rural_Coastal Dwelling_Restri... LOCATION TYPE VALUE DIAGRAMREF... CREATEBY CREATEDATE MODIFYBY MODIFYDATE ProposedUP Coastal_Area_... Second_Third...


Calculate _yield_unoccupied_title = 1 _yield_permitted_unoccupied_title = 0

AttributeCreator_24

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

FAILED

Spatial overlay with Rural Coastal exlusion area for second and third dwellings _overlap_dwelling_exclusion

SpatialRelator_2

Qualifying test for yields on permitted unoccupied titles (1 OR 2) AND 3 AND 4 AND 5

Tester_20

BASE

INPUT

CANDIDATE OUTPUT


_valuationref_f... _area_building... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _yield_unoccup... _yield_permitte... _area_title_foot... _length_title_rd... _count_title_rd... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b... _count_design... _multi_zone_titl... ASSESSMENT... _title_issue_dat... _title_footprint_... PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... Rural_Title_Yie...

AttributeRemover_3

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

MATCHED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

FAILED

NOT_MATCHED

AttributeKeeper_10 INPUT OUTPUT Vacant Site Amalgamation - TRSS_2A1_Vacant_Donor

Primary Filter

Filter for TRSS_2A1_Vacant_Donor 1 AND (2 OR 3) fGDB - Rural_Title_Footprints_Enhanced (ALL) Merged schema [Title_Fo... _title_footprint_... LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... _title_issue_dat...

Filter by UP_BASEZONE for Countryside Living

AttributeFilter_6 INPUT

Tester_3

fGDB - Title_Fpootprint_Rural_Yield_TRSS_2A1_Vacant_Donor Drop features where _valuationref_formatted starts with "Unknown"

StringSearcher_2

Identify adjoining title neighbours Test = TOUCHES _count_title_amalg_neighbours

INPUT

INPUT

BASE

PASSED

MATCHED

CANDIDATE

FAILED

NOT_MATCHED

OUTPUT

No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield Identify titles with adjoining neighbours that that meet the amalgamation qualifying tests Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

Drop unwanted attributes and lists Drop _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id_amalg - concatenated version merged later

SpatialRelator_3

AttributeRemover_5

Countryside Li...

Secondary Filter

MUL_Category

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

INCOMPLETE


Rename attributes with _amalg suffix to reflect adjoining neighbour status


Explode related adjoining title neighbour list


Count on _count_title_amalg_candidates

DUPLICATE_S... Drop unwanted attributes

Amalgamation cadidate count should not exceed amalgamation neighbour count - drop failed candidates

Rural_Town_Na...

AttributeFilter_4

Business_Area...

INPUT Mixed Rural

CFGS_UID

Rural Conserv...

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Rural Production

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

LIST_FOUND

PASSED

AGGREGATE

OUTPUT

PASSED

NOT_FOUND

FAILED

UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT...

Residential pre...

VAR_3

Residential pre...

_area_title_foot...

Residential pre...


Residential pre...

_count_polygo...

Residential pre...

PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF

Residential pre...

Tester_21

FAILED

Comprehensiv...

Rename _yield attribute to _yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver Filter by area for TRSS_2A2_Vacant_Receiver

Test for Elite and Prime Land overlays

Qualify vacant net title areas for building platform minimums


Calculate _yield_1 $(VACANT_RECEIVER_AREA_MIN)


Filter on _yield


Comprehensiv... Comprehensiv...

INPUT

PASSED

CANDIDATE

FAILED

OUTPUT

Tester_6

SpatialRelator BASE

Tester_9 Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints

NetAreaJoiner_4

TestFilter_10

Exclusions - Building Platform non-CSL (Receiver)

AttributeCreator_2

TestFilter_5

ZONE_HEIGHT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Dwellings > 0

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Yield > 0

OUTPUT

FAILED

Dwellings = 0

Yield = 0

Yield < 0 Calculate _yield_2 $(VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN)

COMPLETE


Filter by _related_candidates for TRSS_2A2_Vacant_Receiver

AttributeRenamer_2

INPUT

PASSED

Overlay_Inputs

ZONE_STOREYS fGDB - Building_Platform_Exclusions_nonCSL_Receiver Feature Class = EliteandPrimeLand

TCLCaller_3

INPUT

Title_Features

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_count_title_rd...

AttributeKeeper_13

Residential pre...

_count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc...

VAR_4

Aggregator

Non-CSL Sites

_valuationref_f...

_length_title_rd...

Tester_5

Vacant Site Amalgamation - TRSS_2A2_Vacant_Receiver

_area_building...

RUB_Category

ListExploder

Residential pre...

Residential pre...

_count_titles_b...

AttributeKeeper_12

Residential pre...

VAR_1

_count_design...

AttributeRenamer...

Residential pre...

VAR_2

_multi_zone_titl...

AttributeKeeper_11

Rural Coastal

_valuationref_f... _area_building... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _yield_trss_2a1... _area_title_foot... _length_title_rd... _count_title_rd... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b... _count_title_am... _count_design... _multi_zone_titl... ASSESSMENT... _title_issue_dat... _title_footprint_... PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... Rural_Title_Yie...

COMPLETE

Business_Area... CFGS_NAME


AttributeCreator_4

EMPTY

Filter adjoining title neighbour list features by area and density qualifiers and make sure there are no self-neighbours $(VACANT_DONOR_AMALG_AREA_MIN)

_title_issue_dat...

AttributeRemover_4

INPUT

Concatenate on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id_amalg

Filter by CFGS_NAME - 18 categories - Excludes Future Urban

Calculate _yield_trss_2a1_vacant_donor = 1


OUTPUT Aggregate adjoining neighbour amalgamation candidates GorupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id

FeatureMerger_4

INCOMPLETE Calculate _yield_1 $(VACANT_RECEIVER_AREA_MIN)

Filter by CFGS_UID

AttributeCreator_5



AttributeRounder_2

AttributeCreator_15

INPUT len LUCD area_1 EliteandPrimeL...

Deaggregator_2 INPUT DEAGGREGA...

Tester_4

TestFilter_4

INPUT

AttributeCreator_48

INPUT

OUTPUT

INPUT

PASSED

Mixed Rural

FAILED

Rural Production

OUTPUT

Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper_4 [Building_...

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Calculate _yield_3 $(CSL_RD_FRONTAGE_MIN)

Constraints - Building Platform non-CSL (Receiver)

Drop unwanted lists

Calculate _yield = 1

AttributeRemover

AttributeCreator_12

AttributeCreator_42

fGDB - Building_Platform_Constraints_nonCSL_Receiver Merged schema

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_TRSS_2A2_Vacant_Receiver

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield

OUTPUT

INPUT


OUTPUT


_valuationref_f... _area_building... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _yield_trss_2a2... _area_title_foot... _area_net_max... _length_title_rd... _count_title_rd... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b... _count_design... _multi_zone_titl... ASSESSMENT... _title_issue_dat... _title_footprint_... PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... Rural_Title_Yie...

CSL Sites



Overlay title centroids with CSL locations Primary Filter

Deaggregator_3 INPUT DEAGGREGA...

PointOnAreaOverl... POINT AREA

Rename _yield attribute to _yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver Filter by area for TRSS_2A2_Vacant_Receiver



Calculate _yield_1


Filter on _yield

POINT AREA

Constraints - Building Platform CSL (Receiver)

fGDB - Building_Platform_Constraints_CSL_Receiver Merged schema

Tester_11

TestFilter_11



AttributeKeeper_6

AttributeCreator_13

TCLCaller_5

TestFilter_7

AttributeRenamer_4

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

Dwellings > 0

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Yield > 0

OUTPUT

FAILED Replace with title centroids

Dwellings = 0

Yield = 0

Yield < 0

SEA Protection Yield - 2B2

NAME TYPE SUBTYPE SCHEDULE WORKFLOWID [Building_...


INPUT

INPUT

INSIDEPOINT

OUTPUT

UNTOUCHED


Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints

Calculate _yield_1

AttributeCreator_14

MIN_TITLE_A... AttributeKeeper_7

MIN_TITLE_A... TRSS_RECEIV...

INPUT OUTPUT

Append CSL Location attributes to the title footprint features

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_TRSS_2B2_SEA_Receiver Rename attribute _yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver to _yield_trss_2b2_sea_receiver

Calculate _yield_2 $(VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN)

NetAreaJoiner_5

INPUT

AttributeCreator_10

OUTPUT




AttributeRounder_5

AttributeCreator_18

No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes

_title_footprint_... _valuationref_f... _area_building... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _yield_trss_2b2... _area_title_foot... _area_net_max... _length_title_rd... _count_title_rd... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b... _count_design... _multi_zone_titl... ASSESSMENT... _title_issue_dat... PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... Rural_Title_Yie...

AttributeRenamer_5

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE Calculate _yield_3 $(CSL_RD_FRONTAGE_MIN)


FeatureMerger_2

AttributeCreator_46

REQUESTOR

INPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE EMPTY REFERENCED UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...

SEA Protection - TRSS_2B1_SEA_Donor

Inclusions - SEA Donor Qualifiers

Append different overlay yield determinations Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id Create _list_overlay_qualifiers

fGDB - SEA_Inclusions_Donor Merged Schema - WETLAND feature class - RARE feature class - SEA feature class

FeatureMerger_3 REQUESTOR Initialise yield attribute _yield = 0

Cutsom Transformer - Wetland

Wetland overlay area qualifying test

[SEA_Inc... AttributeCreator_26


OverlayAreaJoiner...

Tester_14

SUPPLIER


COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

AttributeCreator_30

INPUT

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

Overlay_Inputs

PASSED

OUTPUT

COMPLETE

FAILED

EMPTY REFERENCED UNREFERENC... fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_TRSS_2B1_SEA_Donor

DUPLICATE_S...

INCOMPLETE

AttributeKeeper_8


Process FeatureMerger List Elements

INPUT


OUTPUT Wetland overlay area BONUS qualifying test Tester_13 Expose fme_feature_type AttributeExposer


Extract list value range on list attribute _yield

AttributeCreator_29

ListRangeExtractor

Drop unwanted attributes and lists _title_footprint_... _valuationref_f... _area_building... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _yield_trss_2b1... _yield_overlay_... _area_title_foot... _area_net_max... _length_title_rd... _count_title_rd... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b... _count_design... _multi_zone_titl... ASSESSMENT... _title_issue_dat... PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... Rural_Title_Yie...

AttributeRemover_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

FAILED

INPUT OUTPUT

Rename _list_yield_max attribute to _yield_trss_2b1_sea_donor

Cutsom Transformer - SEA

SEA overlay area qualifying test

Extract list value range on list attribute _area_overlay_max_title_footprint_calculated


Rename _list_area_overlay_max attribute to _area_net_max_trss_2b1_sea_donor_overlay

Copy fme_feature_type to _fme_feature_type OverlayAreaJoiner... AttributeCopier INPUT OUTPUT

Tester_17

AttributeCreator_20

ListRangeExtract...

AttributeRenamer_6

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

COMPLETE

FAILED

INCOMPLETE

Filter on fme_feature_type SEA overlay area BONUS qualifying test

Remove duplicate list entries for overlay _fme_feature_type


AttributeFilter_2 Tester_22

INPUT

INPUT

Wetlands

PASSED

SEA

AttributeCreator_28

ListDuplicateRem...

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

FAILED

Rare_Threaten... Cutsom Transformer - Rare/Threatened

OverlayAreaJoiner... Filter by UP_BASEZONE for Countryside Living

Rare/Threatened overlay area qualifying test Tester_15

Concatenate list entries for overlay _fme_feature_type as _yield_overlay_qualifiers

Calculate _yield = 1 AttributeCreator_27

ListConcatenator

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

COMPLETE

FAILED

INCOMPLETE

AttributeFilter_7 INPUT Countryside Li...

Custom Subdivision - 3B

Filter by CFGS_NAME - 18 categories - Excludes Future Urban

AttributeFilter_5

Primary Filter - 3B1

INPUT Mixed Rural

Filter by area for 3B1

Calculate _yield_1

Calculate _yield as MIN _yield_1 and _yield_2

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_Subdiv_3B1_GreenhitheA

Rename attributes: _yield to _yield_subdiv_3b1_greenhithe


area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b1_greenhithe


Filter on _yield

Rural Conserv... Rural Production Rural Coastal Residential pre... Residential pre...

Tester_10

AttributeCreator_6

TCLCaller_7

AttributeRenamer_7

TestFilter_2

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Yield > 0

OUTPUT

FAILED

_title_footprint_... _valuationref_f... _area_building... _count_buildings _count_dwellings _total_ra_liv_lc... _yield_subdiv_... _area_title_foot... _area_net_max... _length_title_rd... _count_title_rd... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b... _count_design... _multi_zone_titl... ASSESSMENT... _title_issue_dat... PAR_ID_dwelli... VALUATIONREF ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area... CFGS_UID CFGS_NAME UP_BASEZONE UP_ZONECLASS CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE... TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... Rural_Title_Yie...

Yield = 0

Residential pre...

Yield < 0

Residential pre...

Residential pre... Residential pre... Residential pre...


Calculate _yield_2



AttributeRounder_7

AttributeCreator_16

Residential pre... Residential pre... Residential pre... Residential pre... Comprehensiv... Comprehensiv...

NetAreaJoiner_7

AttributeCreator_7

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

Comprehensiv...

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_Subdiv_3B2_RodneyLandscape Primary Filter - 3B2


Tester_12


Calculate _yield as MIN _yield_1 and _yield_2

TCLCaller_6

Filter on _yield TestFilter_6

Rename attributes: _yield to _yield_subdiv_3b2_rodneylandscape


_area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b2_rodneylandscape


INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Yield > 0

OUTPUT

FAILED


AttributeRenamer...

INPUT

Yield = 0

Constraints - Building Platform Rodney Landscape

Yield < 0

fGDB - Building_Platform_Constraints_RodneyLandscape Merged schema


Calculate _yield_2



AttributeRounder_6

AttributeCreator_31

WORKFLOWID TYPE TYPE_resolved SUBTYPE SCHEDULE NAME [Building_... NetAreaJoiner_8


AttributeCreator_22

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

INPUT OUTPUT

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

INPUT

3B3_A : IN ClevedonSubprecinct but NOT IN AreaIncreasedSubdivisionOpportunity

OUTPUT Cutsom Transformer Net Area on Clevedon_Subprecinct_3 NetAreaJoiner_3 Title_Features Overlay_Inputs

Calculate _area_title_footprint_calculated_3ab as Title Area less Residual Max Net Area AttributeCreator_40

Constraints - Clevedon Subprecinct3 Overlays

Tester_24

Calculate _yield_3a1 on VAR_2 AttributeCreator_34

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

COMPLETE INCOMPLETE

Qualify VAR_1 area on _area_tititle_fottprint_calculated_3a

Calculate _yield_3a as MIN _yield_3a1 and _yield_3a2 TCLCaller_9

Keep yield_3a* attributes only AttributeKeeper_15

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

FAILED Cutsom Transformer Net Area on Areas_of_increased_subdivision_opportunity

Rename _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated to _area_title_footprint_calculated_residual_3ab


Round _yield_3a DOWN to the nearest integer

Calculate _yield_3a2

fGDB - Clevedon_Subprecinct3_Overlays Merged schema

Rename attribute _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated_3a Yield determination refinements (subdivision only)

AttributeRenamer... AttributeRenamer_8

NetAreaJoiner_6

NetAreaJoiner_10

AttributeCreator_33

AttributeRounder_9 INPUT

LOCATION TYPE VALUE DIAGRAMREF... CREATEBY CREATEDATE MODIFYBY MODIFYDATE ProposedUP [Clevedo...

INPUT OUTPUT

Title_Features

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

Overlay_Inputs

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

INCOMPLETE

INCOMPLETE

Append yield attributes into a single feature set Join on _title_footprint_polgon_crc_id Process Duplicate Supplier = Yes

OUTPUT


FeatureMerger_5

AttributeKeeper_14

3B3_B : IN AreaIncreasedSubdivisionOpportunity

INPUT OUTPUT

NullAttributeRepla...

Rename _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated to _area_title_footprint_calculated_residual_3b

INPUT OUTPUT

Calculate _area_title_footprint_calculated_3b AttributeCreator_37 INPUT OUTPUT

AttributeExposer_2

Qualify VAR_2 area on _area_tititle_fottprint_calculated_3b Tester_25 INPUT PASSED

Calculate _yield_3b1 on VAR_3 AttributeCreator_36 INPUT OUTPUT

Calculate _yield_3b as MIN _yield_3b1 and _yield_3b2

Keep yield_3b* attributes only

Rename attributes: _yield to _yield_subdiv_3b3_clevedon

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_Subdiv_3B3_Clevedon3

_area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated_3a to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b3a_clevedon


_area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated_3b to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b3b_clevedon


_yield > 0 Tester_28

AttributeRenamer...

REQUESTOR

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

SUPPLIER

OUTPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

FAILED

COMPLETE

AttributeRenamer... Expose fme_feature_type

Secondary Filter - 3B3

Replace NULL values of _yield_3a, _yield_3b with zero

INCOMPLETE

_yield = _yield_3a + _yield_3b

EMPTY TCLCaller_10

AttributeKeeper_17

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT


OUTPUT


FAILED

INPUT OUTPUT Calculate _area_title_footprint_calculated_3a AttributeCreator_32

Copy fme_feature_type to _fme_feature_type

Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints NetAreaJoiner_11

Calculate _yield_3b2

Round _yield_3b DOWN to the nearest integer

AttributeCreator_35

AttributeRounder_...

Rename attribute _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated_3b

AttributeRenamer...

INPUT

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

Overlay_Inputs

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

AttributeCopier_2

COMPLETE

INPUT

INCOMPLETE

OUTPUT

Filter on fme_feature_type AttributeFilter_3

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_Subdiv_3B3_RuncimanAB

INPUT Clevedon_Sub...

Primary Filter - 3B4

Areas_of_incre...


Calculate _yield_2 - passed features

Calculate _yield_1_2 as MAX _yield_1 and _yield_2

Rename attributes: _yield to _yield_subdiv_3b4_runciman


area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b4_runciman


Filter on _yield

Tester_27

AttributeCreator_45

TCLCaller_8

TestFilter_9

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Yield > 0

FAILED


AttributeRenamer_9 INPUT OUTPUT

Yield = 0 Yield < 0

Constraints - Building Platform Runciman

fGDB - Building_Platform_Constraints_Runciman Merged schema CREATEDATE TYPE TYPE_resolved SUBTYPE SCHEDULE NAME WORKFLOWID STATUS MODIFYBY MODIFYDATE RUB_Category CREATEBY [Building_...


NetAreaJoiner_9


Calculate _yield as MIN _yield_1_2 and _yield_3

TCLCaller_11

Set attribute _yield = 0 AttributeCreator_43

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Overlay_Inputs

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

COMPLETE Drop unwanted attributes

INCOMPLETE


Secondary Filter - 3B4

Filter by area for 3B4 Runciman B only Tester_29

Calculate _yield_3


AttributeCreator_41

AttributeRounder_8

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

FAILED

Default _yield_2 = 0 - failed features


Custom Subdivision - 3C

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_Subdiv_3C_2nd_3rd_Rural_Dwelling Primary Filter - 3C (2 Dwelling)

Filter by UP_BASEZONE - 3 categories - Excludes Future Urban

AttributeFilter_9

Filter title area by $(2_DWLG_TITLE_AREA_MIN)

Tester_2

Identify titles that do not overlap the Rural Coastal exclusion

Tester_8

Calculate _yield_1 Default _yield_ 2 = 0.0 AttributeCreator_47

Drop unwanted attributes and lists AttributeRemover_6

Calculate _yield_3

AttributeCreator_50

Calculate _yield as MIN _yield_1_2 and _yield_3

Filter on _yield

Rename attributes: _yield to _yield_subdiv_3c_2nd_3rd_rural_dwelling


area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated to _area_net_max_subdiv_3c_2nd_3rd_rural_dwelling


TCLCaller_13

TestFilter_13

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

Mixed Rural

PASSED

PASSED

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

Yield > 0

OUTPUT

Rural Production

FAILED

FAILED

Yield = 0

Rural Coastal

Yield < 0

Secondary Filter - 3C (3 Dwelling)

Spatial overlay with Rural Coastal exlusion area for second and third dwellings _overlap_dwelling_exclusion

SpatialRelator_4 BASE

Filter title area by $(3_DWLG_TITLE_AREA_MIN)

TestFilter_12

Calculate _yield_2 Default _yield_1 = 0.0 AttributeCreator_49


NetAreaJoiner_12

Calculate _yield_1_2 as MAX _yield_1 and _yield_2

TCLCaller_12



AttributeRounder_...

AttributeCreator_51

INPUT

INPUT

Title_Features

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

CANDIDATE

3_DWLG_TI...

COMPLETE

INCOMPLETE

AttributeRenamer...



Pg 1/1

U:\CPO\ASR\Research Investigations and Monitoring\Land Use Research\Capacity for Growth NUP 2013\FME_Workbench_Backups\Rural_Residential\Geoprocessing_Rural_Title_Yield_Class_Counts_4.fmw - Geoprocessing_Rural_Title_Yield_Class_Counts_4.fmw - FME Workbench

Pg 1/1

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_ALL_With_Yield_Class_Count

_yield_unoccupied_title

_yield_permitted_unoccupied_title

Initialise _yield_class_count = 0 _yield_unoccupied_title > 0

fGDB - Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield_ALL Rural_Title_Yie... _title_footprint_... _title_footprint_... LB_Code LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE...

_yield_permitted_unoccupied_title > 0

AttributeCreator_3

_title_footprint_... _title_footprint_...

_yield_subdiv_1a_150 > 0

_yield_subdiv_1b_cslpretrss

_yield_subdiv_1b_cslpretrss > 0

_yield_trss_2a1_vacant_donor

_yield_trss_2a1_vacant_donor > 0

_yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver

_yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver > 0

_yield_trss_2b1_sea_donor

_yield_trss_2a1_vacant_donor_fu

_yield_trss_2b1_sea_donor > 0

_yield_trss_2a1_vacant_donor_fu > 0

_yield_trss_2b2_sea_receiver

_yield_trss_2b2_sea_receiver > 0

_yield_subdiv_3b1_greenhithe

_yield_subdiv_3b2_rodneylandscape

_yield_subdiv_3b1_greenhithe > 0

_yield_subdiv_3b2_rodneylandscape > 0

_yield_subdiv_3b3_clevedon

_yield_subdiv_3b3_clevedon > 0

_yield_subdiv_3b4_runciman

_yield_subdiv_3b4_runciman > 0

_yield_subdiv_3c_2nd_3rd_rural_dwelling

_yield_subdiv_3c_2nd_3rd_rural_dwelling > 0

No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes

Rural_Title_Yie...

Tester_12

Tester_13

Tester_14

Tester_15

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT


PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED

PASSED


FAILED

LB_Code

Tester_8

Tester_9

INPUT OUTPUT

_yield_subdiv_1a_150

FAILED

FAILED

Tester

FAILED

Tester_2

FAILED

Tester_4

FAILED

Tester_5

FAILED

Tester_6

FAILED

Tester_10

FAILED

Tester_7

FAILED

Tester_3

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

LBG_Code

LB_Code

TITLE_REFERE...

TITLE_TYPE

LBG_Code

TITLE_GUARA...

TITLE_REFER...

_title_issue_dat...

TITLE_TYPE

_title_issue_dat...

TITLE_GUARA...

MUL_Category

_title_issue_dat...

RUB_Category

_title_issue_dat...

Rural_Town_Na...

MUL_Category

Business_Area...

RUB_Category

Business_Area...

Business_Area...

Rural_Town_N...

Business_Area...

CFGS_UID

Business_Area...

CFGS_UID

CFGS_NAME

Business_Area...

CFGS_NAME

UP_BASEZONE

CFGS_UID

UP_BASEZONE

UP_ZONECLASS

CFGS_NAME

UP_ZONECLASS

CFGS_ZONEC...

UP_BASEZONE

MODEL_TYPE

UP_ZONECLA...

ASSESSMENT...

CFGS_ZONEC...

ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 _area_title_foot... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b...

MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT... ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STORE... VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 _area_title_foot...

Increment _yield_class_count














TITLE_TYPE TITLE_GUARA... _title_issue_dat...

AttributeCreator_9

AttributeCreator_14

AttributeCreator

AttributeCreator_2

AttributeCreator_5

AttributeCreator_6

AttributeCreator_7

AttributeCreator_15

AttributeCreator_8

AttributeCreator_4

AttributeCreator_10

AttributeCreator_11

AttributeCreator_12

AttributeCreator_13

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

OUTPUT

_title_issue_dat... MUL_Category RUB_Category Rural_Town_Na...

CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT... ZONE_HEIGHT ZONE_STOREYS VAR_1 VAR_2 VAR_3 VAR_4 _area_title_foot... _count_total_titl... _count_polygo... _count_titles_b...

_count_total_tit...

_count_design...

_count_polygo...

_multi_zone_titl...

_count_titles_b...

PAR_ID_dwelli...

VALUATIONREF

_count_design...

VALUATIONREF

_valuationref_f...

_multi_zone_titl...

_valuationref_f...

_area_building...

PAR_ID_dwelli...

_area_building...

_length_title_rd...

VALUATIONREF

_length_title_rd...

_count_title_rd...

_valuationref_f...

_count_title_rd...

_count_buildings

_area_building...

_count_buildings

_count_dwellings

_length_title_rd...

_count_dwellings

_count_title_am...

_count_title_rd...

_count_title_am...

_count_title_am...

_count_buildings

_count_title_am...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_count_dwellings

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_count_title_a...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_area_net_max...

_count_title_a...

_area_net_max...

_area_net_max...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_area_net_max...

_area_net_max...

_total_ra_liv_lc...

_area_net_max...

_area_net_max...

_count_design... _multi_zone_titl... PAR_ID_dwelli...

_area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _yield_unoccup... _yield_permitte... _yield_subdiv_... _yield_subdiv_...

_area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max...

_area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _area_net_max... _yield_unoccup... _yield_permitte... _yield_subdiv_... _yield_subdiv_...

_yield_unoccu...

_yield_trss_2a1...

_yield_permitte...

_yield_trss_2a1...

_yield_overlay_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_overlay_...

_yield_trss_2a2...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_trss_2a2...

_yield_trss_2b1...

_yield_trss_2a1...

_yield_trss_2b1...

_yield_trss_2b2...

_yield_trss_2a1...

_yield_trss_2b2...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_overlay_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_trss_2a2...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_trss_2b1...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_trss_2b2...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_subdiv_...

_yield_class_co...

_yield_trss_2a1... _yield_trss_2a1...

_yield_subdiv_... _yield_subdiv_... _yield_subdiv_... _yield_class_c...

Appendix I: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan residential zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions


264

Table 55: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan residential zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions (Residential LUT) Assessment type

CfGS UID

CfGS Name

ZN_2_8

Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings

ZN_2_18

Mixed Housing Suburban

ZN_2_19

Single House

Infill

ZN_2_20

Rural and Coastal settlement

ZN_2_23

Large Lot

ZN_2_60

Mixed Housing Urban

PR_10_158_0 PR_10_179_0

Frontage_Only

Notes

Parcel area min qualifier

Parcel area min infill

Access width min

AS per Draft - note Height overlays allowing for 5, 6 in Additional Height Overlays, also Takapuna 7 and 8

Bldg setback min

Second dwelling

VAR 1

VAR 2

VAR 3

VAR 4

VAR 5

VAR 6

0

0

1200

20

25

30

0.4

110

15

20

20

1200

200

300

15

22.5

20

1200

104

250

1:400 OR 1:300 with 7.5m frontage OR 1:200 with 1200m2 and 20m frontage, ALSO Potential for BLDG_SETBACK_MIN = 0 where neighbours agree

600

400

2.5

1

1

Potential for BLDG_SETBACK_MIN = 0 where neighbours agree

1200

600

2.5

1

1

Infill

8000

4000

2.5

1

1

Infill

8000

4000

2.5

6

1

Frontage

Frontage

1:300 OR 1:250 with 7.5m frontage OR Unlimited 1:104 with 1200m2 and 20m frontage, Potential for BLDG_SETBACK_MIN = 0 where neighbours agree

500

300

2.5

1

1

Residential precinct|Mangere 2|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 6.13, SH Zone with 3m side Yards and Demolition is RD (i.e. No REDEVELOPMENT)

1200

600

2.5

3

1

Residential precinct|Beachlands 1|

Infill

6.4, SH Zone with restriction an accessory buildings and SW mgmt

1200

600

2.5

1

0

800

400

2.5

4.1

1

PR_10_203_0

Residential precinct|Rosella Road|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 6.23, SH House Zone with demolition controls (i.e. No REDEVELOPMENT), 5.5m max accessory building height, 1.2/7m yards, and 400m2 site area

PR_10_204_0

Residential precinct|Mangere Bridge|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 6.14, SH Zone with different Yards, 4m max height for accessory buildings

1200

600

2.5

3

1

PR_10_323_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct C|Karaka South

Infill

Precinct Rule: 6.7, Table 2, 3.1

5000

2500

2.5

6

1

PR_10_326_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct F|Matakawau Point

Infill


5000

2500

2.5

6

1

PR_10_328_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct H|Te Toro

Infill


5000

2500

2.5

6

1

PR_10_329_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct I|Waiau Pa

Infill


5000

2500

2.5

6

1

PR_10_330_0

Residential precinct|Huapai North sub-precinct A|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.18 - See 5.2, Average used of 'between 450 and 600'

1050

525

2.5

3

1

PR_10_331_0

Residential precinct|Huapai North sub-precinct B|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.18 - See 5.2, Average used

1400

700

2.5

3

1

PR_10_332_0

Residential precinct|Huapai North sub-precinct C|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.18 - See 5.2, Average used

3000

1500

2.5

5

1

PR_10_334_0

Residential precinct|Omaha South sub-precinct A|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.29, Table 4.1.3, SH, NC basezone big yards, variable min site sizes and dev cap

900

450

2.5

3

0

PR_10_335_0

Residential precinct|Omaha South sub-precinct B|

Infill


1200

600

2.5

4

0

PR_10_336_0

Residential precinct|Omaha South sub-precinct C|

Infill


2200

1100

2.5

6

0

PR_10_337_0

Residential precinct|Omaha South sub-precinct D|

Infill


3600

1800

2.5

7

0

PR_10_360_0

Residential precinct|Pukekohe Hill sub-precinct A|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 6.22, Rule 6.1 - SH, LL, CSL

2000

1000

2.5

1

1

PR_10_361_0

Residential precinct|Pukekohe Hill sub-precinct B|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 6.22, Rule 6.1 - SH, LL, CSL Note Pre and Post Framework plan provisions - assumed Framework plan in place

7000

3500

2.5

1

1

PR_10_372_0

Residential precinct|Penihana North sub-precinct A|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 7.7, Rule 2.1

2400

1200

2.5

1

PR_10_373_0

Residential precinct|Penihana North sub-precinct B|

Infill


1200

600

2.5

1

PR_10_374_0

Residential precinct|Penihana North sub-precinct C|

Infill


2000

349

2.5

1


265

CfGS UID

CfGS Name

Assessment type

Notes



Access width min

Bldg setback min

900

630

2.5

1

Second dwelling

PR_10_473_0

Residential precinct|Babich sub-precinct A|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 7.3, Rule 4.1 Table 5, Note underlying zone controlling minimum - use WCC legacy rules for weighted Average (11% LL, 88% SH, Average Lot Size in Area = 630m2), use 2x450 as qualifier

PR_10_474_0

Residential precinct|Babich sub-precinct B|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 7.3, Rule 4.1 Table 5

80000

40000

2.5

1

PR_10_475_0

Residential precinct|Babich sub-precinct C|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 7.3, Rule 4.1 Table 5

900

450

2.5

1

PR_10_483_0

Residential precinct|Greenhithe sub-precinct B|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.12 - Large Lot basezone - enables site size dependent on site factors, use 3000m2 for now, LL Zone

6000

3000

2.5

6

1

PR_10_540_0

Residential precinct|Albany 3 sub-precinct A|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.4, SH applies Except Min site size

2000

1000

2.5

1

1

PR_10_541_0

Residential precinct|Albany 3 sub-precinct B|

Infill


1400

700

2.5

1

1

PR_10_542_0

Residential precinct|Albany 3 sub-precinct C|

Infill


1000

500

2.5

1

1

PR_10_589_0

Residential precinct|Puhoi|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.34, 2.3.1 Rural and Coastal Settlement Basezone

8000

4000

2.5

1

1

PR_10_590_0

Residential precinct|Puhoi sub-precinct A|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.34, 2.3.1 Rural and Coastal Settlement Basezone

80000

40000

2.5

1

0

PR_11_260_0

Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 1A|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 6.5, See Table 1, 3.1

1000

500

2.5

2.5

1

PR_11_261_0

Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 1B|

Infill


2800

1400

2.5

2.5

1

PR_11_262_0

Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 2|

Infill


80000

40000

2.5

6

0

PR_11_266_0

Comprehensive precinct|Whitford Village sub-precinct B|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 6.29, 4.1, Table 1, SH Basezone

1300

650

2.5

4

1

PR_11_280_0

Comprehensive precinct|Silverdale North sub-precinct B|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.44, SH rules apply, except weighted average of Table 3.4.1, Min Density = 480m2, max density = 580m2, Average = 530m2

1200

530

2.5

1

1

PR_11_506_0

Comprehensive precinct|Matakana 1 sub-precinct B|

Infill

Precinct Rule: 5.25, Single House rules enabled , not option for 'integrated dwellings'

1200

600

2.5

1

1

OV_ASDC_113

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Howick East 700m2|||

Infill

Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3

1400

700

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_114

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Manurewa 750m2|||

Infill


1500

750

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_115

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Beachlands 700m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_116

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Bombay 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_117

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Buckland 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_118

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Clarks Beach 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_119

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Glenbrook Beach 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_120

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Herald Island 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_121

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kingseat 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_122

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Maraetai and Omana Beach 700m2|||

Infill


1400

700

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_123

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Riverhead 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_124

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Waiau Beach 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_125

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Waimauku 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_126

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Point Wells 1000m2|||

Infill


2000

1000

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_127

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Patumahoe 800m2|||

Infill


1600

800

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_128

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kawakawa Bay 750m2|||

Infill


1500

750

2.5

0

OV_ASDC_144

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Albany North 1500m2|||

Infill


3000

1500

2.5

0


VAR 1

VAR 2

VAR 3

VAR 4

VAR 5

VAR 6

266



Access width min


1200

600

2.5

Infill

3.2 Front Yard Rules, Otherwise SH

1200

600

2.5

SpecialCharacter|Residential Isthmus A|||

Infill

3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, 1 Per Site (SH Rules)

1200

600

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_521 3

SpecialCharacter|Residential - Isthmus B2|||

Infill

3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, B1: 1000

2000

1000

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_521 4


Infill

3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, B2: 600

1200

600

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_521 5


Infill

3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, B3: 1000

2000

1000

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_523 2

SpecialCharacter|Residential - Isthmus C1|||

Infill

3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, C1: 400, C2 and C3: 600, C2a 1000

800

400

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_521 6


Infill


1200

600

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_523 3


Infill


1200

600

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_523 4


Infill

3.4, Rule 3.1 Table 1, A: 450, B: 500, C:600

900

450

2.5

1

OV_SPCH_523 5


Infill

3.4, Rule 3.1 Table 1, A: 450, B: 500, C:600

1000

500

2.5

1

OV_SPCH_523 6

SpecialCharacter|Residential - North Shore C|||

Infill

3.4, Rule 3.1 Table 1, A: 450, B: 500, C:600

1200

600

2.5

1

OV_SPCH_523 1

SpecialCharacter|General|||

Infill

3.5, Density not stated, assume SH

1200

600

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_521 2_OV_SPCH_5 219


Infill


1200

600

2.5

0



Infill


1200

600

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_521 6


Infill


1200

600

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_523 3


Infill


1200

600

2.5

0

OV_SPCH_523 4


Infill

3.4, Rule 3.1 Table 1, A: 450, B: 500, C:600

900

450

2.5

1

OV_SPCH_523 5


Infill

3.4, Rule 3.1 Table 1, A: 450, B: 500, C:600

1000

500

2.5

1

Assessment type

CfGS UID

CfGS Name

OV_ASDC_145

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Albany East 600m2|||

Infill

OV_SPCH_521 1

SpecialCharacter|Residential Helensville|||

OV_SPCH_521 2


Notes

Bldg setback min

Second dwelling

VAR 1

VAR 2

VAR 3

VAR 4

VAR 5

VAR 6

0 1

1

267

Appendix J: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions


268

Table 56: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan business zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions (Business LUT) CfGS UID

CfGS Name

Assessment type

Assessment sub-type

Notes

Zone height

Zone stories

ZN_3_1

Business Park

Commercial

Business Park

Business Rules

20.5

5

ZN_3_5

Heavy Industry

Industrial

Heavy Industry

Business Rules

20

5

ZN_3_7

Local Centre

Commercial

Local Centre

Business Rules

16.5

4

ZN_3_10

Metropolitan Centre

Commercial

Metropolitan Centre

Business Rules

72.5

18

ZN_3_12

Mixed Use

Commercial

Mixed Use

Business Rules

16.5

4

ZN_3_17

Light Industry

Commercial

Light Industry

Business Rules

20

5

ZN_3_22

Town Centre

Commercial

Town Centre

Business Rules, Height Overlays Apply

ZN_3_35

City Centre

Commercial

City Centre

CCMP Apply, Height not ascertainable - use FAR Method

ZN_3_44


Commercial


Business Rules

12.5

3

ZN_3_49

General Business

Commercial

General Business

Business Rules

16.5

4

PR_9_60_0

Business precinct|Smales 1|

Commercial

Business Park

5.45, Max GFA = 105000m2, max 1000m2 being things other than Office

20.5

5

PR_9_83_0

Business precinct|Waiwera|

Commercial

Mixed Use

5.54

12.5

3

PR_9_217_0

Business precinct|Warkworth 1 sub-precinct A|

Commercial

General Business

5.55, note max GLA = 25300 as PA, 25000 as DA, Retial, Food and Beverage and Care, education and Height are limited

13.5

3

PR_9_218_0

Business precinct|Warkworth 1 sub-precinct B|

Commercial

General Business


8

2

PR_9_219_0

Business precinct|Warkworth 1 sub-precinct C|

Commercial

General Business


8

2

PR_9_220_0

Business precinct|Warkworth 1 sub-precinct D|

Commercial

General Business


13.5

3

PR_9_221_0

Business precinct|Warkworth 1 sub-precinct E|

Commercial

General Business


13.5

3

PR_9_222_0

Business precinct|Warkworth 3 sub-precinct A|

Commercial

Town Centre

5.57, GFA Limits and Frontage

PR_9_223_0

Business precinct|Warkworth 3 sub-precinct B|

Commercial

Town Centre


PR_9_224_0

Business precinct|Warkworth 3 sub-precinct C|

Commercial

Town Centre


PR_9_363_0

Business precinct|Takapuna 1 sub-precinct A|

Commercial

Metropolitan Centre

5.47

20.5

5

PR_9_364_0

Business precinct|Takapuna 1 sub-precinct B|

Commercial

Metropolitan Centre

5.47

24.5

6

PR_9_365_0

Business precinct|Takapuna 1 sub-precinct C|

Commercial

Metropolitan Centre

5.47 Height is unlimited

160

40

PR_9_366_0

Business precinct|Takapuna 1 sub-precinct D|

Commercial

Metropolitan Centre

5.47

12.5

3

PR_9_367_0

Business precinct|Takapuna 1 sub-precinct E|

Commercial

Metropolitan Centre

5.47

36.5

9

PR_9_556_0

Business precinct|Browns Bay|

Commercial

Town Centre

5.7, Underlying Zone except HIRB from Beachfront Reserve and/or Lane

PR_9_591_0

Business precinct|Lincoln sub-precinct A|

Commercial

Light Industry

7.5, no height limit, HIRB only

PR_11_279_0

Comprehensive precinct|Silverdale North sub-precinct A|

Commercial

General Business

5.44

15

3

PR_11_281_0

Comprehensive precinct|Silverdale North sub-precinct C|

Commercial

Town Centre

5.44

13

3

PR_11_282_0

Comprehensive precinct|Silverdale North sub-precinct D|

Commercial


5.44

10

2

OV_SPCH_521 7

SpecialCharacter|Business Helensville|||

Commercial

Town Centre

4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT on Defining or Supporting building sites)

12.5

3

OV_SPCH_521 8

SpecialCharacter|Business Howick|||

Commercial

Town Centre

4.4.3.3.1, Height Overlays, Town Centre and Mixed Use

9

2

OV_SPCH_521 9

SpecialCharacter|Business West Lynn|||

Commercial

Town Centre

4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT)

12.5

3


269

CfGS UID

CfGS Name

Assessment type

Assessment sub-type

Notes

Zone height

Zone stories

OV_SPCH_522 0

SpecialCharacter|Business Grey Lynn|||

Commercial

Town Centre


12.5

3

OV_SPCH_522 1

SpecialCharacter|Business Upper Symonds Street|||

Commercial

Town Centre

4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT) Mixed Use, Metro Centre and THAB

OV_SPCH_522 2

SpecialCharacter|Business Sandringham|||

Commercial

Town Centre


12.5

3

OV_SPCH_522 3

SpecialCharacter|Business Balmoral|||

Commercial

Town Centre


12.5

3

OV_SPCH_522 4

SpecialCharacter|Business Eden Valley|||

Commercial

Town Centre

4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT) Town Centre and Mixed Use

12.5

3

OV_SPCH_522 5

SpecialCharacter|Business Kingsland|||

Commercial

Town Centre

4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT) Town Centre and Mixed Use

12.5

3

OV_SPCH_522 6

SpecialCharacter|Business Ponsonby|||

Commercial

Town Centre


12.5

3

OV_SPCH_522 7

SpecialCharacter|Business Parnell|||

Commercial

Town Centre


12.5

3

OV_SPCH_522 8

SpecialCharacter|Business Mt Eden|||

Commercial

Town Centre

4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT) Incl. Mixed Use and Town Centre

12.5

3

OV_SPCH_522 9

SpecialCharacter|Business Ellersllie|||

Commercial

Town Centre


12.5

3

OV_SPCH_523 0

SpecialCharacter|Business Newmarket|||

Commercial

Metropolitan Centre

4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT) Metro, Mixed Use, THAB and Newmarket Business Precinct


SpecialCharacter|Business Ellersllie|||

Commercial

Town Centre

OVERLAP 4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT)

12.5

3

ZN_3_1

Business Park

Commercial

Business Park

Business Rules

20.5

5

ZN_3_5

Heavy Industry

Industrial

Heavy Industry

Business Rules

20

5

ZN_3_7

Local Centre

Commercial

Local Centre

Business Rules

16.5

4

ZN_3_10

Metropolitan Centre

Commercial

Metropolitan Centre

Business Rules

72.5

18

ZN_3_12

Mixed Use

Commercial

Mixed Use

Business Rules

16.5

4

ZN_3_17

Light Industry

Commercial

Light Industry

Business Rules

20

5

ZN_3_22

Town Centre

Commercial

Town Centre

Business Rules, Height Overlays Apply


270

Appendix K: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rural zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions


271

Table 57: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rural zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions (Rural LUT) Zone height

Zone stories

VAR 1

VAR 2

CSL outside of Identified Precinct, NO TRSS, Assume 2ha minimum? Pending Advice from Rural Team

9

2

40000

20000

Custom

CSL Vacant Donor and Receiver, SEA Donor

9

2

3000000

1500000

Rural Conservation

Custom


9

2

ZN_4_16

Rural Production

Custom


9

2

3000000

1500000

ZN_4_46

Rural Coastal

Custom


7

2

PR_10_206_0

Residential precinct|Greenhithe sub-precinct A|

Min Site Area

5.12

8

2

40000

20000

PR_10_341_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct A|Wellsford

Custom

5.40 - Not in Table, General Rules Apply

8

2

16000

8000

PR_10_342_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct B|Ti Point

Custom

5.40

8

2

16000

8000

PR_10_343_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct C|Sandspit

Custom

5.40

8

2

16000

8000

PR_10_344_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct D|Chenery Road Whangaparaoa

Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_345_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct E|Riverhaven Road Whangaparaoa

Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_346_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct F|Coal Mine Bay Whangaparaoa

Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_347_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct G|Balboa Dr Whangaparaoa

Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_348_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct H|Silverdale

Custom

5.40

8

2

16000

8000

PR_10_349_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct I|Scotts Landing

Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_350_0

Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct J|Leigh

Custom


8

2

16000

8000

PR_11_263_0


Min Site Area

6.5

8

2

80000

40000

PR_11_565_0

Comprehensive precinct|Runciman sub-precinct A|

Min Site Area

6.24

8

2

50000

25000

PR_11_566_0

Comprehensive precinct|Runciman sub-precinct B|

Custom

6.24

8

2

50000

25000

15000

OV_ASDC_129

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living

Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated

8

2

40000

20000

10000

6

OV_ASDC_130

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

10000

6

OV_ASDC_131

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

10000

6

OV_ASDC_132

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_133

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_134

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

OV_ASDC_135

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_136

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_137

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Waimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_138

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Okura Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

80000

40000

6

CfGS UID

CfGS Name

Assessment type

Notes

ZN_4_3

Countryside Living

Countryside Living

ZN_4_11

Mixed Rural

ZN_4_15


VAR 3

VAR 4 6

20000

10000

6

272

Zone height

Zone stories

VAR 1

VAR 2

VAR 3

VAR 4


8

2

40000

20000

10000

6

Countryside Living


8

2

20000

10000

6

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Papakura Countryside Living 1ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

20000

10000

6

OV_ASDC_142

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Point Wells-Omaha Flats Countryside Living 5000m2|||

Countryside Living


8

2

15000

7500

6

OV_ASDC_143

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Ngarango Otainui Island Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_146

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kumeu - Huapai Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

ZN_4_3

Countryside Living

Countryside Living

CSL outside of Identified Precinct, NO TRSS, Assume 2ha minimum? Pending Advice from Rural Team

9

2

40000

20000

6

ZN_4_11

Mixed Rural

Custom


9

2

3000000

1500000

ZN_4_15

Rural Conservation

Custom


9

2

ZN_4_16

Rural Production

Custom


9

2

3000000

1500000

ZN_4_46

Rural Coastal

Custom


7

2

PR_10_206_0


Min Site Area

5.12

8

2

40000

20000

PR_10_341_0


Custom


8

2

16000

8000

PR_10_342_0


Custom

5.40

8

2

16000

8000

PR_10_343_0


Custom

5.40

8

2

16000

8000

PR_10_344_0


Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_345_0


Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_346_0


Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_347_0


Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_348_0


Custom

5.40

8

2

16000

8000

PR_10_349_0


Custom

5.40

8

2

8000

4000

PR_10_350_0


Custom


8

2

16000

8000

PR_11_263_0


Min Site Area

6.5

8

2

80000

40000

PR_11_565_0


Min Site Area

6.24

8

2

50000

25000

PR_11_566_0


Custom

6.24

8

2

50000

25000

15000

OV_ASDC_129


Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

10000

6

OV_ASDC_130


Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

10000

6

OV_ASDC_131


Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

10000

6

OV_ASDC_132


Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

CfGS UID

CfGS Name

Assessment type

Notes

OV_ASDC_139

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|South Rodney Countryside Living 2ha|||

Countryside Living

OV_ASDC_140

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Whitford Countryside Living 1ha|||

OV_ASDC_141


20000

6

273

Zone height

Zone stories

VAR 1

VAR 2


8

2

40000

20000

Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000


Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_136


Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_137


Countryside Living


8

2

40000

20000

6

OV_ASDC_138


Countryside Living


8

2

80000

40000

6

CfGS UID

CfGS Name

Assessment type

Notes

OV_ASDC_133


Countryside Living

OV_ASDC_134


OV_ASDC_135

VAR 3

VAR 4 6

10000

6

Table 58: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan countryside living zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions (CSL LUT)

CSL precinct name

Min title area qualifier without TTR

Min title area without TTR

Min title area qualifier with TTR

Min title area with TTR

TTR receiver

CSL UID

CfGS UID

CSL overlay group

CSL_Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_129

CSL_1


Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_130

CSL_1


Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_131

CSL_1


Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_132

CSL_2


Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_133

CSL_2


Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_134

CSL_1


Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_135

CSL_2


Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_136

CSL_2


Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Waimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_137

CSL_2


Waimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Okura Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_138

CSL_3


Okura Countryside Living 2ha|||

80000

40000

80000

40000

0

CSL_South Rodney Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_139

CSL_1

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|South Rodney Countryside Living 2ha|||

South Rodney Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Whitford Countryside Living 1ha|||

OV_ASDC_140

CSL_4

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Whitford Countryside Living 1ha|||

Whitford Countryside Living 1ha|||

20000

10000

20000

10000

0

CSL_Papakura Countryside Living 1ha|||

OV_ASDC_141

CSL_4

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Papakura Countryside Living 1ha|||

Papakura Countryside Living 1ha|||

20000

10000

20000

10000

0

CSL_Point Wells-Omaha Flats Countryside Living 5000m2|||

OV_ASDC_142

CSL_5

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Point Wells-Omaha Flats Countryside Living 5000m2|||

Point Wells-Omaha Flats Countryside Living 5000m2|||

15000

7500

15000

7500

0

CSL_Ngarango Otainui Island Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_143

CSL_2

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Ngarango Otainui Island Countryside Living 2ha|||

Ngarango Otainui Island Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0


CfGS name

274

CSL precinct name

Min title area qualifier without TTR

Min title area without TTR

Min title area qualifier with TTR

Min title area with TTR

TTR receiver

CSL UID

CfGS UID

CSL overlay group

CSL_Kumeu - Huapai Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_146

CSL_2

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kumeu - Huapai Countryside Living 2ha|||

Kumeu - Huapai Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_129

CSL_1


Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_130

CSL_1


Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_131

CSL_1


Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_132

CSL_2


Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_133

CSL_2


Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_134

CSL_1


Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

20000

10000

1

CSL_Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_135

CSL_2


Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0

CSL_Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

OV_ASDC_136

CSL_2


Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

40000

20000

40000

20000

0


CfGS name

275

Appendix L: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan special zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions


276

Table 59: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan countryside living zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions (Special LUT) Second dwelling

Zone height

Zone stories

0

8

2

7.4

0

8

2

Structure Plan

6.10, Dwelling Cap of 420

1

8

2

420

Residential precinct|Mangere 1|SPCA

Special Activity

6.12 SPCA

1

PR_10_202_0

Residential precinct|Waimana Point|

Structure Plan

5.51, Max 32 dwellings

0

PR_10_321_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct A|Big Bay

Rollover FDC

6.7

1

PR_10_322_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct B|Grahams Beach

Rollover FDC

6.7

1

PR_10_324_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct D|Kauritahi

Rollover FDC

6.7

1

PR_10_325_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct E|Matingarahi

Rollover FDC

6.7

0

PR_10_327_0

Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct G|Patumahoe

Rollover FDC

6.7

1

PR_10_362_0

Residential precinct|Pukekohe Hill sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan

6.22 - Subdivision NC

0

8

2

0

PR_10_376_0

Residential precinct|Mill Road|

Structure Plan


0

PR_10_377_0

Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct A|

Structure Plan

5.30 Note Development Cap 690 dwellings, or 630 dwellings + 120 retirement

1

PR_10_378_0

Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct B|

Structure Plan


1

PR_10_379_0

Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan


1

PR_10_380_0

Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct D|

Structure Plan


1

PR_10_381_0

Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct E|

Structure Plan


1

PR_10_382_0

Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct F|

Structure Plan


1

PR_10_417_0

Residential precinct|Orewa 2|Orewa West

Structure Plan

5.31, Weighted Average Density = 552.5m2 (410m2 to 695m2)

0

PR_10_418_0

Residential precinct|Orewa 3|

Structure Plan

5.32, note Table 1 :)

0

PR_10_457_0

Residential precinct|Dairy Flat|Airfield

Special Activity

5.9, Note allows dwelling development

1

PR_10_487_0

Residential precinct|Kakanui Point|

Special Activity

5.19, Events

0

PR_10_519_0

Residential precinct|Pukekohe Hill sub-precinct D|

Structure Plan

6.22 - Subdivision NC

PR_10_532_0

Residential precinct|Karaka 2|

Structure Plan

PR_10_538_0

Residential precinct|Mount Albert 2 sub-precinct A|AIS St Helens

PR_10_539_0

CfGS UID

CfGS name

Assessment type

Notes

PR_10_164_0

Residential precinct|Martins Bay|

Structure Plan


0

PR_10_184_0

Residential precinct|Riverhead South|

Structure Plan

5.39, 600 to 800m2, allowance for 1:300 but no more than 40%

PR_10_193_0

Residential precinct|Birdwood|

Rollover WCC

PR_10_194_0

Residential precinct|Kellys Cove|

PR_10_195_0

Dwg min

Dwg max

FAR max

GFA max (m2)

836 10

2

79

0

8

2

0

6.9 - 300m2 density in MHS, 800m2 in SH, 2500m2 for unserviced

1

8

2

Special Activity

2.10

0

Residential precinct|Mount Albert 2 sub-precinct B|AIS St Helens

Special Activity

2.10

0

PR_11_135_0

Comprehensive precinct|Flat Bush|

Structure Plan

6.6

0

8

2

PR_11_246_0

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct A|Large Lot

Structure Plan

5.23, 2ha Average

1

PR_11_248_0

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct B|Standalone

Structure Plan

5.23, 600 to 500m2

1


FAR min

277

Second dwelling

Zone height

Zone stories

0

15

3

0

6.15

0

15

3

0

Structure Plan

6.15

0

15

3

0

Comprehensive precinct|Whitford Village sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan

6.29 Dwelling Cap = 105

1

8

2

105

PR_11_268_0

Comprehensive precinct|Takanini sub-precinct A|Mix of basezones

Structure Plan

6.25

0

8

2

PR_11_269_0

Comprehensive precinct|Takanini sub-precinct B|Local Centre

Structure Plan

6.25

0

12

3

PR_11_270_0

Comprehensive precinct|Takanini sub-precinct C|Mixed Use

Structure Plan

6.25

0

16.5

4

PR_11_271_0

Comprehensive precinct|Takanini sub-precinct D|Mixed Housing

Structure Plan

6.25

1

8

2

PR_11_272_0

Comprehensive precinct|Takanini sub-precinct E|Single House

Structure Plan

6.25

1

8

2

PR_11_283_0

Comprehensive precinct|Gulf Harbour sub-precinct A|Business

Structure Plan

5.13 Note Development Cap, max 2913 dwellings, 338 visitor units

0

12

3

PR_11_284_0

Comprehensive precinct|Gulf Harbour sub-precinct B|Intensive Residential

Structure Plan


0

20

5

PR_11_285_0

Comprehensive precinct|Gulf Harbour sub-precinct C|Waterfront Residential

Structure Plan


0

PR_11_286_0

Comprehensive precinct|Gulf Harbour sub-precinct D|Golf Residential

Structure Plan


0

PR_11_291_0

Comprehensive precinct|Flat Bush sub-precinct A|

Structure Plan

6.6

1

8

2

PR_11_292_0

Comprehensive precinct|Flat Bush sub-precinct B|

Structure Plan

6.6

0

8

2

PR_11_409_0

Comprehensive precinct|Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area sub-precinct A|Foothills incl Structure Plans

Rollover WCC

7.9

0

PR_11_410_0

Comprehensive precinct|Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area sub-precinct B|Waitakere Ranges and Bush Living

Rollover WCC

7.9

0

PR_11_411_0

Comprehensive precinct|Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area sub-precinct C|Titirangi-Laingholm

Rollover WCC

7.9

0

CfGS UID

CfGS name

Assessment type

Notes

PR_11_249_0

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct C|Intensive

Structure Plan

5.23, 300m2 or comprehensive

1

PR_11_249_1

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct C|Area 1

Structure Plan

5.23

1

PR_11_249_2

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct C|Area 2 Road

Structure Plan

5.23, Road

1

PR_11_251_0

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct D|Comprehensive

Structure Plan

5.23

0

PR_11_252_0

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct E|Comprehensive

Structure Plan

5.23

0

PR_11_254_0

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct F|Stormwater

Structure Plan

5.23, Storm water ponds/treatment

0

PR_11_255_0

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct G|Reserve

Structure Plan

5.23, Future Reserve

0

PR_11_256_0

Comprehensive precinct|Long Bay sub-precinct H|Road

Structure Plan

5.23, No growth

0

PR_11_257_0

Comprehensive precinct|Mangere Gateway sub-precinct B|

Structure Plan

6.15

PR_11_258_0

Comprehensive precinct|Mangere Gateway sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan

PR_11_259_0

Comprehensive precinct|Mangere Gateway sub-precinct A|

PR_11_267_0


Dwg min

Dwg max

100

FAR min

FAR max

GFA max (m2)

7000 3000

278

Second dwelling

Zone height

Zone stories

1

11

3

1.3

1

11

3

Structure Plan

6.15

0

15

3

Comprehensive precinct|Gulf Harbour sub-precinct E|Large Lot

Structure Plan


0

PR_11_521_0

Comprehensive precinct|Gulf Harbour sub-precinct F|Golf Course

Structure Plan

5.13 Golf Course

0

PR_11_552_0

Comprehensive precinct|Kingseat sub-precinct A|Existing Hospital Buildings

Structure Plan

6.11

0

12

3

PR_11_553_0

Comprehensive precinct|Kingseat sub-precinct B|Local Centre and Residential

Structure Plan

6.11

0

8

2

PR_11_554_0

Comprehensive precinct|Kingseat sub-precinct C|Large Lot 1500

Structure Plan

6.11

0

8

2

PR_11_555_0

Comprehensive precinct|Kingseat sub-precinct D|Large Lot 2500

Structure Plan

6.11

0

8

2

PR_11_559_0

Comprehensive precinct|Pine Harbour sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan

6.21 THAB 3 to 4 levels

1

15

3

PR_11_567_0

Comprehensive precinct|Greenfield Urban|

Structure Plan

1.2

1

PR_11_571_0

Comprehensive precinct|Alexandra Park sub-precinct A|Showgrounds

Special Activity

2.1

0

PR_14_442_0

Coastal precinct|Okahu Marine sub-precinct A [rcp]|Marina

Special Activity

2.14

0

PR_14_443_0

Coastal precinct|Okahu Marine sub-precinct B [dp]|Hardstand

Special Activity

2.14

0

PR_14_444_0

Coastal precinct|Okahu Marine sub-precinct C [dp]|Reserve

Special Activity

2.14

0

PR_14_459_0

Coastal precinct|Westpark Marina sub-precinct A|

Structure Plan

7.11

0

12

3

PR_14_460_0

Coastal precinct|Westpark Marina sub-precinct B|

Structure Plan

7.11

0

8

2

PR_14_461_0

Coastal precinct|Westpark Marina sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan

7.11

0

10

2

PR_14_462_0

Coastal precinct|Westpark Marina sub-precinct D|Boat Ramp

Structure Plan

7.11

0

9

2

0

PR_14_463_0

Coastal precinct|Bayswater Marina sub-precinct A [rcp/dp]|

Special Activity

5.6 Dwellings NC

0

6

1

0

PR_14_464_0

Coastal precinct|Bayswater Marina sub-precinct B [rcp/dp]|

Special Activity

5.6 Dwellings Discretionary

0

12

2

0

PR_14_465_0

Coastal precinct|Bayswater Marina sub-precinct C [rcp/dp]|

Special Activity

5.6 Dwellings NC

0

6

1

0

PR_14_466_0

Coastal precinct|Bayswater Marina sub-precinct D [rcp/dp]|

Special Activity

5.6 Dwellings NC

0

6

1

0

PR_14_467_0

Coastal precinct|Bayswater Marina sub-precinct E [rcp/dp]|

Special Activity

5.6 Dwellings NC

0

6

1

0

CfGS UID

CfGS name

Assessment type

Notes

PR_11_412_0

Comprehensive precinct|Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area sub-precinct D|Waitakere Coastal Settlements

Rollover WCC

7.9

0

PR_11_413_0

Comprehensive precinct|Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area sub-precinct E|Large Property Management Areas

Rollover WCC

7.9

0

PR_11_419_0

Comprehensive precinct|Integrated Development subprecinct A|Mt Smart

Structure Plan

1.3

PR_11_420_0

Comprehensive precinct|Integrated Development subprecinct B|Takanini

Structure Plan

PR_11_450_0

Comprehensive precinct|Mangere Gateway sub-precinct D|

PR_11_470_0


Dwg min

Dwg max

FAR min

FAR max

GFA max (m2)

0

0

279

Zone height

Zone stories

5.6 Dwellings NC

0

6

1

0

Special Activity

5.6 Dwellings NC

0

6

1

0

Coastal precinct|Westpark Marina sub-precinct F [rcp/dp]|CMA outside Breakwater

Special Activity

7.11

0

0

0

PR_14_530_0

Coastal precinct|Westpark Marina sub-precinct E [rcp]|Marina inside Breakwater

Special Activity

7.11

0

0

0

PR_14_576_0

Coastal precinct|Gulf Harbour Marina sub-precinct A [rcp]|

Special Activity

5.14

0

PR_14_577_0

Coastal precinct|Gulf Harbour Marina sub-precinct B [rcp]|Hammerhead

Special Activity

5.14

0

PR_3_12_0

Social Infrastructure precinct|Leigh Marine Laboratory|

Special Activity

5.22 Leigh Marine Lab

0

PR_4_20_0

Infrastructure precinct|HMNZ Dockyard|

Special Activity

5.15 Navy

0

PR_4_21_0

Infrastructure precinct|Rodney Thermal Energy Generation|

Special Activity

5.41 Gas Power Station

0

PR_4_211_0

Infrastructure precinct|Auckland Airport sub-precinct Core|

Special Activity

6.3 Airport

0

PR_4_295_0

Infrastructure precinct|Devonport Naval Base subprecinct A|

Special Activity

5.10 Navy

0

PR_4_296_0

Infrastructure precinct|Devonport Naval Base subprecinct B|

Special Activity

5.10 Navy

0

PR_4_34_0

Infrastructure precinct|Ardmore 1|

Special Activity

6.1 Airport

0

PR_4_37_0

Infrastructure precinct|Auckland Airport sub-precinct Coastal|

Special Activity

6.3 Airport

0

PR_4_499_0

Infrastructure precinct|Ardmore 2|

Structure Plan

6.2, Residential within/Adjacent to Airport

0

PR_5_24_0

Rural precinct|Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands|

Structure Plan

6.20, dwelling cap

0

PR_5_339_0

Rural precinct|Whitford sub-precinct A|

Rollover MCC

6.28 - AS per 2012 Study

0

PR_5_340_0

Rural precinct|Whitford sub-precinct B|

Rollover MCC

6.28 - AS per 2012 Study

0

PR_5_351_0

Rural precinct|Weiti sub-precinct A|

Structure Plan

5.58, Dwelling Cap 150

0

9

2

150

PR_5_352_0

Rural precinct|Weiti sub-precinct B|

Structure Plan

5.58, Dwelling Cap 1050

0

9

2

1050

PR_5_353_0

Rural precinct|Weiti sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan

5.58, No Dwellings

0

9

2

0

PR_5_375_0

Rural precinct|Orewa Countryside|

Structure Plan

5.33, dwelling cap

0

PR_5_432_0

Rural precinct|Te Arai North|

Rollover RDC

5.49, RDC Rural Rules apply, + allowance for Camping ground

0

9

2

PR_5_433_0

Rural precinct|Te Arai South|

Rollover RDC

5.50, RDC Rural Rules apply, + allowance for Camping ground

0

9

2

PR_5_434_0

Rural precinct|Omaha Flats|

Structure Plan

5.28

0

PR_5_440_0

Rural precinct|Riverhead 2|

Rollover RDC

5.36 - Riverhead Forest land, RDC Rural rules

0

8

2

PR_5_488_0


Structure Plan

5.37, Development Cap

0

8

2

PR_5_534_0

Rural precinct|Swanson North|

Rollover WCC

7.8

0

8

2

PR_5_536_0

Rural precinct|Kawau Island sub-precinct A|

Rollover RDC

5.20

0

PR_5_537_0

Rural precinct|Kawau Island sub-precinct B|

Rollover RDC

5.20

0

PR_5_575_0


Rollover RDC

5.38 - Riverhead Forest land, RDC Rural rules

0

8

2

PR_6_29_0

Maori purpose precinct|Orakei 1|

Structure Plan

2.16

0

CfGS name

Assessment type

Notes

PR_14_468_0

Coastal precinct|Bayswater Marina sub-precinct F [rcp/dp]|

Special Activity

PR_14_469_0

Coastal precinct|Bayswater Marina sub-precinct G [rcp/dp]|

PR_14_517_0


Dwg min

Dwg max

FAR min

FAR max

GFA max (m2)

Second dwelling

CfGS UID

11

86

20

280

Second dwelling

Zone height

Zone stories

0

15

3

2.6 THAB

0

26

6

Structure Plan

2.6 THAB

0

20

4

Business precinct|Ellerslie 1 sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan

2.6 THAB

0

14

3

PR_9_233_0

Business precinct|Ellerslie 1 sub-precinct D|

Structure Plan

2.6 THAB

0

PR_9_234_0

Business precinct|Ellerslie 1 sub-precinct E|

Structure Plan

2.6 MHZ

1

PR_9_238_0

Business precinct|Smales 2 sub-precinct A|Mixed Use Basezone

Structure Plan

5.46, Max 45000GFA and Max 68 dwellings (note max 10000 Office, 2000 retail)

0

14.5

4

68

PR_9_239_0

Business precinct|Smales 2 sub-precinct B|MH Suburban Basezone

Structure Plan

5.46, Max 168 Dwellings, Single dwellings only in 10m Lake Yard

0

14.5

4

145

CfGS UID

CfGS name

Assessment type

Notes

PR_8_38_0

City centre precinct|Wynyard [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD

3.14 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS

0

PR_8_388_0

City centre precinct|Learning sub-precinct A|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_389_0

City centre precinct|Downtown West|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_39_0

City centre precinct|Port [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_390_0

City centre precinct|Central Wharves [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_394_0

City centre precinct|Viaduct Harbour sub-precinct A [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_395_0

City centre precinct|Viaduct Harbour sub-precinct B [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_396_0

City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct A [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_397_0

City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct B [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_398_0

City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct C [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_399_0

City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct D [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_40_0

City centre precinct|Westhaven [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_400_0

City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct E [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_401_0

City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct F [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_402_0

City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct G [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_41_0

City centre precinct|Viaduct Harbour [rcp/dp]|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_414_0

City centre precinct|Quay Park sub-precinct A|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_42_0

City centre precinct|Karangahape Road|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_43_0

City centre precinct|Queen Street Valley|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_45_0

City centre precinct|Cook Street Depot|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_46_0

City centre precinct|Victoria Park Market|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_47_0

City centre precinct|Quay Park|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_48_0

City centre precinct|Learning|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_49_0

City centre precinct|Arts, Civic and Entertainment|

Rollover CBD

No Precinct Rules Identified (POS?) CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS

0

PR_8_50_0

City centre precinct|Residential|

Rollover CBD

No Precinct Rules Identified CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS

0

PR_8_587_0

City centre precinct|Britomart sub-precinct A|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_8_588_0

City centre precinct|Britomart sub-precinct B|

Rollover CBD


0

PR_9_229_0

Business precinct|Chelsea sub-precinct C|Sugar Refinery

Special Activity

5.8 Note provisions for Framework Plan post cessation

PR_9_230_0

Business precinct|Ellerslie 1 sub-precinct A|

Structure Plan

PR_9_231_0

Business precinct|Ellerslie 1 sub-precinct B|

PR_9_232_0


Dwg min

Dwg max

FAR min

FAR max

GFA max (m2)

45000

281

Zone height

Zone stories

1.1

0

9

2

Structure Plan

2.7 Note Mixed Use Zone Applies

0

18

4

16773

Business precinct|Ellerslie 2 sub-precinct B|

Structure Plan

2.7 Note Mixed Use Zone Applies

0

21

5

16773

PR_9_431_0

Business precinct|Wairaka|

Special Activity

2.23

0

PR_9_458_0

Business precinct|Wairaka sub-precinct B|

Special Activity

2.23

0

PR_9_489_0

Business precinct|Wairaka sub-precinct A|

Special Activity

2.23

0

PR_9_51_0

Business precinct|Karaka 1|

Special Activity

6.8 Bloodstock Centre

0

PR_9_514_0

Business precinct|Silverdale 2|

Structure Plan

5.43, Entertainment, No Dwellings (Snow Planet)

0

0

PR_9_515_0

Business precinct|Silverdale 2 sub-precinct A|

Structure Plan

5.43, Entertainment, No Dwellings (Snow Planet)

0

0

PR_9_53_0

Business precinct|Newmarket 2|ex Lion Brewery

Structure Plan

2.11, Mixed Use

0

PR_9_55_0

Business precinct|Saint Lukes|

Structure Plan

2.20

0

PR_9_579_0

Business precinct|Orakei Point sub-precinct A|

Structure Plan

2.18

0

5

16000

PR_9_580_0

Business precinct|Orakei Point sub-precinct B|

Structure Plan

2.18

0

5

18000

PR_9_581_0

Business precinct|Orakei Point sub-precinct C|

Structure Plan

2.18

0

5

9000

PR_9_582_0

Business precinct|Orakei Point sub-precinct D|

Structure Plan

2.18

0

5

13000

PR_9_583_0

Business precinct|Orakei Point sub-precinct E|

Structure Plan

2.18

0

5

9000

PR_9_584_0

Business precinct|Orakei Point sub-precinct F|

Structure Plan

2.18

0

5

15000

ZN_5_37

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Special Activity

0

ZN_5_39

Defence [rcp/dp]

Special Activity

0

ZN_5_45

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Special Activity

0

ZN_6_51

Quarry

Special Activity

0

ZN_6_52

Maori Purpose

Special Activity

0

ZN_6_55

Healthcare Facility

Special Activity

0

ZN_6_56

Airport

Special Activity

0

ZN_6_58

Retirement Village

Structure Plan

Applies to only a few Retirement Villages, all of which have asked to have their master planning documents incorporated into precincts

0

ZN_7_43

Hauraki Gulf Islands

Rollover HGI

HGI Plan Rolled Over, refer 2012 CfGS

0

ZN_8_4

Future Urban

Structure Plan

CfGS name

Assessment type

Notes

PR_9_357_0

Business precinct|Boat Building|

Special Activity

PR_9_368_0

Business precinct|Ellerslie 2 sub-precinct A|

PR_9_369_0


Dwg min

Dwg max

FAR min

FAR max

GFA max (m2)

Second dwelling

CfGS UID

0

282

Appendix M: Rural zone processing guide


283

Table 60: Rural zone processing guide

Legend 1

Use CfGS_UID/location

1*

Use CSL UP_BASEZONE

1**

Use spatial definition (base zone)

0. Vacant Sites/Latent Capacity CfGS UID

UP base zone

CfGS name

1. Minimum Site Area Subdivision

3. Custom and Others 2A. Vacant Site Amalgamation

0A: Unnoccupied_ti tle

OB: Permitted_unoc cupied_title

1A: Subdiv_1A_150 ha

1B: Subdiv_1B_CSLpr eTRSS

Future Urban Countryside Living

2. Transferable Rural Site Subdivision

2A1: TRSS_2A1_Vac ant_Donor

2A2: TRSS_2A2_V acant_Receiv er

1**

2B. SEA Protection

2B1: TRSS_2B1_S EA_Donor

2B2: TRSS_2B2_SE A_Receiver

3B1: Greenhithe A

3B2: Rodney Landscape Group

3B3: Clevedon 3

3B4: Runciman A &B

3C_Second_and_T hird_Rural_dwelli ng

1?

Final Checks and Calculations

1

Countryside Living + Additional Subdivision Controls below

1*

1*

ZN_4_11

Mixed Rural

1

1

ZN_4_15

Rural Conservation

1

1

ZN_4_16

Rural Production

1

1

ZN_4_46

Rural Coastal

1

1

PR_10_206_0


1

1

1

PR_10_341_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_10_342_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_10_343_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_10_344_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_10_345_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_10_346_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_10_347_0


1

x

1

1

1


1* 1

1**

1*

1*

1

1

1** 1

1** 1**

1*

1* 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

284


UP base zone

CfGS name


2. Transferable Rural Site Subdivision 3. Custom and Others 2A. Vacant Site Amalgamation







2B. SEA Protection



3B1: Greenhithe A


3B3: Clevedon 3

3B4: Runciman A & B



PR_10_348_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_10_349_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_10_350_0


1

x

1

1

1

PR_11_263_0


1

1

1

PR_11_565_0


1

1

1

1

1

PR_11_566_0


1

1

1

1

1

1

1

OV_ASDC_129

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|W ellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_130

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|K aukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_131

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|H elensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_132

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|M atakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_133

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|P aremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_134

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Al gies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_135

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|P uhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_136

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|P arakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_137

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|W aimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_138

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|O kura Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_139

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|S outh Rodney Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1


285


UP base zone

CfGS name


2. Transferable Rural Site Subdivision 3. Custom and Others 2A. Vacant Site Amalgamation






2B. SEA Protection




3B1: Greenhithe A


3B3: Clevedon 3

3B4: Runciman A & B



OV_ASDC_140

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|W hitford Countryside Living 1ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_141

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|P apakura Countryside Living 1ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_142

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|P oint Wells-Omaha Flats Countryside Living 5000m2|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_143

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|N garango Otainui Island Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1

OV_ASDC_146

Countryside Living

AdditionalSubdivisionControls|K umeu - Huapai Countryside Living 2ha|||

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1*

1


286

Appendix N: List of rural towns Table 61: List of rural towns Rural town name

Local board

Local board group

Awana

Great Barrier


Awhitu

Franklin

Rural South

Beachlands-Pine Harbour

Franklin

Rural South

Big Bay

Franklin

Rural South

Bombay

Franklin

Rural South

Bon Accord

Rodney

Rural North

Bradleys Beach

Rodney

Rural North

Buckland

Franklin

Rural South

Buckleton Beach

Rodney

Rural North

Campbells Beach

Rodney

Rural North

Claris

Great Barrier


Clarks Beach

Franklin

Rural South

Clevedon

Franklin

Rural South

Coatesville

Rodney

Rural North

Glenbrook Beach

Franklin

Rural South

Grahams Beach

Franklin

Rural South

Helensville

Rodney

Rural North

Herald Island

Upper Harbour

Urban North

Hingaia South

Franklin

Rural South

Huia

Waitakere Ranges

Urban West

Hunua

Franklin

Rural South

Kaipara Flats

Rodney

Rural North

Karaka South

Franklin

Rural South

Kaukapakapa

Rodney

Rural North

Kawakawa Bay

Franklin

Rural South

Kingseat

Franklin

Rural South

Kumeu-Huapai

Rodney

Rural North

Leigh

Rodney

Rural North

Mahurangi West (Pukapuka)

Rodney

Rural North

Maraetai

Franklin

Rural South

Matakana

Rodney

Rural North

Matakawau

Franklin

Rural South

Matakawau Point

Franklin

Rural South

Matingarahi

Franklin

Rural South


287

Rural town name

Local board

Local board group

Medlands

Great Barrier


Muriwai

Rodney

Rural North

North Cove

Rodney

Rural North

Okiwi

Great Barrier


Okupu

Great Barrier


Okura

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban North

Omaha

Rodney

Rural North

Orapiu

Waiheke


Orere Point

Franklin

Rural South

Orua Bay

Franklin

Rural South

Paerata

Franklin

Rural South

Pakiri

Rodney

Rural North

Paparimu

Franklin

Rural South

Parakai

Rodney

Rural North

Paremoremo

Upper Harbour

Urban North

Patumahoe

Franklin

Rural South

Point Wells

Rodney

Rural North

Pollock

Franklin

Rural South

Port Albert

Rodney

Rural North

Port Fitzroy

Great Barrier


Puhoi

Rodney

Rural North

Pukekohe

Franklin

Rural South

Rainbows End

Rodney

Rural North

Riverhead

Rodney

Rural North

Sandspit

Rodney

Rural North

Scotts Landing

Rodney

Rural North

Shelly Beach

Rodney

Rural North

Snells Beach-Algies Bay

Rodney

Rural North

South Cove

Rodney

Rural North

Stillwater

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban North

Taparoa

Rodney

Rural North

Te Hana

Rodney

Rural North

Te Hihi

Franklin

Rural South

Te Toro

Franklin

Rural South

Ti Point

Rodney

Rural North

Tryphena

Great Barrier


Vivan Bay

Rodney

Rural North

Waiau Beach

Franklin

Rural South

Waiau Pa

Franklin

Rural South

Waimauku

Rodney

Rural North


288

Rural town name

Local board

Local board group

Waitakere Village

Waitakere Ranges

Urban West

Waitoki

Rodney

Rural North

Waiuku

Franklin

Rural South

Waiwera

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban North

Warkworth

Rodney

Rural North

Wattle Bay

Franklin

Rural South

Weiti Village

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban North

Wellsford

Rodney

Rural North

Whangaparapara

Great Barrier


Whangateau

Rodney

Rural North

Whenuapai Coastal

Upper Harbour

Urban North

Whenuapai Village

Upper Harbour

Urban North

Whitford

Franklin

Rural South


289

Appendix O: Special areas with type, location and expected future development yields


290

Notes on the information contained in Table 62: 

Many of the special areas identified as part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan do not have capacity for either residential or business, and it is for this reason that they are likely to have been made 'special areas' under the provisions of the proposed plan. Special areas are like a spot zone that provides for a specific area; often these do not have residential or business capacity (i.e. quarry). Structure plans have gone through a some planning processes to determine land uses and are included in the PAUP as a precinct.



Due to the nature of special areas and their contribution to longer-term supply of capacity, figures published in this table are likely to change. It must be remembered that dwelling and business land yields for each structure plan is not fixed and may change over time depending in the nature of the plan(s) and where the plan(s) are in the council planning pipeline.



Total dwelling potential for areas is sourced from the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan or other published material.



Dwelling capacity is calculated by subtracting the current dwelling count away from the total potential of an area. Dwelling count data is sourced from PropertyIQ Ltd. (known as CoreLogic from February 2014), based on valuation assessments undertaken in and since 2011. ‘Current dwelling counts’ are generated from parcels that fell within the bounds of the special area at the time of the study.



Total business land potential for areas is sourced from the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan or other published material.



Business land capacity is calculated by subtracting the current business land area away from the total potential of an area. Current business zoned land is sourced from zoning information contained in the notified version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and has been generated as part of this study, from parcels that fell within the bounds of the structure plan or special area at the time of the study.



Special area size (area in hectares) was calculated in GIS, and summed for each area. This has been included to provide some context as to the size of the special area.

 Table 62: List of special areas including capacity (where available) identified for the Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) Capacity availability (special area type)

Special area size (hectares)

Local Board

Location

Special Activity

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

170.9

Special Activity

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

8.1

Name

Area Type

Airport

Boat Building

RUB (PAUP)

Rural Town

MUL (2010)

(if applicable)

Total dwelling potential for area

Dwelling Capacity

Total business land potential for area

Business Land Capacity

Notes and comments

Not applicable This special area applies to several small airports across the region, and while it applies to some area surrounding Auckland International Airport, it does not apply to the main airport operations area Provides for existing boat building activities Prior to cessation of sugar refining activities, the activities in the Light Industry zone apply. Chelsea sub-precinct C

Special Activity

Kaipatiki

Urban

Inside

Inside

13.7

Ellerslie 1 sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

4.0

No maximum dwellings or business land provision outlined in PAUP

Ellerslie 1 sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.2

Residential not permitted under PAUP

Ellerslie 2 sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.6

No maximum dwellings or business land provision outlined in PAUP

Ellerslie 2 sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.7

No maximum dwellings of business land provision outlined in PAUP

Karaka 1

Special Activity

Papakura

Urban

Inside

Inside

18.2

Orakei Point sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

1.3

Orakei Point sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

1.2

Orakei Point sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.7

Orakei Point sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.4

Orakei Point sub-precinct E

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.4

Orakei Point sub-precinct F

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.8

Saint Lukes

Structure Plan

Albert - Eden

Urban

Inside

Inside

8.7

Silverdale 2 sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Outside

Outside

14.2


Silverdale 2

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Outside

Outside

33.8


Smales 2 sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Other

Devonport - Takapuna

Urban

Inside

Inside

2.7

68

67

0.00

0.00

Smales 2 sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Other


Urban

Inside

Inside

2.2

145

144

0.00

0.00

Wairaka sub-precinct A

Special Activity

Albert - Eden

Urban

Inside

Inside

3.9

Unitec campus in Mt Albert. No info in PAUP about capacity

Wairaka

Special Activity

Albert - Eden

Urban

Inside

Inside

57.9

Unitec campus in Mt Albert. No info in PAUP about capacity

Bayswater Marina sub-precinct A [rcp/dp]

Special Activity


Urban

Outside

Outside

1.0


Framework plan requited for further development. No maximum dwellings or business land provision outlined in PAUP


Residential not permitted under Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Provides for existing horse stock yards

GFA maximum set for special area, but no limit on dwellings given in Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Note that since the publication of the PAUP and the strike-date for our capacity calculations, a structure plan has been approved for Orakei Point that will include 64,000 m2 for residential use - or approximately 700 dwellings, which is not included in the study.

Dwelling max set in PAUP precinct rules. GFA maximum set for special area, as well as other controls. Total potential business land unknown.

291

Capacity availability (special area type)




Location

Special Activity


Urban

Outside

Outside

2.1

Bayswater Marina sub-precinct C [rcp/dp]

Special Activity


Urban

Outside

Outside

0.1

Bayswater Marina sub-precinct F [rcp/dp]

Special Activity


Urban

Inside

Inside

0.1

Gulf Harbour Marina sub-precinct A [rcp]

Special Activity

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

38.5


Gulf Harbour Marina sub-precinct B [rcp]

Special Activity

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

4.5

Provides for existing marina activity

Westpark Marina sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Upper Harbour

Urban

Inside

Inside

2.9

Westpark Marina sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Upper Harbour

Urban

Inside

Inside

Westpark Marina sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Upper Harbour

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.6

Westpark Marina sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Upper Harbour

Urban

Inside

Inside

0.2


Westpark Marina sub-precinct E [rcp]

Special Activity

Upper Harbour

Urban

Inside

Inside

13.0


Area Type

Bayswater Marina sub-precinct B [rcp/dp]

(if applicable)

Warkworth

Dwelling Capacity


Local Board

Name

RUB (PAUP)

Rural Town

MUL (2010)

Notes and comments


Residential development permitted under PAUP, but no information in precinct section on numbers of dwellings

1.2

Westpark Marina sub-precinct F [rcp/dp]

Special Activity

Upper Harbour

Urban

Outside

Outside

19.5


Alexandra Park sub-precinct A

Special Activity

Albert - Eden

Urban

Inside

Inside

16.9


Flat Bush sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Howick

Urban

Inside

Inside

866.6

Flat Bush sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Howick

Urban

Inside

Inside

165.7

Flat Bush

Structure Plan

Howick

Urban

Inside

Inside

204.8

Greenfield Urban

Structure Plan

Rodney

Rural Town

Both

Both

Gulf Harbour sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

2.5

Gulf Harbour sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

5.3

Gulf Harbour sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

35.7

Gulf Harbour sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

78.6

Gulf Harbour sub-precinct E

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

38.1

Integrated Development sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

98.2

Residential permitted but a framework plan required on large sites. Height and bulk restrictions on development. Yield unable to be determined

Integrated Development sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

9.5

Residential permitted but a framework plan required on large sites. Height and bulk restrictions on development. Yield unable to be determined

Kingseat sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Franklin

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

146.5

Kingseat sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Franklin

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

9.2

Kingseat sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Franklin

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

51.4

Long Bay sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

147.6

Long Bay sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

105.0

Long Bay sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

16.6

Long Bay sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

11.7

Long Bay sub-precinct F

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

15.0

Long Bay sub-precinct G

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

19.2

Long Bay sub-precinct H

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

8.0

Mangere Gateway sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban

Outside

Inside

25.2

Mangere Gateway sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban

Outside

Inside

22.2 15.0

Other

Other

Other

Helensville

Structure Plan

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban

Outside

Inside

Mangere Gateway sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban

Outside

Inside

0.00

30.00

Flat Bush numbers carried across from original structure plan as reported in the 2012 Capacity for Growth Study.

Residential permitted but a structure plan required on some sites. Yield unable to be determined

2,913

1,457

0.00

0.00

Gulf Harbour numbers carried across from original structure plan as reported in the 2012 Capacity for Growth Study.

Structure plan in UP does not give dwelling maximum, but provides other development controls. Unable to be modelled.

2,200

2,049

0.00

0.00

0

0

0.00

209.00

6.2

62

61

0.00

0.00

70

61

0.00

50.00

Max number of dwellings taken from legacy structure plan information, as reported in Capacity for Growth Study 2012.

No indication in UP as to total business land. Number extracted from Capacity for Growth Study 2012.

127.4 Beachlands-Pine Harbour

Pine Harbour sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Other

Franklin

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

Takanini sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Other

Papakura

Urban

Outside

Inside

54.8

Takanini sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Other

Papakura

Urban

Inside

Inside

5.4


7,987

112.7

Other Mangere Gateway sub-precinct C

12,224

No maximum dwellings of business land provision outlined in PAUP. Used structure plan info from 2012 Capacity for Growth Study as a base. No maximum dwellings of business land provision outlined in PAUP. Used structure plan info from 2012 Capacity for Growth Study as a base.

292



Dwelling Capacity



Name

Area Type


Takanini sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Other

Papakura

Urban

Inside

Inside

221.0

2,882

2,023

0.00

0.00

Takanini sub-precinct E

Structure Plan

Other

Papakura

Urban

Inside

Inside

55.2

477

467

0.00

0.00

Whitford Village sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Other

Franklin

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

9.3

105

100

0.00

0.00

Local Board

Location

MUL (2010)

RUB (PAUP)

Rural Town (if applicable)

Whitford

Defence [rcp/dp]

Special Activity

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

16.3

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Special Activity

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

5.3

Birdwood (Crows Road)

Future Urban Zone

Waitakere Ranges

Future Urban - Urban

Outside

Inside

26.1

Brigham Creek

Future Urban Zone

Waitakere Ranges and Henderson-Massey


Outside

Inside

565.1

Notes and comments

Dwelling max set in PAUP precinct rules Not applicable Provides for existing defence activities Not applicable Provides for existing ferry terminal activities Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. No information on capacity was available in that study

Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. Subdivision/residential development is not permitted in FUA, and currently there has been no work undertaken to determine the potential capacity of FUA areas apart from the region total of an additional 90,000 dwellings and 1,400 hectares of business land (as outlined in The Auckland Plan)

Clarks Beach

Future Urban Zone

Franklin


Outside

Outside

120.0

Dairy Flat

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

143.7

Drury Plan Change

Future Urban Zone

Franklin


Outside

Inside

346.5

Glenbrook Beach

Future Urban Zone

Franklin

Future Urban - Rural Town

Outside

Outside

18.9

Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP.

Rodney


42.8

Formed from part of the Helensville SP area from the 2012 Capacity for Growth Study. No indication of what the new capacity is likely to be, so old numbers used

Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. Helensville

Future Urban Zone

Pipeline

Outside

Outside

1,000

993

0.00

14.00

Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. Hingaia

Future Urban Zone

Pipeline

Papakura


Both

Inside

419.2

2,260

2,088

0.00

0.00

The same as the grouping of Hingaia SP areas from the 2012 Capacity for Growth Study (excl. Stage 1). No indication of what the new capacity is likely to be, so old numbers used. Note that there is no business land total even though a portion of this area is allocated to be a town centre. Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. Subdivision/residential development is not permitted in FUA, and currently there has been no work undertaken to determine the potential capacity of FUA areas apart from the region total of an additional 90,000 dwellings and 1,400 hectares of business land (as outlined in The Auckland Plan)

Rodney


Outside

Inside

138.8

Rodney


Outside

Inside

184.1

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

472.1

Karaka

Future Urban Zone

Papakura and Franklin


Outside

Inside

959.1

Opaheke

Future Urban Zone

Papakura and Franklin


Outside

Inside

1,068.8

Peninsula Golf Course

Future Urban Zone

Hibiscus and Bays


Inside

Inside

42.5

Pukekohe North - Paerata

Future Urban Zone

Franklin


Outside

Outside

824.0

Incorporates areas formerly covered by the Paerata and some/portions of the numerous Pukekohe future SP areas. No new information available.

Pukekohe South

Future Urban Zone

Franklin


Outside

Outside

629.5

Incorporates areas formerly covered by some of the numerous Pukekohe future SP areas. No new information available.

Red Hills (Pipeline)

Future Urban Zone

Rodney and HendersonMassey


Outside

Inside

530.4

Red Hills North

Future Urban Zone

Rodney and HendersonMassey


Outside

Inside

179.4

Riverhead West

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

72.7

Scott Point (Pipeline)

Future Urban Zone

Upper Harbour


Outside

Inside

145.2

Huapai - North East

Future Urban Zone

Huapai South

Future Urban Zone

Huapai West

Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. Pipeline


2,000

1,943

0.00

0.00

Made up of the 2 former SP areas (Huapai South). Note that area formerly planned for business has been replaced with a SHA. Only yield for SHA available.





293





Location

Future Urban Zone

Hibiscus and Bays


Outside

Inside

72.9

Silverdale West Business

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

228.7

Precinct is the same as the old Silverdale West special area, despite this there is no information to hand on the capacity of the area

Snells Algies

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Outside

38.9

This FUA is a portion of the SP for Snells/Algies identified as part of the 2012 study. No new information on this smaller area is available.

Takanini

Future Urban Zone

Papakura


Outside

Inside

469.0

Made up of Takanini Stages 5, 7 and 8 from legacy planning. No planning work had been done on the yields for these areas. No new information.

Area Type

Silverdale

(if applicable)

Dwelling Capacity


Local Board

Name

RUB (PAUP)

Rural Town

MUL (2010)

Notes and comments

Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. This FUA is a portion of the SP for Hibiscus Gateway identified as part of the 2012 study. No new information on this smaller area is available. Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP.



Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. Trig Road (Pipeline)

Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour

Future Urban Zone


Outside

Inside

Subdivision/residential development is not permitted in FUA, and currently there has been no work undertaken to determine the potential capacity of FUA areas apart from the region total of an additional 90,000 dwellings and 1,400 hectares of business land (as outlined in The Auckland Plan)

101.1


Wainui East

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

621.7

Warkworth (Other)

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

Warkworth

56.8

Warkworth East

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

Warkworth

99.2

Warkworth Future Business

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

Warkworth

48.7

Warkworth North

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

Warkworth

163.9

Warkworth South

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

Warkworth

389.6

Warkworth West

Future Urban Zone

Rodney


Outside

Inside

Warkworth

39.2

Wellsford

Future Urban Zone

Pipeline

Rodney


Outside

Outside

Wellsford

63.7

350

340

0.00

0.00

Same as Wellsford area as reported in Capacity for Growth Study 2012, number carried across.

Wellsford South

Future Urban Zone

Pipeline

Rodney


Outside

Outside

Wellsford

16.2

0

0

21.00

21.00

Same as Wellsford South area as reported in Capacity for Growth Study 2012, number carried across.

Whenuapai Airbase

Future Urban Zone

Upper Harbour


Outside

Inside

Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP. None of the Warkworth FU areas are the same as the proposed structure plans seen in legacy planning documents, as such they will have to fall into the 90,000/1,400 total for all areas



288.0


Whenuapai Business

Future Urban Zone

Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour


Outside

Inside

Healthcare Facility

Special Activity

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

Ardmore 1

Special Activity

Franklin

Rural

Outside

Outside

156.5

Ardmore 2

Structure Plan/ Special Area?

Franklin

Rural

Outside

Outside

2.7

Auckland Airport sub-precinct Coastal

Special Activity

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban

Outside

Outside

1,075.6

Auckland Airport sub-precinct Core

Special Activity

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban

Outside

Inside

996.6

Devonport Naval Base sub-precinct A

Special Activity


Urban

Inside

Inside

2.6

Not applicable

Devonport Naval Base sub-precinct B

Special Activity


Urban

Inside

Inside

4.9

Provides for existing defence activities


367.0 152.9

Not applicable Provides for existing healthcare activities No information on the amount of business land being provided in PAUP Provides for existing aerodrome activities No information on the amount of business land being provided in PAUP. Dwellings not permitted under the PAUP No information on the amount of business land being provided in PAUP. Dwellings not permitted under the PAUP

294



Local Board

Location

Special Activity


Urban

Inside

Inside

6.3

Rodney Thermal Energy Generation

Special Activity

Rodney

Urban

Outside

Outside

53.7

Maori Purpose

Special Activity

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

95.2

Orakei 1

Structure Plan

Orakei

Urban

Inside

Inside

24.0

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Special Activity

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

24.3

Quarry

Special Activity

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

1,426.2

Kakanui Point

Special Activity

Rodney

Rural

Outside

Outside

Karaka 2

Structure Plan

Franklin

Rural

Outside

Outside

Name

Area Type

HMNZ Dockyard

Kellys Cove

Structure Plan

Mangere 1 - SPCA

Special Activity

Martins Bay

Structure Plan

Mill Road

Structure Plan

Mount Albert 2 sub-precinct A - AIS St Helens

Other

RUB (PAUP)

Rural Town

MUL (2010)

(if applicable)

Beachlands-Pine Harbour


Dwelling Capacity



Notes and comments

Not applicable Provides for existing defence activities Not applicable Provides for possible future energy generation activities Not applicable Provides for existing and future Māori activities No maximum number of dwellings indicated in PAUP. Not applicable Provides for existing port activities Not applicable Provides for existing quarry activities

328.0

No maximum number of dwellings indicated in PAUP.

54.2


69.1

420

185

0.00

0.00

Maximum number of dwellings set in PAUP

Franklin

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban

Inside

Inside

4.0

Other

Rodney

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

4.6

65

33

0.00

0.00


Other

Manurewa

Urban

Outside

Inside

5.1

45

41

0.00

0.00


Special Activity

Albert - Eden

Urban

Inside

Inside

1.7

Dwellings not permitted under the PAUP

Mount Albert 2 sub-precinct B - AIS St Helens

Special Activity

Albert - Eden

Urban

Inside

Inside

1.9


Orewa 1 sub-precinct A

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

2.0

Orewa 1 sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

5.6

Orewa 1 sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

2.0

Orewa 1 sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

1.6

Orewa 1 sub-precinct E

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

2.4

Orewa 1 sub-precinct F

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

2.1

Orewa 2

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Inside

Orewa 3

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban

Inside

Pukekohe Hill sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Franklin

Rural

Pukekohe Hill sub-precinct D

Structure Plan

Franklin

Rural

Riverhead South

Structure Plan

Other

Rodney

Waimana Point

Structure Plan

Other

Retirement Village

Structure Plan

Omaha Flats

Structure Plan

Other

Orewa Countryside

Structure Plan

Other

Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands

Structure Plan

Riverhead 3

Structure Plan

Weiti sub-precinct A


690

640

0.00

0.00

Maximum number of dwellings set in UP

196.5

3,100

3,062

0.00

0.00

Total from Orewa West SP info (as per 2012 study) minus 826 dwellings in Orewa 3

Inside

32.0

826

824

0.00

0.00

Almost the same as Orewa West structure plan area as reported in Capacity for Growth Study 2012, number carried across.

Outside

Outside

42.6


Outside

Outside

18.0


Rural Town

Outside

Inside

Riverhead

58.6

601

585

0.00

0.00

No indication in UP as to total business land. Number extracted from structure plan number as reported in the Capacity for Growth Study 2012.

Rodney

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

Snells BeachAlgies Bay

33.3

32

25

0.00

0.00

Max dwellings indicated in PAUP

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

174.3

Rodney

Urban

Outside

Outside

603.6

1,714

1,593

0.00

0.00

Same as Point Wells/Omaha Flats Structure plan from 2012 Study

Rodney

Rural

Outside

Outside

86.0

86

86

0.00

0.00

Precinct plan limits 86 sites on which a dwelling can be built

Papakura

Urban

Outside

Outside

25.9

11

8

0.00

0.00

Formerly part of the Hingaia Structure Plan area. Landscape concept plan in PAUP indicates allocation for 11 dwellings total.

Other

Rodney

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

Riverhead

81.9

20

20

0.00

0.00

Max dwellings indicated in PAUP

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

Weiti Village

81.8

150

150

0.00

0.00

Weiti sub-precinct B

Structure Plan

Other

Hibiscus and Bays

Rural Town

Outside

Outside

Weiti Village

43.3

1,050

1,050

0.00

0.00

Weiti sub-precinct C

Structure Plan

Hibiscus and Bays

Rural

Outside

Outside


Not applicable

Same as Weiti area as used in the 2012 Capacity for Growth Study, so legacy numbers used

735.8

295

Name

Area Type

Leigh Marine Laboratory

Special Activity



Local Board

Location

MUL (2010)

Rodney

Rural

Outside

RUB (PAUP)

Outside

Rural Town (if applicable)


55.2


Dwelling Capacity



Notes and comments

Not applicable Provides for existing laboratory activities

296

Appendix P: Business areas and centres with classifications including scenario assumptions


297

Table 63: List of business areas and centres with classifications Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio

Location Contemporary

Maximum

Modified

Residential allocation factor

Average dwelling size (m2)

Average floor space per employee (m2)

Adams Drive

Business Area

Light Industry

Franklin

Rural Town

0.24

3.30

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Addison

Centre

Local Centre

Papakura

Urban Area

0.00

0.00

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Akoranga

Business Area

Business Park

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.40

4.00

0.15

1%

100

13.00

Albany

Business Area

Business Park

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.57

3.40

0.22

1%

100

13.00

Albany

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.24

9.95

0.20

50%

90

37.51

Albany Village

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.20

3.51

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Albany Village

Centre

Local Centre

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.32

2.93

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Apollo Drive

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.57

3.87

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Ascot Park

Business Area

Light Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.30

3.61

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Ascot Park

Business Area

Mixed Use

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.37

1.31

0.28

60%

100

37.37

Asquith Avenue

Business Area

Light Industry

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.51

3.53

0.14

1%

100

76.30

Avondale

Business Area

Mixed Use

Whau

Urban Area

0.08

1.19

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Avondale

Centre

Town Centre

Whau

Urban Area

0.39

5.40

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Bairds Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.35

3.87

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Balmoral

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.64

2.58

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Balmoral

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.53

3.10

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Banks Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Maungakiekie - Tamaki

Urban Area

0.27

3.79

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Barrys Point

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.68

3.84

0.16

1%

100

76.30

Barrys Point

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.30

3.84

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Beach Haven

Centre

Local Centre

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.36

2.45

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Belgium Street Business Area

Business Area

Light Industry

Franklin

Rural Town

0.08

3.79

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Belmont

Centre

Local Centre


Urban Area

0.41

2.32

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Beverly Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.31

3.90

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Blockhouse Bay

Centre

Local Centre

Whau

Urban Area

0.39

3.49

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Boston Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

1.06

1.73

0.56

1%

100

76.30

Botany

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Howick

Urban Area

0.32

13.44

0.20

50%

90

37.51

Botany

Business Area

Mixed Use

Howick

Urban Area

0.33

5.53

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Browns Bay

Business Area

Mixed Use

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.46

2.64

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Browns Bay

Centre

Town Centre

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.59

3.44

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Carbine Road

Business Area

Heavy Industry


Urban Area

0.49

0.00

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Carbine Road

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.50

3.82

0.13

1%

100

76.30

Carbine Road

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.45

5.23

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Carr Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.60

3.61

0.17

1%

100

76.30

Cartwright

Business Area

Light Industry

Whau

Urban Area

0.41

3.68

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Cartwright

Business Area

Mixed Use

Whau

Urban Area

0.48

3.91

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Cascades Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Howick

Urban Area

0.53

3.59

0.15

1%

100

76.30


298

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Central Business District

CBD

City Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

2.41

4.68

0.85

40%

76

33.98

Chelsea

Business Area

Light Industry

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.39

0.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Clendon

Centre

Local Centre

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.29

3.77

0.25

60%

100

39.36

College Hill

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.35

3.31

0.40

60%

100

37.37

Constellation Drive

Business Area

General Business

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.32

3.20

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Constellation Drive

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.44

3.81

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Crummer Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.21

5.19

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Dawson

Centre

Local Centre

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.31

3.70

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Devonport

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.77

2.66

0.29

1%

100

76.30

Devonport

Centre

Town Centre


Urban Area

0.97

2.80

0.30

50%

100

45.04

Devonport Naval Base

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.00

0.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Devonport Naval Base

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

1.03

0.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Dominion Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.64

2.60

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Don Buck Road

Centre

Local Centre

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.23

3.88

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Drury

Business Area

Light Industry

Papakura

Urban Area

0.22

3.71

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Drury

Centre

Local Centre

Papakura

Urban Area

0.17

3.65

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Drury

Business Area

Mixed Use

Papakura

Urban Area

0.28

2.55

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Duke Street

Centre


Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.41

2.29

0.30

50%

100

53.37

East Tamaki

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Howick

Urban Area

0.41

3.99

0.10

0%

100

90.83

East Tamaki North

Business Area

Light Industry

Howick

Urban Area

0.43

3.85

0.11

1%

100

76.30

East Tamaki Road

Centre


Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.39

2.80

0.30

50%

100

53.37

East Tamaki South

Business Area

Light Industry

Howick

Urban Area

0.34

3.41

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Eastridge

Centre

Local Centre

Orakei

Urban Area

0.21

3.73

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Eden Terrace

Business Area

Light Industry

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.38

3.91

0.35

1%

100

76.30

Eden Terrace

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.07

4.11

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Ellerslie

Business Area

Light Industry

Orakei

Urban Area

0.75

3.91

0.19

1%

100

76.30

Ellerslie

Business Area

Mixed Use

Orakei

Urban Area

0.59

2.86

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Ellerslie

Centre

Town Centre

Orakei

Urban Area

0.83

2.72

0.27

50%

100

45.04

Ellerslie Racecourse

Business Area

Mixed Use

Orakei

Urban Area

0.75

2.76

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Ellerslie South

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.28

3.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Ellerslie South

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.24

3.99

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Favona

Business Area

Light Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.46

3.91

0.12

1%

100

76.30

Flat Bush

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.46

3.91

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Foodstuffs Mt Roskill

Business Area

Light Industry

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.40

3.83

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Franklin Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

2.63

2.70

0.50

60%

100

37.37

Franklin Road (Pukekohe)

Business Area

Mixed Use

Franklin

Rural Town

0.26

2.26

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Glen Eden

Centre

Town Centre

Waitakere Ranges

Urban Area

0.47

5.32

0.25

50%

100

45.04


299

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Glen Innes

Business Area

Light Industry

Orakei

Urban Area

0.52

2.28

0.13

1%

100

76.30

Glen Innes

Business Area

Mixed Use

Orakei

Urban Area

0.37

3.37

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Glen Innes

Centre

Town Centre


Urban Area

0.52

5.85

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Glenbrook

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Franklin

Urban Area

0.00

3.92

0.01

0%

100

90.83

Glendene

Centre

Local Centre

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.41

3.72

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Glenfield

Centre

Town Centre

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.53

5.30

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Grafton

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.99

3.79

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Great North Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.05

4.05

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Great South Road

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.37

4.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Great South Road/Ellerslie West

Business Area

Business Park


Urban Area

0.73

4.00

0.20

1%

100

13.00


Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.91

3.94

0.23

1%

100

76.30


Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.29

4.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Greenlane

Business Area

Light Industry

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.67

3.32

0.19

1%

100

76.30

Greenlane

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.46

3.91

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Greenlane

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.49

3.72

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Greenlane West

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.71

0.00

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Greenwoods Corner

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.35

3.56

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Greville Road

Centre

Local Centre

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.19

3.55

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Grey Lynn

Centre

Local Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.48

3.02

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Gulf Harbour

Centre

Local Centre

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.68

0.00

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Hauraki Corner

Centre

Local Centre


Urban Area

0.65

3.02

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Helensville

Centre

Town Centre

Rodney

Urban Area

0.35

3.26

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Helensville North

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.22

3.65

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Helensville West

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.10

3.95

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Henderson

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.55

8.61

0.15

50%

90

37.51

Henderson South

Business Area

Light Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.37

3.79

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Henderson South

Business Area

Mixed Use

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.43

3.75

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Highbrook

Business Area

Light Industry

Howick

Urban Area

0.29

3.28

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Highbury

Business Area

Light Industry

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.72

2.91

0.24

1%

100

76.30

Highbury

Business Area

Mixed Use

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.52

3.57

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Highbury

Centre

Town Centre

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.62

3.65

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Highland Park

Business Area

Mixed Use

Howick

Urban Area

0.43

3.75

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Highland Park

Centre

Town Centre

Howick

Urban Area

0.31

5.51

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Hinemoa Street

Centre

Local Centre

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.65

3.57

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Hingaia

Business Area

Light Industry

Papakura

Urban Area

0.17

0.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Hingaia

Centre

Local Centre

Papakura

Urban Area

0.00

0.00

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Hingaia

Business Area

Mixed Use

Papakura

Urban Area

0.00

3.88

0.25

60%

100

37.37


300

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Hobsonville Corridor

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.01

4.14

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Hobsonville Village

Centre

Local Centre

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.02

2.20

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Hobsonville Village

Business Area

Mixed Use

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.03

2.51

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Howick

Business Area

Mixed Use

Howick

Urban Area

0.67

2.01

0.28

60%

100

37.37

Howick

Centre

Town Centre

Howick

Urban Area

0.59

1.91

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Huapai

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.12

3.10

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Huapai

Centre

Town Centre

Rodney

Rural Town

0.15

2.71

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Huapai

Business Area

Mixed Use

Rodney

Rural Town

0.10

4.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Hudson Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.15

4.02

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Hunters Corner

Centre

Town Centre

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.59

3.72

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Hunters Park Drive

Business Area

General Business

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.96

3.09

0.31

1%

100

59.04

Hunua Road

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Papakura

Urban Area

0.21

3.84

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Hunua Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Papakura

Urban Area

0.19

3.97

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Interplex

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.33

1.91

0.13

1%

100

76.30

Jervois Road

Centre

Local Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.69

3.09

0.25

60%

100

39.36

K Road/Newton

CBD

City Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.64

3.11

0.85

40%

76

33.98

Kahika

Business Area

Light Industry

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.44

3.50

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Kawana

Business Area

Light Industry

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.52

3.74

0.14

1%

100

76.30

Kelston

Centre

Local Centre

Whau

Urban Area

0.46

3.83

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Kingsland

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.89

2.71

0.32

60%

100

39.36

Kingsland

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

1.02

2.68

0.37

60%

100

37.37

Kitchener Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Franklin

Rural Town

0.17

3.96

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Kitchener Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Franklin

Rural Town

0.32

3.66

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Kumeu

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.13

4.18

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Kumeu

Business Area

Mixed Use

Rodney

Rural Town

0.17

3.59

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Kumeu

Centre

Town Centre

Rodney

Rural Town

0.00

0.00

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Lincoln Radio

Business Area

Light Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.02

2.31

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Lincoln Road

Business Area

General Business

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.36

3.20

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Lincoln Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.29

3.47

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Lincoln Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.60

3.79

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Lincoln Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.36

3.73

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Lunn Ave/Marua Road

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.47

3.76

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Lynfield

Centre

Local Centre

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.39

3.74

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Macleod Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.30

3.78

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Mahunga Drive

Business Area

Light Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.48

3.88

0.12

1%

100

76.30

Mairangi Bay

Centre

Local Centre

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.49

2.80

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Mairangi Bay

Business Area

Mixed Use

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.59

2.74

0.25

60%

100

37.37


301

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Makoia Road

Centre

Local Centre

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.41

3.61

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Mangere

Centre

Town Centre

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.30

3.88

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Mangere Bridge

Centre

Local Centre

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.64

3.26

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Mangere Bridge

Business Area

Mixed Use

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.17

3.78

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Mangere East

Business Area

Light Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.25

3.91

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Manukau

Business Area

General Business

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.31

3.20

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Manukau

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.71

8.98

0.20

50%

90

37.51

Manukau

Business Area

Mixed Use

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.17

5.82

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Manukau North

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.34

3.97

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Manukau North

Business Area

Mixed Use

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.31

3.31

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Manukau Road (Pukekohe)

Business Area

General Business

Franklin

Rural Town

0.31

3.22

0.15

1%

100

59.04


Business Area

Light Industry

Franklin

Rural Town

0.25

3.82

0.11

1%

100

76.30


Business Area

Mixed Use

Franklin

Rural Town

0.30

3.97

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Manukau Road North

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.50

2.99

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Manukau Road South

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.51

3.02

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Manukau West

Business Area

General Business

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.44

3.14

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Manukau West

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.42

3.87

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Manurewa

Business Area

Light Industry

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.43

3.32

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Manurewa

Centre

Town Centre

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.42

5.55

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Market Road

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.62

3.52

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Market Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.68

3.85

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Market Road

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.64

3.55

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Market Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.67

3.86

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Massey North

Business Area

General Business

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.00

2.84

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Massey North

Business Area

Light Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.02

3.54

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Massey North

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.04

11.18

0.15

50%

90

37.51

Massey North

Business Area

Mixed Use

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.01

3.60

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Meadowbank

Centre

Local Centre

Orakei

Urban Area

0.37

3.52

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Meadowlands

Centre

Local Centre

Howick

Urban Area

0.33

3.65

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Milford

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.51

2.17

0.23

1%

100

76.30

Milford

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.33

3.02

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Milford

Centre

Town Centre


Urban Area

0.55

4.50

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Mission Bay

Centre

Local Centre

Orakei

Urban Area

0.60

3.75

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Mission Bay

Business Area

Mixed Use

Orakei

Urban Area

0.61

3.88

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Moore Street

Business Area

Light Industry

Howick

Urban Area

0.57

3.59

0.16

1%

100

76.30

Morin Road

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.34

2.18

0.14

1%

100

76.30

Morin Road

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.46

3.27

0.25

60%

100

37.37


302

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Morningside

Business Area

Light Industry

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.72

3.93

0.18

1%

100

76.30

Morningside

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.84

3.89

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Morningside

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.74

3.90

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Mt Albert

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.37

1.52

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Mt Albert

Centre

Town Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.73

2.58

0.26

50%

100

45.04

Mt Albert

Business Area

Business Park

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.25

4.01

0.22

1%

100

13.00

Mt Eden

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.66

1.87

0.34

60%

100

39.36

Mt Eden

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.57

2.52

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Mt Eden/Normanby

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.89

4.02

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Mt Roskill

Centre

Local Centre

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.62

3.66

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Mt Roskill

Business Area

Mixed Use

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.54

3.36

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Mt Wellington

Centre

Local Centre


Urban Area

0.43

3.77

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Mt Wellington

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.42

3.90

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Mt Wellington Highway

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.35

3.49

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Mt Wellington North

Business Area

General Business


Urban Area

0.45

3.20

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Mt Wellington North

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.75

3.98

0.18

1%

100

76.30

Mt Wellington North

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.38

2.39

0.25

60%

100

37.37

New Lynn

Business Area

General Business

Whau

Urban Area

0.49

3.18

0.15

1%

100

59.04

New Lynn

Business Area

Light Industry

Whau

Urban Area

0.52

3.58

0.14

1%

100

76.30

New Lynn

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Whau

Urban Area

0.46

8.90

0.15

50%

90

37.51

New North Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.95

3.82

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Newmarket

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.69

4.45

0.35

50%

90

37.51

Newmarket North

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.33

5.01

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Newmarket South

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.71

2.86

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Newmarket West

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.97

5.05

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Newton

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.37

0.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Newton - Upper Symonds St

Centre

Town Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.18

3.84

0.26

50%

100

45.04

Newton/Grafton

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.07

0.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

North Harbour Industrial Estate

Business Area

General Business

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.41

3.17

0.15

1%

100

59.04

North Harbour Industrial Estate

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.45

3.74

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Northcote

Centre

Town Centre

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.57

5.20

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Northcote Road/Akoranga

Business Area

General Business

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.30

3.06

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Onehunga

Centre

Town Centre


Urban Area

0.69

4.63

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Onehunga East

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.49

3.44

0.13

1%

100

76.30

Onehunga East

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.53

3.68

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Onehunga South

Business Area

Heavy Industry


Urban Area

0.27

3.78

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Onehunga South

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.44

3.50

0.12

1%

100

76.30


303

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Onehunga South

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.73

4.72

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Onehunga West

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.39

3.89

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Onehunga West

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.68

4.30

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Onewa Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.59

3.60

0.14

1%

100

76.30

Orakei

Business Area

Mixed Use

Orakei

Urban Area

0.22

0.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Orewa

Business Area

Mixed Use

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.29

3.17

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Orewa

Centre

Town Centre

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.64

4.21

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Ormiston

Centre

Town Centre

Howick

Urban Area

0.00

0.00

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Ormiston Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.29

3.97

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Ormiston Road

Centre

Local Centre

Howick

Urban Area

0.44

3.39

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Oruarangi Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.05

0.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Otahuhu

Business Area

Mixed Use

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.48

4.51

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Otahuhu

Centre

Town Centre

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.67

4.73

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Otahuhu East

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.03

3.62

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Otahuhu Industrial

Business Area

Light Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.41

3.89

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Otahuhu Industrial

Business Area

Mixed Use

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.49

4.33

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Otahuhu South

Business Area

Mixed Use

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.20

3.46

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Otahuhu West

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.33

3.89

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Otahuhu West

Business Area

Light Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.28

3.86

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Otara

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.49

3.83

0.12

1%

100

76.30

Otara

Centre

Town Centre

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

1.10

3.98

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Pacific Events Drive

Business Area

Mixed Use

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.33

3.90

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Paerata

Business Area

Light Industry

Franklin

Rural Town

0.13

4.27

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Pah Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.41

3.28

0.12

1%

100

76.30

Pah Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.31

2.02

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Pakuranga

Business Area

Mixed Use

Howick

Urban Area

0.31

3.31

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Pakuranga

Centre

Town Centre

Howick

Urban Area

0.57

7.33

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Panmure

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.38

1.27

0.29

60%

100

37.37

Panmure

Centre

Town Centre


Urban Area

0.60

0.00

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Papakura

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Papakura

Urban Area

0.66

6.21

0.15

50%

90

37.51

Papakura

Business Area

Mixed Use

Papakura

Urban Area

0.32

3.58

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Papakura East

Business Area

Light Industry

Papakura

Urban Area

0.46

2.78

0.16

1%

100

76.30

Papakura West

Business Area

Light Industry

Papakura

Urban Area

0.17

3.56

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Papatoetoe

Centre

Town Centre

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.43

5.34

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Parnell

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.53

3.95

0.35

60%

100

37.37

Parnell

Centre

Town Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.27

2.76

0.38

50%

100

45.04

Parnell North

Business Area

Light Industry

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.28

3.65

0.35

1%

100

76.30


304

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Parnell North

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.19

3.73

0.31

60%

100

37.37

Penrose

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.52

3.60

0.14

1%

100

76.30

Pilkington Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Orakei

Urban Area

0.55

3.98

0.13

1%

100

76.30

Plunket Avenue

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.33

3.20

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Plunket Avenue

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.33

3.13

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Ponsonby Road

Centre

Town Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.88

2.55

0.32

50%

100

45.04

Portage Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Mangere - Otahuhu

Urban Area

0.49

3.76

0.13

1%

100

76.30

Pt Chevalier

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.31

3.25

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Pt Chevalier

Centre

Town Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.36

3.09

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Puhinui

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.13

3.92

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Puhinui

Business Area

Light Industry

Otara - Papatoetoe

Urban Area

0.30

3.41

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Pukekohe

Business Area

Mixed Use

Franklin

Rural Town

0.24

3.62

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Pukekohe

Centre

Town Centre

Franklin

Rural Town

0.63

3.77

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Pukekohe Pak n Save

Business Area

General Business

Franklin

Rural Town

0.27

3.17

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Ranui

Centre

Local Centre

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.21

3.53

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Remuera

Centre

Town Centre

Orakei

Urban Area

0.89

3.41

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Remuera Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Orakei

Urban Area

0.63

3.86

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Richmond Road

Business Area

General Business

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.00

3.16

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Richmond Road

Centre

Local Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.74

2.50

0.29

60%

100

39.36

Richmond Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.82

3.68

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Riverhead

Centre

Local Centre

Rodney

Rural Town

0.19

2.62

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Riverhead

Business Area

Mixed Use

Rodney

Rural Town

0.10

3.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Rosebank Road

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Whau

Urban Area

0.42

3.90

0.10

0%

100

90.83

Rosebank Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Whau

Urban Area

0.48

3.91

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Rosedale Road/Tawa Road

Business Area

General Business

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.51

3.19

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Rosedale Road/Tawa Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.14

0.95

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Roskill South

Centre


Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.72

2.45

0.30

50%

100

53.37

Royal Oak

Centre

Town Centre


Urban Area

0.53

5.12

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Sandringham

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.60

2.44

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Sawmill Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.00

4.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Silverdale

Centre

Town Centre

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.21

2.96

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Silverdale South

Business Area

General Business

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.41

3.15

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Silverdale South

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.34

4.00

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Silverdale South

Business Area

Light Industry

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.15

3.49

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Silverdale South

Business Area

Mixed Use

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.21

3.84

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Silverdale West

Business Area

General Business

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.00

1.42

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Smales Farm

Business Area

Business Park


Urban Area

0.38

4.00

0.22

1%

100

13.00


305

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Snells Beach

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.11

4.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Snells Beach

Centre

Local Centre

Rodney

Rural Town

0.33

3.10

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Southdown

Business Area

General Business


Urban Area

0.54

4.08

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Southdown

Business Area

Heavy Industry


Urban Area

0.00

0.00

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Southdown

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.47

3.74

0.12

1%

100

76.30

Span Farm

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Whau

Urban Area

0.33

3.84

0.09

0%

100

90.83

St Heliers

Centre

Local Centre

Orakei

Urban Area

0.94

3.75

0.25

60%

100

39.36

St Lukes

Business Area

Mixed Use

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.70

3.62

0.25

60%

100

37.37

St Lukes

Centre

Town Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.52

0.63

0.71

50%

100

45.04

Stadium Drive

Business Area

Mixed Use

Franklin

Rural Town

0.42

3.86

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Stanley Street/Carlaw Park

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.97

3.92

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Stoddard Road

Business Area

General Business

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.38

3.20

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Stoddard Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.56

4.00

0.14

1%

100

76.30

Stoddard Road

Business Area

Mixed Use

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.41

3.87

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Stoddard Road

Centre

Town Centre

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.46

1.97

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Stonefields

Centre

Local Centre

Orakei

Urban Area

0.00

3.96

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Stonefields

Business Area

Mixed Use

Orakei

Urban Area

0.00

3.90

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Sunnynook

Centre

Local Centre


Urban Area

0.30

3.54

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Surrey Crescent

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.20

3.38

0.27

60%

100

37.37

Swanson

Centre

Local Centre

Waitakere Ranges

Urban Area

0.31

3.54

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Swanson-Airdrie

Business Area

Light Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.15

3.71

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Swanson-Brick Street

Business Area

Light Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.37

3.84

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Sylvia Park

Business Area

General Business


Urban Area

2.78

3.20

0.18

1%

100

59.04

Sylvia Park

Centre

Metropolitan Centre


Urban Area

0.34

13.60

0.15

50%

90

37.51

Sylvia Park

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.33

4.87

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Taharoto Road

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.35

2.84

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Takanini

Business Area

Light Industry

Papakura

Urban Area

0.36

3.85

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Takanini

Business Area

Mixed Use

Papakura

Urban Area

0.00

0.00

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Takanini

Centre

Town Centre

Papakura

Urban Area

0.36

3.98

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Takanini North

Business Area

Light Industry

Papakura

Urban Area

0.15

2.40

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Takapuna

Centre

Metropolitan Centre


Urban Area

1.42

7.38

0.25

50%

90

37.51

Takapuna

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.45

4.36

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Te Atatu Peninsula

Business Area

Mixed Use

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.68

3.68

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Te Atatu Peninsula

Centre

Town Centre

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.27

3.54

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Te Atatu South

Centre

Local Centre

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.30

3.57

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Te Mahia

Business Area

Light Industry

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.29

3.83

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Te Papapa/Penrose South

Business Area

Heavy Industry


Urban Area

0.30

2.52

0.11

0%

100

90.83


306

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Te Papapa/Penrose South

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.50

3.45

0.14

1%

100

76.30

The Concourse

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.30

2.25

0.13

0%

100

90.83

Thornton Road

Business Area

Mixed Use


Urban Area

0.27

3.71

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Three Kings

Centre

Town Centre

Puketapapa

Urban Area

0.48

4.62

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Three Lamps

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitemata

Urban Area

1.11

3.63

0.30

60%

100

37.37

Three Lamps

Centre

Town Centre

Waitemata

Urban Area

0.94

2.76

0.30

50%

100

45.04

Titirangi

Centre

Local Centre

Waitakere Ranges

Urban Area

0.39

0.00

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Upland Road

Centre


Orakei

Urban Area

0.59

2.52

0.30

50%

100

53.37

Valley Road

Centre

Local Centre

Albert - Eden

Urban Area

0.59

2.63

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Verrans Corner

Business Area

Light Industry

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.34

3.26

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Waikaukau Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Waitakere Ranges

Urban Area

0.27

3.38

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Waikaukau Road

Centre


Waitakere Ranges

Urban Area

0.28

2.37

0.30

50%

100

53.37

Waikuku South

Business Area

Mixed Use

Franklin

Rural Town

0.22

3.81

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Waikumete

Business Area

Light Industry

Waitakere Ranges

Urban Area

0.28

3.94

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Wairau Valley

Business Area

General Business

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.38

2.82

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Wairau Valley

Business Area

Light Industry

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.48

3.85

0.12

1%

100

76.30

Wairau Valley

Business Area

Mixed Use

Kaipatiki

Urban Area

0.32

3.97

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Waiuku

Centre

Local Centre

Franklin

Rural Town

0.37

3.81

0.25

60%

100

39.36

Waiuku East

Business Area

Light Industry

Franklin

Rural Town

0.01

2.95

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Warkworth

Business Area

General Business

Rodney

Rural Town

0.36

2.95

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Warkworth

Business Area

Mixed Use

Rodney

Rural Town

0.18

2.86

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Warkworth

Centre

Town Centre

Rodney

Rural Town

0.46

3.32

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Warkworth Industrial

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.28

3.84

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Warkworth Retail Park

Business Area

General Business

Rodney

Rural Town

0.43

2.31

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Wellsford

Centre

Town Centre

Rodney

Rural Town

0.33

0.00

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Wellsford East

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.20

3.93

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Wellsford South

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.04

2.49

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Wellsford West

Business Area

Light Industry

Rodney

Rural Town

0.30

3.85

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Westech Place

Business Area

Light Industry

Waitakere Ranges

Urban Area

0.55

3.66

0.13

1%

100

76.30

Westech Place

Business Area

Mixed Use

Waitakere Ranges

Urban Area

0.31

3.53

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Westfield/Mt Wellington Highway

Business Area

Light Industry


Urban Area

0.43

3.85

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Westgate

Business Area

General Business

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.33

3.93

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Westgate

Centre

Metropolitan Centre

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.41

7.55

0.15

30%

90

37.51

Westlynn

Centre


Waitemata

Urban Area

1.02

1.74

0.59

50%

100

53.37

Whangaparaoa

Centre

Town Centre

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.63

3.94

0.25

50%

100

45.04

Whangaparaoa Business

Business Area

Mixed Use

Hibiscus and Bays

Urban Area

0.37

3.22

0.25

60%

100

37.37

Wharf Road

Business Area

Light Industry

Henderson - Massey

Urban Area

0.35

3.98

0.11

1%

100

76.30


307

Assumptions Name

Group

Classification

Local board

Floor area ratio


Maximum

Modified




Whenuapai Pinepac

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.08

2.07

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Whenuapai Village

Centre


Upper Harbour

Rural Town

0.34

2.52

0.30

50%

100

53.37

Whenuapai Village

Business Area

Light Industry

Upper Harbour

Urban Area

0.00

0.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Wiri

Business Area

Heavy Industry

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.32

3.98

0.09

0%

100

90.83

Wiri East

Business Area

Light Industry

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.32

4.00

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Wiri West

Business Area

General Business

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.00

3.20

0.15

1%

100

59.04

Wiri West

Business Area

Light Industry

Manurewa

Urban Area

0.25

4.02

0.11

1%

100

76.30

Wolverton Street

Business Area

Light Industry

Whau

Urban Area

0.52

3.89

0.13

1%

100

76.30

Wolverton Street

Business Area

Mixed Use

Whau

Urban Area

0.19

3.44

0.25

60%

100

37.37


308

Appendix Q: Local board groups


309

Appendix R: THAB zone modelling code THAB Modelling Approach Three yield calculations are undertaken based on the location of the parcel within the site selection criteria matrix shown on Figure 24. The steps below outline the approach taken on fully compliant (orange) THAB development sites, and then smaller sites are calculated last being those that fail the initial tests. 1. Find candidates: 

Smaller (white) sites theoretical yield - if site is vacant, then one dwelling allowed, if occupied, no further development.



Minimum subdivision size sites (green) (parcels larger than 1200 square metres and greater than 20 metres frontage) - subdivision rules in the THAB zone allow for creation of sites of this size, assume MHU style development as Discretionary Activity.



Fully compliant THAB development sites (orange) (frontage greater than 25 metres)

2. Calculate development potential on orange candidates 

Calculate capacity (in orange sites)



Calculate 40% (max_building_coverage) of site area.



Calculate ‘max number of levels’ (= 4 unless _length_frontage_calculated > 30m AND the relevant AddtionalBuildingHeight Overlay > 4)



max_ground_floor_area * max_number_of_levels = max_gross_floor_area



Divide max_gross_floor_area by assumed average_gross_apartment_floor_area to obtain gross_dwelling_potential



THAB dwelling yield = gross_dwelling_potential - _count_dwellings

3. Calculate development potential on green candidates 

Green 1200 m² / > 20 < 25 m frontage site development is based on the Mixed Housing Urban approach (see)

4. Calculate development potential on white candidates 

If _count_dwellings = 0, THEN Dwelling_yeild = 1, ELSE Dwelling_Yield = 0

Notes on yields: 

Negative values are reset to zero - these sites do not have potential to realise more sites than they currently contain.



Dwelling yields of less than four are reset to zero - development producing less than four new dwellings is a Discretionary Activity, and is additionally only an occurrence on parcels with significant numbers of existing dwellings - redevelopment under the new THAB rules to yield a couple more dwellings is unfeasible.


310

Table 64: THAB VAR_x description Term

_length_parcel_road_frontage

_max_ground_floor_area

Value

25 and 30

Calculated

_max_building_coverage

0.4 (40%)

_storey_max

= 4, or > 4 where frontage > 30 AND ABH overlay exists

_max_gross_floor_area

_average_gross_apartment_floor_area

Calculated

Must be > minimum dwelling size (= 30 m²) Value used is = 110 m²

Source

Comment

Plan Rule

Sites with frontage between 25 and 30 capped at four storeys irrespective of additional building height overlay. Sites over 30 AND with additional building height overlay can go to five or six storeys, depending on additional building height overlay value.

max_building_coverage × site area

Can be cross checked against yards AND UPPER LEVEL SETBACKS to ensure it is no greater than this, but business modelling experience suggests that 40% maximum is so restrictive as to avoid any potential conflict in most situations.

Plan rule

This is the key limitation on potential development of floor space for buildings in this zone.

Plan rule

Additional building height overlay y and frontage dependant. Calculated at candidate selection stage.

max_ground_floor_area × _storey_max

This is the maximum permissible above ground level gross floor area. Not all will be dwelling area (common areas, corridors parking etc.).

From plan rule on minimum + rule on mix of dwellings

The average allows for a mix of sizes and allowance for some share of common areas access and building services and above ground level parking (if any) as this will chew up building bulk if provided that could otherwise be used for dwellings space. Note that this value is not the internal area of the dwelling, but the gross area of the building required for each dwelling on average.


311

Table 65: THAB Input Variables Variable name

Value

Term

VAR_1

1200

_parcel_area_min

VAR_2

20

_length_parcel_road_frontage_3levels

VAR_3

25


VAR_4

30


VAR_5

0.4

max_building_coverage

VAR_6

110

average_gross_apartment_floor_area

'Pseudo code' used to inform FME modelling ‘Pseudo code’ is the intermediate step between the PAUP rules and the FME workbench, where the PAUP rules are translated into logic statements following common programming format rules (but not any particular language), hence, ‘pseudo’ code. These logic statements are then easily translatable into the ‘transformers’ used in FME, but also other software. Note: Code is for redevelopment but also applies to vacant. indicated in Figure 24.

Steps apply to the site definitions

/* Parcels less than 1200 m2 (white section) IF _area_multipart_parcel_calculated < VAR_1 THEN /* Single Dwelling Only – insufficient frontage /* Code will only apply to Vacant in practice as Redevelopment _count_dwellings > 0 IF _length_parcel_rd_frontage < VAR_2 THEN IF _count_dwellings = 0 THEN _yield_thab_redevelopment = 1.0 ELSE _yield_thab_redevelopment = 0 2 /* MHU style development/min subdivision parcels (1200 m and 20-25 m frontage – Green section) /* Note: MHU_STYLE_DWELLING_DENSITY = 104.0 (source from 3 level development assumptions in MHZ, using the parameter $LP_L3_DWELLING_AREA

IF VAR_2 ≤ _length_parcel_rd_frontage < VAR_3 THEN _count_thab_3level_dwellings = ROUNDDOWN(_area_multipart_parcel_calculated/($LP_L3_DWELLING_AREA))

/* This code resets any gross dwelling count of less than 4 dwellings from the above calculation to 0 (development of less than 4 dwellings), or if its greater than 4 the final yield is then calculated, and any negatives reset to 0. IF _count_thab_3level_dwellings ≤ 4 THEN _yield_thab_3level_redevelopment = 0

ELSEIF _yield_thab_3level_redevelopment = _count_thab_3level_dwellings - _count_dwellings

ENDIF ENDIF

IF _yield_thab_3level_redevelopment < 0 THEN _yield_thab_3level_redevelopment = 0 ENDIF


312

/*Parcels greater than 25m frontage (THAB Provisions, Blue and Orange sections) IF _length_parcel_rd_frontage ≥ VAR_3 THEN /* Calculate max number of stories – if frontage is less than 25m then max stories cannot exceed 4, if frontage is greater than 30m then max stories is controlled by overlays. IF _length_parcel_rd_frontage < VAR_4 THEN _storey_max = 4 ELSE /* THAB Sites ≥30m frontage. < DO SPATIAL OVERLAY to obtain storey Max, using Point (Parcel Centroid) on Polygon (ABH Overlay) > /*Note, inherits attribute _storey_max from AdditionalBuildingHeight and Volcanic Viewshaft Overlay spatial overlay */Calculation of _max_ground_floor_area _max_ground_floor_area = _area_multipart_parcel_calculated * VAR_5 */Calculation of _max_ gross_floor_area _max_gross_floor_area = _max_ground_floor_area * _storey_max */Calculation of _count_thab_dwellings _count_thab_dwellings = ROUNDDOWN (max_gross_floor_area / VAR_6) */Calculation of Yield _yield_thab_redevelopment = _count_thab_dwellings - _count_dwellings ENDIF IF _yield_thab_redevelopment < 0 THEN _yield_thab_redevelopment = 0


313

Appendix S: Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones modelling code MHU Publishable Parameter Variables (for LUT) Table 66: MHU and MHS VAR_x description Var_x

Description

VAR_1

Minimum _length_parcel_rd_frontage to enable YIELD > VAR_2, Also /2 to obtain frontage required for VAR_6 Density

VAR_2

yield_mhz_frontage_limited if _length_parcel_rd_frontage < VAR_1;

VAR_3

Minimum _length_parcel_rd_frontage for Large Parcels;

VAR_4

Minimum _area_parcel_multipart_calculated for Large Parcels;

VAR_5

Dwelling Density on Large Parcels;

VAR_6

Dwelling Density on smaller parcels with frontage ≥ VAR_1/2 per dwelling

Table 67: MHU and MHS VAR_ input variables Zone Qualifier/variable NUP_MHU

NUP_MHS

PARCEL_AREA_MIN_QAULIFIER

500

600

PARCEL_AREA_MIN_QAULIFIER

300

400

VAR_1

15

15

VAR_2

2

2

VAR_3

20

20

VAR_4

1,200

1,200

VAR_5

104

200

VAR_6

250

300

MHU and MHS 'Pseudo Code' used to inform FME modelling ‘Pseudo code’ is the intermediate step between the PAUP rules and the FME workbench, where the PAUP rules are translated into logic statements following common programming format rules (but not any particular language), hence, ‘pseudo’ code. These logic statements are then easily translatable into the ‘transformers’ used in FME, but also other software. Note: Code is for redevelopment but also applies to vacant /* Pre site selection criteria for Redevelopment ALL (MHU and MHS are subsets of this process): 

Exclude designations



Find parcels with valid buildings (parcels without valid buildings are tested as vacant)


314



Exclude zones where redevelopment is not allowed because heritage dwellings cannot be removed (CFGS_UID "OV_SPCH_")



Find valid development parcel (exclude access lots etc.) using spatial queries and shape test

Mixed Housing (Urban and Suburban) The code below works for both Mixed Housing Urban and Suburban, with the different VAR_ variables (based on the rules of the two zones) driving different results

Site Selection using Coloured Box as guide /* Select Parcels for Processing, based on area and road frontage (Note this step replicates the definitions shown in Figure 26: Mixed Housing Urban zone frontage/area rule diagram and Figure 27: Mixed Housing Suburban zone frontage/area rule diagram Filter on 1 AND (2 OR (3 AND 4 AND 5)) 1 = ASSESSMENT_TYPE = Frontage (MHZ zones) 2 = _area_parcel_multipart_calculated ≥ VAR_4 (being 1200) 3 = _area_parcel_multipart_calculated ≥ (PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL * 2.0) 4 = _area_parcel_multipart_calculated < VAR_4 5 = _length_parcel_rd_frontage < VAR_1 (being 15) Parcels that PASS are coloured parcels, those that FAIL are grey (refer Figure 26 and Figure 27) /*Coloured Parcels: /*BLUE

IF _length_parcel_road_frontage ≤ VAR_1 THEN _count_mhz_frontage_limited_dwellings = VAR_2

/*YELLOW IF _length_parcel_road_frontage ≤ VAR_3 AND _area_parcel_multipart_calculated ≤ (PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL * 4.0) THEN _count_mhz_frontage_limited_dwellings = VAR_2 + 1.0 /* RED

IF _length_parcel_road_frontage ≤ VAR_3 AND _area_parcel_multipart_calculated > (PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL * 4.0) THEN _count_mhz_frontage_limited_dwellings = VAR_2 + 2.0

/* GREEN "Unlimited Density" IF _length_parcel_road_frontage > VAR_3 AND _area_parcel_multipart_calculated > (VAR_4) THEN _count_mhz_large_parcel_multilevel_dwellings = ROUNDDOWN( (_area_parcel_multipart_calculated)/ (VAR_5)) /* GREY Parcels _yield_mhz_1 = (_area_parcel_multipart_calculated)/(PARCEL_AREA_MIN_INFILL) _yield_mhz_2a =(_area_parcel_multipart_calculated)/(VAR_6) _yield_mhz_2b =(_length_parcel_rd_frontage)/((VAR_1)/2.0) _ yield_mhz_2 = MIN(_yield_mhz_2a, _yield_mhz_2b) _max_count_mhz = ROUNDDOWN(MAX(_ yield_mhz_1, _ yield_mhz_2)) Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

315

/* Multiparts to single parcels aggregated by PAR_ID, Final Yields Calculated _yeild_MHZ = (_max_count_mhz - _count_dwellings) IF _yeild_MHZ < 0 THEN _yeild_MHZ = 0 */ VACANT Candidates: Final yield determinations where frontage rules apply IF _max_count_mhz EXISTS THEN _yield_mhz_vacant = _max_count_mhz - _count_dwellings /* vacant sites so _count_dwelling should equal zero ELSE _yield_mhz_vacant = _count_parcel_dwelling_yield_integer IF _yield_mhz_vacant ≤ 0 THEN _yield_mhz_vacant = 1 ENDIF */ REDEVELOPMENT Candidates: Final yield determinations where frontage rules apply IF _max_count_mhz EXISTS THEN _yield_mhz_redevelopment = _max_count_mhz - _count_dwellings ELSE _yield_mhz_redevelopment = _count_parcel_dwelling_yield_integer IF _yield_mhz_redevelopment < 0 THEN _yield_mhz_redevelopment = 0 END IF


316

Appendix T: Rural zones modelling code This section outlines the ‘pseudo code’ used for the Rule to FME workbench translation process, and should be read in conjunction with the workbenches. ‘Pseudo code’ is the intermediate step between the PAUP rules and the FME workbench, where the PAUP rules are translated into logic statements following common programming format rules (but not any particular language), hence, ‘pseudo’ code. These logic statements are then easily translatable into the ‘transformers’ used in FME, but also other software. References to rules are further outlined in detail in Section 10.0 Rural residential capacity methodology.

Latent capacity 0B: Vacant titles where dwelling is permitted Published parameters: $VACANT_TITLE_AREA_MIN = 20,000 m2 Constraint layers: Second_Third_Dwelling_Exclusions_RuralCoastal.gbd Calculation: Undertake the following test criteria: _count_dwellings = 0 _area_title_footprint_calculated > $VACANT_TITLE_AREA_MIN _title_issue_date_newest > 19721231 _count_designations = 0 located outside of Second_Third_Dwelling_Exclusions_RuralCoastal.gdb located outside of Rodney Landscape Group (Select Zones: CFGS_UID IN (PR_10_341_0, PR_10_342_0, PR_10_343_0, PR_10_344_0, PR_10_345_0, PR_10_346_0, PR_10_347_0, PR_10_348_0, PR_10_349_0, PR_10_350_0)) IF (1 AND (2 OR 3) AND 4 AND 5 AND 6) THEN _ yield_permitted_unnoccupied_title = 1 ELSE _ yield_permitted_unnoccupied_title = 0

Minimum site area subdivision 1A: 150 hectare subdivision Spatial constraint layer: Building_Platform_Constraints_Subdivision (BPCS) See Figure 60. LUT: VAR_1 = 300 ha VAR_2 = 150 ha Published parameters: $SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2 Calculation: /* Select titles of big enough area to be chopped in at least half: Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

317

_area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ VAR_1

/*Calculate number of potential new dwellings based on land area of title and accounting for existing dwellings also having 150ha each: _yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN(_area_title_footprint_calculated /VAR_2)) - _count_dwellings

/*Check that there is sufficient area on site free of constraints for each new dwelling. BPC is derived from a set of spatial overlays determined previously. Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain a maximum number of potential building platforms. _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated - _area_BPCS _yield_2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN /* Calculate final yield using the smallest figure from calculation of Lots and Building Platforms, being the maximum number of compliant additional dwellings possible per title from 150ha subdivision: _yield_subdiv_1a_150 = MIN(_yield_1,_yield_2)

Minimum Site Area Subdivision 1B: Countryside Living (w/out TRSS) Additional inputs: CSL_Location.gdb CFGS_ASSESS_RUR_CSL_LUT.xlsx Spatial constraint layer: Building_Platform_Constraints_Subdivision (BPCS) See Figure 60. CSL_LUT: MIN_TITLE_AREA_QUALIFIER_WITHOUT_TRSS MIN_TITLE_AREA _WITHOUT_TRSS Published parameters: $VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2 $CSL_ROAD_FRONTAGE_LENGTH_MIN = 6 m Calculation: /* Do a spatial Overlay against CSL_Location.gdb to append field CSL_UID to the spatial features which enables a lookup against CFGS_ASSESS_RUR_CSL_LUT.xlsx to append the following attributes to the CSL Parcels: MIN_TITLE_AREA_QUALIFIER_WITHOUT_TRSS MIN_TITLE_AREA _WITHOUT_TRSS /* Select titles in CSL that can be subdivided, AND are big enough area to be chopped in at least half _area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ MIN_TITLE_AREA_QUALIFIER_WITHOUT_TRSS

/*Calculate number of potential new lots, while allowing for any existing dwellings to be on appropriately sized lots. If there current number of dwellings is 0, allowance is made for the vacant entitlement to be take up before allowing for further new vacant lots:. IF _count_dwellings = 0 THEN _yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN(_area_title_footprint_calculated / MIN_TITLE_AREA _WITHOUT_TRSS)) - 1.0 ELSE _yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN(_area_title_footprint_calculated / MIN_TITLE_AREA _WITHOUT_TRSS)) _count_dwellings


318

/*Check that there is sufficient building platform area on site free of constraints for each new dwelling. BPC is derived from a set of spatial overlays determined previously. Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain a maximum building platform yield:. _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated - _area_BPCD _yield_2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/* Check the amount of road frontage by dividing it by the minimum required for each rear lot:

_yield_3 = (ROUNDDOWN(_title_road_frontage_length_calculated / CSL_ROAD_FRONTAGE_LENGTH_MIN)) _count_dwellings /*select lowest of yield_1, yield_2 and _yield_3, as this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible on each CSL Title: _yield = ROUNDDOWN(MIN(_yield_1,_yield_2, _yield_3))

IF _yield < 0 THEN _yield = 0

Rename _yield to _yield_subdiv_1b_cslpretrss

TRSS 2A1: Vacant Donors Published parameters: $VACANT_DONOR_AREA_MIN = 10,000 m2 $VACANT_DONOR_TITLE_ISSUE_DATE_MIN = 19721231 $VACANT_DONOR_AMALG_AREA_MIN = 400,000 m2 Donor Zones - Refer LUT and Processing guide. This is taken from Table 6 in the Subdivision Rules. They include Rural Conservation, Rural Coastal, Mixed Rural, Rural Production, and Future Urban. Note the Future Urban zone is also a Vacant Amalgamation Donor zone. Titles information in this zone also needs to be created, tidied and run in the Rural Titles creation process as an 'exception' so that these titles can be queried in this rule set that otherwise only . Calculation: /* Select ALL titles from specified donor zones (to be known as Set A) /* Select from Set A titles that are both vacant AND of the required size OR age (as proxy for TA issued title) - a further test is added where valuation_ref data (the database key for adding dwelling count and other necessary data from rates assessments information) is incomplete to remove false positives - this may also remove valid titles but as we are unable to be sure they are vacant, they are excluded: Undertake the following test criteria: _dwelling_count = 0 (_area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ VACANT_DONOR_AREA_MIN _title_issue_date_newest > VACANT_DONOR_TITLE_ISSUE_DATE_MIN) Drop titles where _valuationref_formatted begins with "Unknown" (Missing Property IQ data - uncertain of dwelling count etc.)

Filter 1 AND (2 OR 3) AND 4 (to be known as Set B)


319

/* SPATIAL TEST: Create a list of Set A titles that TOUCH (shared boundary) Set B titles and remove titles that touch themselves. This is the set of possible neighbouring amalgamatee titles - i.e. those adjoining titles that the vacant donor title abuts, for further testing for the ability to amalgamate into, also create a count. This is termed as a 'neighbour adjacency test' Set: _count_title_amalg_neighbours = count of appropriately zoned titles the vacant title abuts /*Further qualify adjoining neighbour titles with amalgamation test criteria, to ensure the combined density of the resulting site is no less than 1 dwelling per 40 ha (i.e. combined area ≥ 40 ha, AND maximum combined dwelling density ≤1:40 ha). Undertake the following test criteria: (_area_title_footprint_calculated_vacantdonor + _area_title_footprint_calculated_neighbourdonor) ≥ VACANT_DONOR_AMALG_AREA_MIN _count_dwellings_adjoiningdonor /(_area_title_footprint_calculated_vacantdonor + _area_title_footprint_calculated_adjoiningdonor) ≤ (1.0 / VACANT_DONOR_AMALG_AREA_MIN) count_title_amalg_candidates < _count_title_amalg_neighbours

IF (1 AND 2 AND 3) THEN Set: _count_title_amalg_candidates

/* If after these tests there remain vacant titles where the count of remaining neighbours (which are now considered to be valid amalgamatee candidates) is greater than zero (note that multiple candidates are possible in many instances) then these vacant titles are considered to be valid Vacant TRSS donors, and have a vacant donor yield of 1. That is they have the potential to donate 1 dwelling to an appropriate receiver (making the onsite dwelling yield = 0 if taken). IF _count_title_amalg_candidates > 0 THEN _yield_trss_2a1_vacant_donor = 1

An additional QA test is built in to ensure that the _count_candidates is less than or equal to the _count_neighbours

TRSS 2A2: Vacant Receiver Modelling code: /* Select Titles from specified receiver zones (refer Subdivision Table 6). Titles that are NOT within CSL areas move to Stream A and those that are within CSL Areas go to Stream B.

Stream A: Non-CSL Sites: Spatial constraint layers: Building_Platform_Constraints_nonCSL_Receiver (BPCnCSLR) Building_Platform_Exclusions_nonCSL_Receiver (BPEnCSLR) Published parameters: $VACANT_RECEIVER_AREA_MIN_QUALIFIER = 40,000 m2 $VACANT_RECEIVER_AREA_MIN = 20,000 m2 Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

320

$VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2 Calculation: /* Select Titles in the Receiver Zones and those that are big enough to receive TRSS _area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ $VACANT_RECEIVER_AREA_MIN_QUALIFIER /* Check to ensure sites contain no Building_Platform_Exclusions_nonCSL_Receiver using Spatial Overlay _count_overlap_BPEnCLSR = 0.

/*Calculate net parcel area suitable for receiving building platforms, then filter those without sufficient building platform area _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated - _area_ BPCnCSLR _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated ≥ $VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN /* Max Yield is dependent on Zone. /*Rural Production is permitted to receive 1 donor site only IF CFGS_UID = ZN_4_16 THEN _yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver = 1

/* Other Non-CSL Donor Zones can receive at a rate of 1 donor per 2ha. (***note Rural Conservation (ZN_ 4_15) and Rural Coastal (ZN_4_46) are new Vacant receivers, but only of donors from the same zone - however this is not relevant for the calculation of potential to be a receiver and will be accounted for in post-processing analysis). ELSEIF

CFGS_UID in (ZN_4_11, ZN_ 4_15, ZN_4_46) THEN

/*Calculate number of potential new lots for dwellings (= _yield_1): _yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN(_area_title_footprint_calculated / VACANT_RECEIVER_AREA_MIN)) _count_dwellings /*Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain number of potential building platforms (= _yield_2): _yield_2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/*select lowest of yield_1 and yield_2 as this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible (with a lot and building platform each of the required size) _yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver = MIN(_yield_1,_yield_2)

Stream B: CSL Sites: Additional inputs: CSL_Location.gdb CFGS_ASSESS_RUR_CSL_LUT.xlsx Spatial constraint layers: Building_Platform_Constraints_CSL_Receiver (BPCCSLR) Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

321

Building_Platform_Exclusions_CSL_Receiver (BPECSLR) LUT: MIN_TITLE_AREA_QUALIFIER_WITH_TRSS MIN_TITLE_AREA _WITH_TRSS Published parameters: $VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2 $CSL_ROAD_FRONTAGE_LENGTH_MIN = 6 m Calculations: /* Select titles in CSL that can receive TRSS, AND are big enough area to be chopped in at least half: TRSS_Receiver = Yes AND _area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ MIN_TITLE_AREA_QUALIFIER_WITH_TRSS /* Check to ensure sites contain no Building_Platform_Exclusions_CSL_Receiver: _count_overlap_BPECLSR = 0

/*Calculate number of potential new lots (= _yield_1) _yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN(_area_title_footprint_calculated / MIN_TITLE_AREA _WITH_TRSS)) _count_dwellings /*Calculate number of building platforms available (= _yield_2). _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated - _area_BPCCSLR

_yield_2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/* calculate the number of road frontage segments available based on length required for each rear lot in CSL zone (_yield_3): _yield_3 = _title_road_frontage_length_calculated / CSL_ROAD_FRONTAGE_LENGTH_MIN

/*select lowest of yield_1 (lots), yield_2 (building platforms), and _yield_3 (road frontages) as this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible: _yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver = MIN(_yield_1,_yield_2, _yield_3)

TRSS 2B1: SEA donors /*Note parcels in ALL Rural Zones can be donors if they contain the required area/type of SEA. This does not include Future Urban as it is not a Rural Zone and is not specifically mentioned (c.f. Vacant Title Amalgamation). Modelling code: Spatial constraint layer: SEA_Inclusions_Donor.gdb (as indicated in Figure 64: Regional SEA TRSS feature classification) Published parameters: WETLAND_AREA_MIN = 5000 m2 WETLAND_AREA_MIN_BONUS = 10,000 m2 SEA_AREA_MIN = 50,000 m2 SEA_AREA_MIN_BONUS = 80,000 m2 RARE_AREA_MIN = 30,000 m2 Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

322

Calculations: /* Select rural titles that intersect SEA_Inclusions_Donor.gdb (Use SEA Feature class), then Check SEA Coverage for type and area. Notes: 5. 1. the coverage's are overlapping, and parcels should be tested against each step in turn (i.e. all parcels tested at each step until they get a _yield_x = 1 (i.e. pass tests) 6. Rules require a 'contiguous' (i.e. single) area of SEA, so SEA coverage(s) will need to be in an ordered list by title_ID to select the single largest area of SEA. The total area of the feature type on the parcel is NOT a valid SEA trigger (titles with a large area of SEA that is 'patchy' will not be TRSS donor candidates). A concatenated field "_yield_overlay_qualifiers" contains a CSV list of the qualifying feature type and the area of the Indigenous (all uncovenanted) SEA on the parcel is contained in the attribute "_area_net_max_trss_2b1_sea_donor_overlay" /*Calculate the potential number of TRSS lots based on Area of SEA by category, as per Table 8: /* Wetland SEA: (single largest area by title, test against Wetland) IF _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated ≥ WETLAND_AREA_MIN THEN _yield_1a = 1

IF _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated ≥ WETLAND_AREA_MIN_BONUS THEN _yield_1b = 2 /* Indigenous SEA: (single largest area by title, test against SEA) IF _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated ≥ SEA_AREA_MIN THEN _yield_2a = 1

IF _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated ≥ SEA_AREA_MIN_BONUS THEN _yield_2b = 2

/* Rare and Threatened SEA: (single largest area by title, test against Rare) IF _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated ≥ RARE_AREA_MIN THEN _yield_3 = 1

/* Select the largest _yield_x from the results of the above, this is the potential number of new sites created for transfer as SEA donors: _yield_trss_2b1_sea_donor = MAX (_yield_1a , _yield_1b , _yield_2a, _yield_2b, _yield_3)


323

TRSS 2B2: SEA Receivers /* Note: SEA donors can only be transferred to certain specified CSL locations (as outlined in Subdivision Rule Table 10). The rule also potentially enables transfer to Rural & Coastal Villages but they are not specified as yet, so this potential cannot be currently be tested. The method below can easily accommodate these additions though the variation of the CSL_Location.gdb (Spatial layer) and CFGS_ASSESS_RUR_CSL_LUT.xlsx (rules to apply to locations defined by the CSL_Location) once these matters are resolved. Modelling code:

The Calculation of SEA protection receivers in CSL have already been calculated in above for 2A.2: TRSS via Vacant Site Amalgamation Receiver Potential Calculation: TRSS_Vacant_Receiver_potential_yeild in CSL. Note that the difference between Amalgamation and SEA Receiver potential calculations is that SEA protection TRSS may only go to CSL. This 'double up' in CSL is resolved in the final yield calculations. Actual process will be to create _yield_ trss_2b2_sea_receiver = _yield_ trss_2a2_vacant_receiver BUT only on sites that are zoned CSL. Additional inputs: CSL_Location.gdb CFGS_ASSESS_RUR_CSL_LUT.xlsx Spatial constraint layers: Building_Platform_Constraints_CSL_Receiver (BPCCSLR) Building_Platform_Exclusions_CSL_Receiver (BPECSLR) LUT: MIN_TITLE_AREA_QUALIFIER_WITH_TRSS MIN_TITLE_AREA _WITH_TRSS Published parameters: 2 $VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m $CSL_ROAD_FRONTAGE_LENGTH_MIN = 6 m Calculations: /* Select titles in CSL that can receive TRSS, AND are big enough area to be chopped in at least half TRSS_Receiver = Yes AND _area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ MIN_TITLE_AREA_QUALIFIER_WITH_TRSS /* Check to ensure sites contain no Building_Platform_Exclusions_CSL_Receiver _count_overlap_BPECLSR = 0.

/*Calculate maximum number of potential new dwellings (= _yield_1) _yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN(_area_title_footprint_calculated / MIN_TITLE_AREA _WITH_TRSS)) _count_dwellings

/*calculate the maximum number of building platform areas free of constraints (= _yield_2). _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated - _area_BPCCSLR _yield_2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / VACANT_RECEIVER_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/* Check the amount of road frontage by dividing it by the minimum required for each rear lot to give the maximum number of ‘road frontages’ (= _yield_3): _yield_3 = _title_road_frontage_length_calculated / CSL_ROAD_FRONTAGE_LENGTH_MIN Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

324

/*select lowest of yield_1 (lots), yield_2 (building platforms), and _yield_3 (road frontage's) as this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible _yield_trss_2a2_vacant_receiver = MIN(_yield_1,_yield_2, _yield_3)

3B1: Greenhithe A Modelling Code:

Spatial constraint layer: Building_Platform_Constraints_nonCSL_Receiver (BPCnCSLR) LUT: TITLE_AREA_MIN_QUALIFIER (VAR_1) = 40,000 m2 TITLE_AREA_MIN (VAR_2) = 20,000 m2 Published parameters: SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2 Calculations: /* Select titles in OV_DESD_265 that are big enough area to be chopped in at least half _area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ VAR_1

/*Calculate number of potential new dwellings (= yield_1) _yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN(_area_title_footprint_calculated / VAR_2)) - _count_dwellings

/*Check that there is sufficient building platform area on site free of constraints for each new dwelling (= _yield_2). BPC is derived from a set of spatial overlays determined previously. Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain a maximum building platform yield. _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated - _area_BPCnCSLR _yield_2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/*select lowest of yield_1 and yield_2 as this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible _yield_subdiv_3b1_greenhithe = MIN(_yield_1,_yield_2) IF _yield_subdiv_3b1_greenhithe < 0 THEN _yield_subdiv_3b1_greenhithe = 0

3B2: Rodney Landscape Group Modelling Code: Spatial Constraint Layer: Building_Platform_Constraints_RodneyLandscape.gdb (BPC_RL) Published Parameters: SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2 Calculations:


325

/* Select titles in (CFGS_UID = refer LUT) that are big enough in area to be chopped in at least half. _area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ VAR_1

/*Calculate number of potential new lots (_yield_1) _yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN(_area_title_footprint_calculated / VAR_2)) - _count_dwellings

/*Check that there is sufficient building platform area on potential lot free of constraints for each new dwelling. BPC is derived from a set of spatial overlays determined previously. Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain a maximum building platform yield (= _yield_2). _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated - _area_BPC_RL _yield_2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/*select lowest of yield_1 and yield_2 as this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible _yield_subdiv_3b2_RodneyLandscape = MIN(_yield_1,_yield_2) IF _yield_subdiv_3b2_RodneyLandscape < 0 THEN _yield_subdiv_3b2_RodneyLandscape = 0

3B3: Clevedon 3 Modelling Code: Spatial Constraint Layer: Clevedon_Subprecinct3_Overlays.gdb FeatureClass(s): Clevedon_Subprecinct_3, Areas_of_increased_subdivision_opportunity Building_Platform_Constraints_Subdivision.gdb (BPC_S) Published Parameters: SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2 Calculations: /* Calculate net area of Clevedon_subprecinct_3 Overlay on Titles _area_title_footprint_calculated_3ab /* For Titles that intersect Clevedon_subprecinct_3 Areas_of_increased_subdivision_opportunity on Titles

Overlay

calculate

net

area

of

_area_title_footprint_calculated_3b /* Calculate net area difference (to Obtain the area of Titles in Clevedon Precinct that are also not in Areas_of_increased_subdivision_opportunity): _area_title_footprint_calculated_3a = _area_title_footprint_calculated_3ab _area_title_footprint_calculated_3b

/*Step 1: Yield determination for 3B3_A (areas of Clevedon_3 not in Additional Subdivision Opportunities area) /*Select portions of Titles not in Additional Subdivision Opportunities big enough to be chopped in half _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated_3a > VAR_1


326

/*Calculate number of potential new lots (= _yield_3a1) _yield_3a1 = (ROUNDDOWN_area_title_footprint_calculated_3a / VAR_2)) - _count_dwellings

/*Check that there is sufficient building platform area on potential lot free of constraints for each new dwelling. BPC is derived from a set of spatial overlays determined previously. Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain a maximum building platform yield (= _yield_3a2) _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated_3a - _area_BPC_S _yield_3a2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/*select lowest of yield_3a1 and yield_3a2 as this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible _yield_3a = MIN(_yield_3a1,_yield_3a2) /*Yield determination for 3B3_B (areas in Clevedon_3 in Additional Subdivision Opportunities) /*Select portions of titles in Additional Subdivision Opportunities overlay big enough to be chopped in half _area_title_footprint_calculated_3b > VAR_2

/*Calculate number of potential new lots (_yield_3b1) _yield_3b1 = (ROUNDDOWN_area_title_footprint_calculated_3b / VAR_3)) - _count_dwellings

/*Check that there is sufficient building platform area on potential lot free of constraints for each new dwelling. BPC is derived from a set of spatial overlays determined previously. Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain a maximum building platform yield (_yield_3a2). _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated_3b - _area_BPC_S _yield_3b2 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/*select lowest of yield_3b1 and yield_3b2 as this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible _yield_3b = MIN(_yield_3b1,_yield_3b2)

/* Yield Determination for Clevedon Precinct Titles /* Add lots from portions of titles not in and portions of titles in additional subdivision opportunities areas to get a single title yield: _yield_subdiv_3b3_clevedon3 = _yield_3a + _yield_3a

IF _yield_ subdiv_3b3_clevedon3 < 0 THEN _yield_ subdiv_3b3_clevedon3 = 0

3B4: Runciman A & B Modelling code: Spatial constraint layer: Building_Platform_Constraints_Runciman.gdb (BPC_R) Published parameters: SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2


327

Calculations: /*Select Titles big Enough to be chopped in half in Runciman A and B Select Titles in CFGS_UID = (PR_11_5_565_0) AND CFGS_UID = (PR_11_5_566_0) _area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ VAR_1

/*Calculate number of potential new lots @ 2.5 ha (_yield_1) in A and B

_yield_1 = (ROUNDDOWN_area_title_footprint_calculated/ VAR_2)) - _count_dwellings /* Calculate potential for increased density (via clustering) on larger (>20ha) parcels but ONLY in Runciman B /* Note: VAR_1 * 4.0 = 20 ha which is the large parcel minimum area size. All other sites have a yield 2=0 Select Titles in CFGS_UID = (PR_11_5_566_0) AND _area_title_footprint_calculated ≥ VAR_1 * 4.0 /*(= 20 ha) ELSE _yield_2 = 0

/*Calculate number of potential new lots @ 1.5 ha (_yield_2)

_yield_2 = (ROUNDDOWN_area_title_footprint_calculated/ VAR_3)) - _count_dwellings

/*Calculate number of building platforms. BPC is derived from a set of spatial overlays determined previously. Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain a maximum building platform yield (_yield_3). _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated- _area_BPC_R _yield_3 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/*select highest of yield_1 (being @ 2.5 ha in A and B) and yield_2 (@ 1.5 ha on large sites in B), then select the lowest of the result of that previous test and _yield_3 (building platforms) this is the complying maximum number of dwellings possible on a given site in the precinct: _yield_subdiv_3b4_Runciman = MIN(MAX(_yield_1,_yield_2), _yield_3)

3C: Second & third rural dwellings Modelling code: Spatial constraint layers: Second_Third_Dwelling_Exclusions_RuralCoastal.gdb Building_Platform_Constraints_Subdivision.gdb Published parameters: $2_DWLG_TITLE_AREA_MIN = 400,000 m2 $3_DWLG_TITLE_AREA_MIN = 1,000,000 m2 $SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN = 2000 m2 Calculations: /* Select Titles in UP base zones for Assessment. Note this title zoning selection is slightly different from usual ‘CFGS_UID’ based selection as it uses the UP base zoning rather than the CFGS_UID reflecting the flattened zone, precinct and overlay groupings - this is because the rule makes no reference to Precincts and Overlays and we are not Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions

328

aware of any Rural Precinct or Overlay that mentions the Rural Second and Third Dwelling Rule. Should this be adjusted, this could be accommodated by amending the test criteria (e.g. AND is NOT in ()) UP_BASE ZONE in (Rural Coastal, Mixed Rural, Rural Production) /* Select Titles Large enough for at least an dwelling that do not already have three or more dwellings. Note the _dwelling_count information in rural areas is a known weak spot in the dwelling count data as it can only be definitively used as indicating the presence of dwelling(s) (dwelling count > 0) or no dwellings (dwelling count = 0). Sites with _count_dwelling greater than one are usually a function of multiple rates assessments aggregated to title, or known dwelling counts from the rating assessment. Some sites where _count_dwelling equals one, may have more dwellings than this. Test: 1 AND 2 = TRUE TEST 1. _area_title_calculated > $2_DWLG_TITLE_AREA_MIN TEST 2. _count_dwellings < 3.0

/* Remove any remaining Titles that intersect (area > 0) with Rural Coastal Policy Overlay (Second_Third_Dwelling_Exclusions_RuralCoastal.gdb) SPATIAL RELATOR Title NOT INTERSECT Second_Third_Dwelling_Exclusions_RuralCoastal.gdb /* Calculate Potential for second or third dwellings based on title area - if title is less than 100 hectares then second dwelling is possible, if title is greater than 100 hectares then a second and maybe third dwelling is possible. This potential is qualified by the number of existing dwellings in combination with site area: IF _area_title_calculated ≤ $3_DWLG_TITLE_AREA_MIN THEN _yield_1 = 2.0 - _count_dwellings ELSE _yield_1 = 0 IF _area_title_calculated > $3_DWLG_TITLE_AREA_MIN THEN _yield_2 = 3.0 - _count_dwellings ELSE _yield_2 = 0

/* Also check that there is sufficient building platform area on the title free of constraints, sufficient for each new dwelling. Building_Platform_Constraints_Subdivision (BPC_S) is derived from a set of spatial overlays determined previously. Divide net area by required building platform minimum area to obtain a maximum building platform yield (_yield_3). _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated = _area_title_footprint_calculated_3c - _area_BPC_S _yield_3 = _area_net_max_title_footprint_calculated / SUBDN_BLDG_PLATFORM_MIN

/* Calculate final second and third dwelling yield - first find the largest yield of second or third dwellings, and the smallest of dwellings and the number of compliant building platforms (_yield_3). This is the overall second or third dwelling yield. _yield_second_third_rural_dwelling = MIN(MAX(_yield_1,_yield_2),_yield_3) IF _yield_second_third_rural_dwelling < 0 THEN _yield_second_third_rural_dwelling = 0


329

Appendix U: Investigating potential for amalgamation of parcels located in the Mixed Housing zone of the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan


330

Investigating potential for amalgamation of parcels located in the Mixed Housing Zone of the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Version 1.0 19 August 2013

Prepared by:

Craig Fredrickson

Published by:

Land Use, Built Environment and Infrastructure Research Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit Auckland Council

Table of Contents 1.0

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ii

2.0

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1

2.1

Background ................................................................................................................................1

2.2

Scope .........................................................................................................................................1

3.0

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................2

3.1

Extraction of parcels by attribution ..............................................................................................2

3.2

Amalgamation of selected parcels ..............................................................................................4

3.3

Capacity calculation for amalgamated parcels ............................................................................6

4.0 4.1

Results...........................................................................................................................................7 Caveats ......................................................................................................................................7

Investigating potential for amalgamation

i

1.0 Executive Summary Investigations into the capacity from potential for amalgamation of parcels located in the Mixed Housing Zone (MHZ) show that:    

21,822 parcels in the Mixed Housing Zone meet our assumptions tests for a higher likelihood of being part of potential amalgamation If these parcels were to be redeveloped with out amalgamation they would yield an additional 19,194 dwellings If the parcels that met our assumptions tests were to be amalgamated with all of those parcels that they were adjacent too this would create 5548 parcels These new amalgamated parcels could yield 102,947 additional dwellings from redevelopment

Calculated results for the additional dwelling capacity that could be yielded by this process are reported below in the results section of the report. Due to issues noted in more detail below, the additional yield from these amalgamations is likely to be a gross over-estimate of potential realisable development, but it does highlight the theoretical gains in development potential and capacity should it occur, and are sufficient to justify a policy approach and supporting rules to enable it to occur, and council processes and effort to ensure it does happen in the rare situations where it is most feasible.


ii

2.0 Introduction 2.1

Background

This report outlines an investigation by the Land Use Built Environment and Infrastructure Research team into the potential for amalgamation of parcels located in the Mixed Housing Zone of the draft Auckland Unitary Plan (as published in March 2013). This project was initiated after a request by John Duguid via email to Regan Solomon on 29 July 2013. We have been asked whether or not it was possible to work out which parcels in the proposed Mixed Housing Zone of the draft Auckland Unitary Plan (as published in March 2013) would be amalgamated under the new plan, and what the possible capacity for additional dwellings this amalgamation would generate.

2.2

Scope

After discussion in the team, it was proposed that we break this request down into four components: 1. Investigate parcel attribution and spatial location of sites within the MHZ (manual process) 2. Create methodology by which to create amalgamated parcels based on investigations in (a) 3. Create modelling process to create a 'fake' parcel layer that includes the potential amalgamated sites (as per (a) and (b) and output as a 'fake' cadastral layer) 4. Run 'fake' cadastral/parcel layer through the model to generate capacity figures based on the newly amalgamated parcels


1

3.0 Methodology 3.1

Extraction of parcels by attribution

In order to create a set of parcels that have a relatively higher likelihood of being amalgamated with a neighbouring parcel than not, we created a custom querying process in spatial software known as FME. This is the same software that was used to construct the much more complex Capacity for Growth models. This querying process applies a series of filters over parcels in order to determine which are more suitable based on the set of criteria used. The assumptions used in this filtering process and the parameters used as part of these filters are listed below in Table 1. The querying process has been built so that these parameters are adjustable and can be 'tweaked' and the process run in order to test scenarios. Table 1: Assumptions list and parameters for parcel selection process Name

Assumption

Rationale

Parameter

Zone

Select only those parcels that fall within the selected zone

For this investigation we were asked to only investigate those parcels that fall within the proposed Mixed Housing Zone

CfGS_NAME = Mixed Housing Zone

Designations

Select only those parcels that do not have a designation on part or all of them

Parcels with designations on them are not viewed, in most cases, as being readily available for amalgamation/development

Designations = 0

Select only those parcels from the MHZ that do not qualify for the "unlimited density" rule.

Parcels that are either to small (size less 2 2 than 1200 m ), or are larger than 1200 m but have not qualified for unlimited density due to not enough road frontage (they have less than 20m) would likely be sought for amalgamation

(Parcel size < 1200 2 m ) OR (parcel size 2 ≥ 1200m AND road 2 frontage < 20m )

Size and frontage

If a parcel has more than a single dwelling on it, this would limit the chances of it

Current dwellings

Select only those parcels that

on parcel

have one dwelling or less on them currently.

being sought as part of an amalgamation, due to both physical and economic constraints

Select only those parcels that have a IV/CV score greater than or equal to 0.7 (the IV/CV score is 1-(IV/CV))

Parcels that have a high improvement value in relation to their capital value are less likely to be amalgamated. Parcels with a high IV/CV score are under capitalised are more likely to be considered for amalgamation

Improvement value/capital value (IV/CV) score


2

Dwelling count < 2

IV/CV score ≥ 0.7

Name

Assumption

Rationale

Parameter

Age of oldest dwelling on parcel

Removes parcels that have a dwelling older or younger than a chosen year

Dwellings that were constructed before 1945 have a higher chance of being considered a "heritage" building. Those dwellings constructed in the last 30 years are also likely to be considered too new to be removed to undertake development through amalgamation

Dwelling age ≥ 1945 AND Dwelling age ≤ 1983

Location in relation to other qualifying parcels

Select only those parcels that are adjacent to another parcel that had qualified

Parcels that meet all the previous tests can not be amalgamated if they are not adjacent to another qualifying parcel, as such they are excluded

Adjacent to another qualifying parcel = Yes

The outcome of the querying process above produces a set of parcels within the Mixed Housing Zone that we believe possibly have a higher likelihood of being part of a potential amalgamation. An example of the parcels extracted from this process are displayed in Figure 1 below. These selected parcels are then fed into the second portion of our process. Figure 1: Example of parcels extracted from selection process that have the possibility of a higher likelihood of being incorporated in amalgamation


3

3.2

Amalgamation of selected parcels

Due the complex nature of human behaviour, and understanding how actors in the residential development space may choose or choose not to develop particular sites over others, it is almost impossible for us to model with either ease or certainty how amalgamation of these parcels may occur. We suspect that amalgamation is more likely to be the result of happy circumstance or fortuitous opportunity rather than a deliberate behaviour, however, depending on the potential gains from doing so, (that is, if the zoning provides sufficient incentive to overcome the obstacles), then it may become more frequent over time, than it has been to date, but is unlikely to be common. In addition to these 'real life' representation issues, there are some iteration problems - the example below illustrates the possible number of combinations of amalgamations (9) of 2 or 3 parcels from a set of 5. Figure 2: Possible combinations of either a two or three parcel amalgamation, from a selection of six adjacent parcels resulting in a single amalgamation outcome

As a work-around to produce a result we chose to amalgamate all those amalgamation candidate parcels that are adjacent to each other (i.e. this group of 5 becomes 1 large parcel) and use these new amalgamated parcels to calculate potential capacity. Figure 3 and

Figure 4 below show two examples of the outcomes of the parcel amalgamation. As can be seen in Figure 3 the new amalgamated parcels selected by the modelling process seem to represent what could be considered both a) a good outcome and b) something that could possibly occur. This compares with the situation presented in

Figure 4, which shows a vastly different outcome from amalgamation, creating awkwardly shaped parcels, while still complying with the amalgamation candidate base rules. As there is no (practical or non-manual) way to 'weed out' amalgamations like this, which we consider are not very likely to occur, we note this as a shortcoming of this investigation.


4

Figure 3: New amalgamated parcels created by model - good outputs

Figure 4: New amalgamated parcels created by model - bad outputs


5

3.3

Capacity calculation for amalgamated parcels

Amalgamated parcel groups that did still did not reach either the minimum parcel size or minimum road frontage thresholds (equal to or greater than 1,200 m2 in size and with a minimum 20 metre frontage) were excluded from capacity calculations. (parcel groups with a combined area of less than 1200m2 OR frontage of less than 20m were not considered further). This is because we believed that in order for amalgamation to proceed, the amalgamation needed to provide a major incentive over and above what site area alone delivers - the creation of an 'Unlimited Density'* parcel is considered to be a reasonable proxy for this, and is the opportunity provided for in the plan. *Unlimited Density is not really. Capacity for the new amalgamated parcels was calculated at one dwelling per 144 m2 of parcel area, rounded down to the nearest whole dwelling. This density assumption is taken from the work completed by Jasmax for the draft Auckland Unitary Plan using the draft rules to create compliant and reasonable development forms under the unlimited density rules. This is consistent with the density assumption used in RIMU's other capacity modelling on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan used for calculating capacity on the 'Unlimited Density' candidate sites.

Calculated results for the additional dwelling capacity that could be yielded by this process are reported below in the results section of the memo.


6

4.0 Results The results from this modelling work shows that if all the parcels that were selected through our assumption testing were amalgamated, the yield of additional dwellings in the MHZ would increase by 83,743 from 19,194 to 102,947. This result is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Results from modelling Number of parcels that meet the assumption test

21,822 1

Yield of additional dwellings from redevelopment for parcels that met the assumption test

19,194

Number of 'new' parcels created from amalgamation of candidates that are >1200m2 AND >20m frontage

5,548

Yield of additional dwellings from redevelopment from amalgamated parcels as 'Unlimited Density' type sites (@ 1:144m2)

102,947

4.1

Caveats

Because we have been unable to create a model that we believe would actually reflect real-world amalgamation outcomes, a few caveats should be noted, these include, but are not limited to: 





1

We believe that many of the amalgamations that we have modelled through this simple process are not likely to occur because: o Amalgamations that incorporate large numbers of parcels have a low likelihood of occurring. Large-scale amalgamations of multiple parcels (probably four or more) would be hard to complete due to market conditions, with purchase costs increasing for developers as neighbouring owners become aware of their plans; o The counter to this is where large scale land owners (probably limited to government and Council and perhaps a few major land bankers) already own adjacent parcels. o Many of the modelled amalgamated parcels are bizarrely shaped and would not provide an ideal parcel shape for development and may struggle to get consent or to fit the type of density modelled while still complying with the plan rules. After reviewing parcel amalgamations over the last five years in residential areas of Auckland, we have been unable to provide extensive examples of how these types of development have occurred, and are therefore unable to say, using these examples, how they are likely to occur in the future. It should be noted that many of the examples of amalgamation that we did find had actually not been to increase the development potential, but rather to reduce it - through constructing large buildings across former parcel boundaries, or by removal of existing structures to make way for added amenity (swimming pools, tennis courts and gardens etc.). As such the additional yield from these amalgamations is likely to be a gross over-estimate of potential realisable development, but it does highlight the theoretical gains in development potential and capacity should it occur.

Based on the planning provisions for the Mixed Housing Zone as expressed in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan, as published March 2013.


7