Aug 4, 2014 - Title information was sourced from Land Information New Zealand's ...... Howick. Town Centre. Newmarket South. Mixed Use. Meadowbank.
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
9
Location type
Business areas and centres
Rural area
Special areas
Description
Assessment method
Smallest geographic unit analysed
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
10
Location type
Description
Assessment method
Smallest geographic unit analysed
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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]
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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”.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
16
Capacity type
Definition of 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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Definition of 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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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’.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Rates Assessment PIQ Dwelling Count
Title
Local Boards
UP Zoning (Zones | Precincts | Overlays)
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
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)
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)
Large parcel min road frontage qualifiers lookup for THAB and MHZ zones
assumed level 3 dwelling area (x)
Road Casing
shape factor (x)
Parcel area min qualifier lookup COMMERCIAL
FME Geoprocessing
Redevelopment Candidate Filter
For parcels < 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area / parcel area min infill
Parcel Yield (dwellings)
For parcels >= 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area (less 25%) / 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
net parcel area min (x)
Commercial Vacant Potential Assessment
Industrial Vacant Potential Assessment
** Inspect Designation Count on outputs
** Inspect Designation Count on outputs
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
Standard deviation thresholds (x3)
Aggregate vacant potential candidates by parcel identifier
Parcel area bounds
Standard deviation thresholds (x2)
Check parcel area > (dwelling count + candidate count) x (parcel area min infill)
Vacant Potential Candidate Filter Parcel area bounds
Standard deviation thresholds (x2)
Parcel Yield (hectares)
Vacant Potential Assessment
** Inspect Designation Count on outputs
Parcel Yield (hectares)
** Inspect Designation Count on outputs FME Geoprocessing
FME Geoprocessing
Infill Candidate Filter
Vacant Potential Candidate Filter
Parcel Yield (dwellings)
Parcel Yield (dwellings)
Aggregate vacant potential candidates by parcel identifier
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Infill / Vacant Potential / Vacant Assessment
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)
Large parcel min road frontage qualifiers lookup for THAB and MHZ zones
assumed level 3 dwelling area (x)
Road Casing
Redevelopment Candidate Filter
For parcels < 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area / parcel area min infill
Parcel Yield (dwellings)
For parcels >= 2000 m2 Yield = parcel area (less 25%) / parcel area min infill
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
36
Figure 11: Diagram of residential infill (incl. vacant potential) capacity calculation
RESIDENTIAL
Infill / Vacant Potential / Vacant Assessment
Building Footprint Dwelling Count > 0 OR Building Count > 0 assessment area threshold (x)
Infill parcels < 2000 m2
Infill Assessment
Vacant Potential 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
** Inspect Designation Count on outputs
Road Casing Infill candidates with access Vacant Potential Candidate Filter
Aggregate vacant potential candidates by parcel identifier
Parcel Yield (dwellings)
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
Parcel Yield (dwellings)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
43
Figure 19: Residential infill candidates that have passed and failed the access test
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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:
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Redevelopment Assessment
Building Count > 0
** Inspect Designation Count on outputs Large parcel min road frontage qualifiers lookup for THAB and MHZ zones Road Casing
Redevelopment Assessment
shape factor (x) FME Geoprocessing building area min (x)
assumed level 3 dwelling area (x)
Total parcel area (with dwelling)
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)
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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%.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)).
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Three levels, 14 units @ 1:103 m² land area
Three levels, 14 units @ 1:103 m² land area
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
68
Development description
Artists Impression
Three levels, 12 units @ 1:120 m² land area
Three levels, 12 units @ 1:120 m² land area
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Parcel Yield (hectares)
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Parcel Yield (hectares)
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
88
Figure 35: Diagram of business vacant potential capacity calculation BUSINESS (Building Count centric modelling)
Building Footprints
Vacant Potential Assessment
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)
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
Standard deviation thresholds (x3)
Parcel area bounds
Standard deviation thresholds (x2)
Vacant Potential Candidate Filter
Parcel Yield (hectares)
Industrial Vacant Potential Assessment ** Inspect Designation Count on outputs
Standard deviation thresholds (x3)
Net parcel area vacant potential
Net parcel area percentage vacant bounds Vacant Potential Candidate Filter
Standard deviation thresholds (x2)
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
_net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent
>
100 - SD of _net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent
3
_area_parcel_multipart_calculated
>
2.0 × SD of _area_parcel_multipart_calculated
4
_net_parcel_area_site_vacant_percent
>
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Definition of capacity type
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
97
Business redevelopment capacity measure Business (nonresidential) floor space (FS Business)
Definition of capacity type
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Modified theoretical
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Parcel Yield (hectares)
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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).
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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).
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
111
Figure 43: Interplay of height overlay and volcanic viewshafts in Newmarket
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Light Industry Heavy Industry
Light Industry Heavy Industry
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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).
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Centre (all zones)* Mixed Use General Business Business Park
Mixed Housing Urban
3.0
45
Centre (all zones)* Mixed Use General Business Business Park
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
Light Industry Heavy Industry
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
All Centre zones Mixed Use General Business Business Park
1_Business_ex_Ind
Mixed Housing Urban
B_MHU
3
All Centre zones Mixed Use General Business Business Park
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
Light Industry Heavy Industry
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
storey_count_unaffected
buffer_interval_start
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
119
Θ
storey_height
storey_count_unaffected
buffer_interval_start
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
120
Figure 46: HIRB rule test example
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
122
Figure 47: Upper level setback test
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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:
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
129
Figure 51: Newmarket (DAUP) without volcanic viewshaft
Figure 52: Newmarket (DAUP) with volcanic viewshaft
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
132
Table 36: Business floor space assumptions, source and use by scenario Assumption variable
Current
Contemporary
Modified theoretical
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
Contemporary
Modified theoretical
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and 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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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%
Neighbourhood Centre
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Neighbourhood Centre
111
100
Town Centre
296
100
Business area classification
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
Neighbourhood Centre
53
53
Town Centre
45
45
Business area classification
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Smallest geographic unit analysed
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
145
Figure 58: Diagram of rural residential capacity calculation RURAL RESIDENTIAL
Rates Assessment PIQ Dwelling Count
Title
Local Boards
UP Zoning (Zones | Precincts | Overlays)
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
149
Figure 59: Countryside living locations by rule source and development type
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
176
Figure 69: Runciman A & B location and SBP constraints
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
178
Figure 70: Second and third rural dwellings: zones and constraints
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Spatial features used
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 or Outstanding Natural Feature or Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Spatial features used
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Significant Ecological Area or Outstanding Natural Feature or Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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].
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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].
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
203
16.0
Appendices
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
204
Appendix A: Map showing the location and extent of rural towns
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
°
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
Neighbourhood Centre
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Devonport Town Centre
Devonport Naval Base Light Industry
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
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
! °
Major Parks and Reserves
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
Location of Business Areas (with type) (Business Redevelopment study component) Map 2
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
Neighbourhood Centre
Arterial or Major 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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Location of Business Areas (with type) (Business Redevelopment study component) Map 3
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
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
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
Neighbourhood Centre
Road Local Centre
Town Centre
Arterial or Major Road
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.
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 4.m xd
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
Location of Business Areas (with type) (Business Redevelopment study component) Map 4
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
User: CraigF
Date S aved: 24/03/2014 1:01:32 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 5.m xd
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
Location of Business Areas (with type) (Business Redevelopment study component) Map 5
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
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
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
Heavy Industry
Light Industry
General Business
Major Parks and Reserves
Metropolitan Area Mixed Use
Neighbourhood Centre
Road Local Centre
Town Centre
Arterial or Major Road
Motorway
Metropolitan Limits
! °
Metropolitan Centre
Business Area Type
Drury Mixed Use
Drury Light Industry
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Location of Business Areas (with type) (Business Redevelopment study component) Map 6
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
Appendix D: Map and list of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan designations (as used in the modelling process)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Produced by Research, Investigations & Monitoring
Appendix E: Modelling rules for apportioning dwelling count from the rates assessment polygon to parcel polygon
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
220
Appendix F: Data and sources utilised in study, with description and source
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
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.
Land Information New Zealand
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.
Land Information New Zealand
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.
Land Information New Zealand
Rivers
Identifies the location of rivers, as shown in the New Zealand Topographic Map series.
Land Information New Zealand
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
Other
Description
Business
Data
223
Appendix G: FME workbench processing inventory
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Business Special Other
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
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)
Not Required – process runs against 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
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
** writes to Master_Data_Input
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
** writes to Master_Data_Input
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Other Residential 5
Data_Prep_Zone_GDB_Resolved_3.2.fmw
Business Special Other
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
Business Special Other
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
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)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
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
Business Special Other
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.
Workbench published parameters
Input datasets Output datasets
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
Business Special Other
** this geoprocess can be run with all Overlay feature classes selected (slow) or only those feature classes that contribute to the CfGS Zones (fast)
Input datasets Output datasets
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
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
CfGS_ZONE_LUT.xlsx
Zones UP (All Auckland with LBG)
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
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
MASTER_Data_Prep_Roads_5.fmw
Building Footprints (by LBG)
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
Workbench output datasets
CRS Parcel RA (by LBG)
Processes by LBG
Tags Parcel polygons with CfGS Zone polygon attributes
Workbench input datasets
CfGS Residential Zones (by LBG) CfGS Business Zones (by LBG) CfGS Special Zones (by LBG) LBG Acronym
Designations UP
Designation Inverse Buffer Distance
Zones UP (All Auckland with LBG)
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
226
Processing order
FME workbench name
Model type
Workbench description
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!
Workbench published parameters
Workbench input datasets
Workbench output datasets
Residential Parcels enhanced
Residential Infill Candidates
Building Footprints enhanced
Residential VP Candidates
Building; Parcel; Infill Feature Types to read
Residential Parcels enhanced
Residential Infill Candidates With Access
Building Footprints enhanced
Residential Infill Candidates Without Access
Input Datasets
Residential Infill Candidates
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
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
Residential Parcels enhanced
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
LBG Acronym Minimum Building Footprint Area
15
Geoprocessing_Redevelopment_Yields_5.fmw
Residentia l
Geoprocessing algorithm to aggregate yields at the parcel level for Redevelopment capacity
Residential Parcels enhanced
Minimum Dimension for a Building Platform
Building Footprints enhanced
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
Input Datasets Output Datasets
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\
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
Input Datasets Output Datasets
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)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
227
Processing order
FME workbench name
15.2
Residential_Redevelopment_Merge_ALL.fmw
(MERGE)
** no HG Residential inputs
Model type
Residentia l
Workbench description
Workbench published parameters
Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.
Input Datasets
FME workbench location:
Output Datasets
Workbench input datasets
Workbench output datasets
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
Parcel Redevelopment Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Redevelopment Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Residentia l\Redevelopment_Assessment\
15.3
Residential_Vacant_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.
Input Datasets
Parcel Vacant Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Vacant Yield (All Auckland)
FME workbench location:
Output Datasets
Parcel Vacant Yield Failed (By LBG)
Parcel Vacant Yield Failed (All Auckland)
Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.
Input Datasets
Vacant Potential (By LBG)
Vacant Potential (All Auckland)
FME workbench location:
Output Datasets
Parcel Vacant Potential Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Vacant Potential Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against 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)
** no HG Residential inputs
Residentia l
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
..\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
Input Datasets Output Datasets
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
228
Processing order
FME workbench name
Model type
Workbench description
Workbench published parameters
Workbench input datasets
Workbench output datasets
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
Business Parcel Yields Brownfield
MASTER_Geoprocessing_Brownfield_Yields_4.fmw
LBG Acronym Minimum Building Footprint Area
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
Building Footprints enhanced
Input Datasets Output Datasets
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
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
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
..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropolitan_And_Rural_Town\ Business\Floor_Space_Assessment\
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
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
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\
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropolitan_And_Rural_Town\ Business\Floor_Space_Assessment\
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
Workbench published parameters
Workbench input datasets
Workbench output datasets
Input Datasets
Business Parcel Ziggurats (UC)
Business_Parcel_Ziggurats_Newmarket – GEoPDF
Output Datasets
** clip to Newmarket search envelope
Business_Parcel_Ziggurats_Newmarket – Collada (.dae)
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
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)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Parcel Brownfield Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Brownfield Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Parcel Total Land Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Total Land Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Parcel Vacant Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Vacant Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against 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
Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.
Input Datasets
FME workbench location:
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
Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.
Input Datasets
FME workbench location:
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
Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.
Input Datasets
FME workbench location:
Output Datasets
..\FME_Model_Run_1.0\Metropol itan_And_Rural_Town\Business\ Vacant_Assessment\
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Workbench published parameters
Input Datasets Output Datasets
Input Datasets Output Datasets
Merges 6x Local Board Group (LBG) file geodatabases into a single Auckland Council file geodatabase.
Input Datasets
FME workbench location:
Output Datasets
Workbench input datasets
Workbench output datasets
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
Parcel Commercial VP Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Commercial VP Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Parcel Industrial VP Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Industrial VP Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Parcel Floor Space Yield (By LBG)
Parcel Floor Space Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against 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
** Titles may exist as multi-part polygons
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
** Titles may exist as multi-part polygons
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
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
Building Footprints (by LBG)
Tags Title polygons with road frontage attributes
Minimum Building Footprint Area
CRS Parcel RA (by LBG)
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
** Titles may exist as multi-part polygons
Workbench description
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
Workbench published parameters
Workbench input datasets
Workbench output datasets
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
Title Footprints Rural (by LBG) Building Footprints (by LBG) LBG Acronym
CRS Parcel RA (by LBG)
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
Workbench description
Workbench published parameters
Workbench input datasets
Workbench output datasets
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
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
** Titles may exist as multi-part polygons
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
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
233
Processing order
FME workbench name
Model type
Workbench description
Workbench published parameters
Workbench input datasets
Workbench output datasets
FME workbench batch mode (process by local board group)
Title Footprints Future Urban Enhanced (All Auckland)
Title Footprint Rural Yield TRSS 2A1 Vacant Donor Future Urban
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Title_Footprint_Rural_Yield (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Title Footprint Rural Yield With Yield Class Count (All Auckland)
Not Required – process runs against ALL Auckland
Minimum Vacant Donor Title Area Qualifier Geoprocessing_FU_Title_Yields_3.1.fmw
30
** Titles may exist as multi-part polygons
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
FME workbench location:
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
Rural
Geoprocessing algorithm to determine the count of different yield classes, with values greater than zero, a Rural Title Footprint is subject to.
Input Datasets Output Datasets
Title Footprint Rural Yield (All Auckland)
234
Appendix H: FME workbench schematics
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Sort on _valuationref_formatted
Drop valuationref suffix to create _vref_formatted_less_suffix
Drop unwanted attributes
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 _valuationref_formatted
Join on _vref_formatted_less_suffix
Category_Code Apportionment_...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Sort on _valuationref_formatted
Regex suffix search = [A-Z]+$
This insures that where the CRCGEOMETRYID is repeated, that it is ordered on valuation ref meaning the "Parent" valuation ref record is listed first.
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Join on _valuationref_formatted
LLV
LATESTVALUA... LANDAREA
CRCGEOMETR...
AREALABEL
_valuationref_f...
CRCGEOMET...
REQUESTOR
_valuationref_f...
SUPPLIER
_vref_formatted...
COMPLETE
Sort on _valuationref_formatted
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...
Drop valuationref suffix to create _vref_formatted_less_suffix
Category
Category_Code
Typically this is the "Parent" valuation reference as "Child" refernces are generally denoted with a 1 or 2 letter suffix
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
Join on _vref_formatted_less_suffix
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
AttributeKeeper_3 INPUT
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
Join PIQ DWELLING COUNT to the VALUATIONREF polygon features
INPUT
TA_Name
SUPPLIER COMPLETE
INPUT
Join on _valuationref_formatted
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
Sort on _valuationref_formatted
Sorter
The first CRCGEONETRYID feature encountered should have the "Parent" _valuationref_formatted
Required for DuplicateRemover
FeatureMerger_6
DUPLICATE_S...
Joiner_4
This insures that where the CRCGEOMETRYID is repeated, that it is ordered on valuation ref meaning the "Parent" valuation ref record is listed first
Rename attributes
AttributeRenamer_3
EMPTY
Reomoves stacked rates assessment polygon duplicates
This insures that where the CRCGEOMETRYID is repeated, that it is ordered on valuation ref meaning the "Parent" valuation ref record is listed first.
Join on _vref_formatted_less_suffix
UNREFERENC... Sorter_2
Required for FeatureMerger_4 Drop unwanted attributes
PIQ900102_Dwelling_Age Data Source - Property IQ (Richard Deakin)
FeatureMerger_5
INCOMPLETE
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
Sort on _valuationref_formatted
SORTED
Join PIQ DWELLING COUNT to the VALUATIONREF polygon features
LANDAREA AREAUNIT
Drop valuationref suffix to create _vref_formatted_less_suffix
RA Footprint on VREF of "Parent" polygon
INPUT
LCV
LIV
AREAUNIT AREALABEL
Bad_Geomet...
ANOMALY_...
UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
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
AttributeCreator_5 INPUT
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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 ...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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
fGDB - Local Board (LB) Auckland Council is made up of 7 LBGs
LB [Extent_LB ...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
Drop sliver gaps and overlaps
fGDB - Local Board (LB) Auckland Council is made up of 7 LBGs
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
UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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 }
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Set _access_potential = Yes Create writer _fanout_attributes
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
Set _access_potential = Yes Create writer _fanout_attributes
AttributeKeeper_3
Candidate_Par...
fGDB - Residential_Parcels_Enhanced RESIDENTIAL only
Clone features where duplicate suppliers exist
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
UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
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
GroupBy on _candidate_id
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
Drop unwanted attributes
AREA CenterOfGravityR...
UNIVERSE
Match Against 3rd Subset
FeatureMerger_4
INPUT
REQUESTOR
CENTEROFGR...
SUPPLIER
Drop unwanted attributes
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
GroupBy on _candidate_id
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
fme_type fme_no_geom
Clone features where duplicate suppliers exist
LineOnAreaOverl...
INPUT
Buffer the residual polygon GroupBy on _candidate_id
Bufferer_3
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper_10
Identify if the Infill candidtes meet the access criteria _overlaps_access_line > 0
Tester_5
Drop unwanted attributes
AttributeRemover_2
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
LINE
BASE
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
PASSED
BUFFERED
OUTPUT
AREA
CANDIDATE
OUTPUT
PASSED
OUTPUT
LINE
OUTPUT
FAILED
INPUT
Set _access_potential = Yes Create writer _fanout_attributes
AttributeCreator_2 INPUT OUTPUT
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...
CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT...
Set Access Potential - REAR (failed)
PARCEL_ARE... PARCEL_ARE...
NODE
ACCESS_WIDT...
LINE AREA
TestFilter_2
Drop unwanted attributes
INPUT TopologyBuilder_4
AREA Filter on area geometry components
Infill_Candid...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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...
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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.
_area_building_calculated >= $(BLDG_AREA_MIN)
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
fme_type fme_no_geom
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
AttributeCreator_11 INPUT
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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)
AttributeCreator_8 INPUT
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
CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT...
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.
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
_area_building_calculated >= $(BLDG_AREA_MIN)
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...
UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
AttributeRemover_3 INPUT OUTPUT
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
_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
REFERENCED UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
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
AttributeCreator_4 INPUT
Tester_2
INPUT
OUTPUT
Create attributes _fanaout_dataset_vacant_potential _fanout_feature_type_vacant_potential
FAILED StatisticsCalculato...
AttributeCreator_3 INPUT
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
Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area...
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
$(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
REFERENCED UNREFERENC...
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
Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area...
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
_area_building_calculated >= $(BLDG_AREA_MIN)
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...
CFGS_ZONEC... MODEL_TYPE ASSESSMENT...
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
AttributeRemover_5 INPUT OUTPUT
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Interface for Ziggurat 2
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
Interface for Ziggurat 3
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
Interface for Ziggurat 4
Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig4_3_MC_TC.gdb
_3_Metro_Tow... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name
BuildingEnveloper... DEST_Zone SRC_Zone Ziggurat
fGDB - Business_Zone_Neighbour_Ziggurats_ALL Clean-up Geometry
Source Ziggurat Zone Zig4_D_MU_GB.gdb D_MU_GB [Zi...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Interface for Ziggurat 5
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
Interface for Ziggurat 6
Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig6_5_TC_MU.gdb
_5_TownCentr...
GeometryOGCVali...
zig_dest_code
INPUT
zig_dest_name
BuildingEnveloper... DEST_Zone SRC_Zone Ziggurat
Source Ziggurat Zone Zig6_E_POS_on_4_TC_MU.gdb E_POS [Zig6_... zig_src_code zig_src_name
Interface for Ziggurat 7
Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig7_6_LC_GB.gdb
_6_LocalCentr... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name
BuildingEnveloper... DEST_Zone SRC_Zone Ziggurat
Source Ziggurat Zone Zig7_E_POS_on_5_LC_GB.gdb
E_POS [Zig7_... zig_src_code zig_src_name
Interface for Ziggurat 8
Destination Ziggurat Zone Zig8_7_Industry.gdb _7_Industrial [... zig_dest_code zig_dest_name
BuildingEnveloper... DEST_Zone SRC_Zone Ziggurat
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Clone restriction features Clone Copy Number starts at 0
Calculate _storey_count
Calculate attributes _storey_floor_height_above_ground _storey_ceiling_height_above_ground
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Clone restriction features Clone Copy Number starts at 0
Cloner_3
Calculate _storey_count AttributeCreator_9
Calculate attributes _storey_floor_height_above_ground _storey_ceiling_height_above_ground
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
_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
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper_3
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
UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
Calculate attributes _storey_floor_height_above_ground _storey_ceiling_height_above_ground
_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
fme_type fme_no_geom
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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...
Rural_Town_Na... Business_Area...
Drop unwanted attributes
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated
Filter
UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
Filter on UP_BASEZONE
Filter by _area_business_floor_space_calculated
AttributeCreator_6 INPUT
Business_Area... AttributeFilter
TestFilter_2
INPUT
INPUT
1710 m2
General Busin...
Heavy Industry
OUTPUT
Aggregate parcel candidates Group By on _par_id_crc
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated
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
Filter by _storey_count
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
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated as MIN(_yield_1, _yield_2) using TCL
TCLCaller_2
COUNT: _count_storey_max
Aggregator_4
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
AGGREGATE
INPUT 1710 m2
Calculate _yield_1, _yield_2 AttributeCreator_11
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated as MIN(_yield_1, _yield_2) using TCL
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
Drop unwanted attributes
Join business storey attributes with parcel features
Dataset fanout = none
Join on _par_id_crc Process Duplicate Suppliers = Yes
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = 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...
Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper_6
Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper_8
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...
_area_business... _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_...
_area_business... _area_business...
_storey_count
fGDB - Business Parcel Ziggurats (ALL) Merged Schema
_area_business... _area_business...
Logger
Business_Area...
Append parcel attributes UP_BASEZONE and _area_parcel_multipart_calculated to the business parcel ziggurats
_area_business...
Filter by _storey_count
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated
** avoids double counting of storey count when parcels are split by constraint layers
_area_business... _area_business...
Keep parcel-level attributes of interest
_area_business... _area_business...
_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...
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated
_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%
Filter by _storey_count
TestFilter_6
Calculate _yield_1, _yield_2 AttributeCreator_8
_yield_business...
Ziggurat Storey-Level attributes
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated as MIN(_yield_1, _yield_2) using TCL
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
AttributeRemover_2 INPUT OUTPUT
7th Storey Plus
Calculate _yield_1, _yield_2 Filter by _area_business_floor_space_calculated
TestFilter_7
AttributeCreator_10
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated as MIN(_yield_1, _yield_2) using TCL
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
Filter by _storey_count
Calculate _yield_1, _yield_2
Calculate _yield_business_floor_space_calculated as MIN(_yield_1, _yield_2) using TCL
TCLCaller_4
INPUT
INPUT
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
Drop unwanted attributes
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)
Drop unwanted attributes
Rename attributes
AttributeRenamer INPUT
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
AttributeKeeper_3 INPUT
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
UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
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
Remove Duplicates in list values for TITLE_TYPE
ListDuplicateRem...
Sum attributes: _count_total_title_owners
Remove Duplicates in list values for TITLE_GUARANTEE
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
Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id
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
Drop sliver gaps and overlaps
LBG_Code exists - drops coastal slivers outside LBG TITLE_REFERENCE exists - drops polygons that are not titles
Merge Attributes = Yes Create Aggregates = No
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
_title_footprint_...
AGGREGATE
LB_Code
FAILED
INSIDE
LBG_Code TITLE_REFERE...
CLIPPED_INS... CLIPPED_OU...
TITLE_TYPE
Deaggregate title polygon aggergates into their component parts Recursive = No
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
AttributeKeeper_5
Overlay ALL title footprint centroids with Rural Zone polygons
_overlaps_rural_zone > 0
No Rural Zones in UC and HG
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
Rename ZONENAME to UP_BASEZONE
AttributeKeeper_8
AttributeRenamer_3
Re-aggregate title polygon centroid features
Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id
GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id AND LBG_Code
GroupBy on LBG_Code
Aggregator_5
No Rural Zones in UC and HG
FeatureMerger_2
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
REQUESTOR
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
AGGREGATE
SUPPLIER
ZONENAME
UP_BASEZONE
LBG_Code
COMPLETE
_title_footprint_...
INCOMPLETE
Rural_Town_N...
EMPTY
UP_BASEZONE
REFERENCED UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
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
fme_type fme_no_geom
Tester_7
Aggregator_3
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
_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
Drop unwanted attributes
TITLE_TYPE
_count_titles_b...
INPUT
Concatenate list TITLE_TYPE as attribute TITLE_TYPE
fGDB - Local Board (LB) Auckland Council is made up of 7 LBGs
TITLE_REFER...
_count_total_tit...
Count attributes: _count_titles_by_polygon
Aggregator
_title_footprint_...
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
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)
Drop unwanted attributes
Rename attributes
AttributeRenamer INPUT
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
AttributeKeeper_3 INPUT
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
UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
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
Remove Duplicates in list values for TITLE_TYPE
ListDuplicateRem...
Sum attributes: _count_total_title_owners
Remove Duplicates in list values for TITLE_GUARANTEE
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
Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id
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
Drop sliver gaps and overlaps
LBG_Code exists - drops coastal slivers outside LBG TITLE_REFERENCE exists - drops polygons that are not titles
Merge Attributes = Yes Create Aggregates = No
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...
Deaggregate title polygon aggergates into their component parts Recursive = No
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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 Rural Zones in UC and HG
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
Rename ZONENAME to UP_BASEZONE
AttributeKeeper_8
AttributeRenamer_3
Re-aggregate title polygon centroid features
Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id
GroupBy on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id AND LBG_Code
GroupBy on LBG_Code
Aggregator_5
No Rural Zones in UC and HG
FeatureMerger_2
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
REQUESTOR
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
AGGREGATE
SUPPLIER
ZONENAME
UP_BASEZONE
LBG_Code
COMPLETE
_title_footprint_...
INCOMPLETE
Rural_Town_N...
EMPTY
UP_BASEZONE
REFERENCED UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
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
fme_type fme_no_geom
Tester_7
Aggregator_3
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
_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
Drop unwanted attributes
TITLE_TYPE
_count_titles_b...
INPUT
Concatenate list TITLE_TYPE as attribute TITLE_TYPE
fGDB - Local Board (LB) Auckland Council is made up of 7 LBGs
TITLE_REFER...
_count_total_tit...
Count attributes: _count_titles_by_polygon
Aggregator
_title_footprint_...
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
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_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
_title_footprint_...
PASSED
LB_Code
FAILED
Overlay (and intersect) title footprints and zones
AreaOnAreaOverl...
Matcher
Set attribute _multi_zone_title_footprint = No
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
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
_count_total_titl...
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
AttributeCreator_4 INPUT
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Set attribute _multi_zone_title_footprint = No
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
AttributeKeeper_5
AreaOnAreaOverl...
INPUT OUTPUT
Tester_6
Calculate each buildings area _area_building_calculated
AreaCalculator_2
_area_building_calculated >= $(BLDG_AREA_MIN)
Tester_4
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
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_
Drop unwanted attributes
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
InsidePointReplac...
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)
ZONEHEIGHT Zone_UID LB_Code LBG_Code NAME ZONECODE ZONENAME GROUPZONEC... GROUPZONEN... WORKFLOWJO... BaseZone [UP...
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
ListConcatenator_4 INPUT OUTPUT
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Business_Area... Business_Area...
MUL_Category Rural_Town_N...
fGDB - Extent Rural Towns All Auckland
Rural_Town [E... Rural_Town_Na...
Calculate length of title road frontage
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
AttributeRemover_8 INPUT OUTPUT
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Join on _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
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
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
_count_total_titl...
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Set attribute _multi_zone_title_footprint = No
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
AttributeKeeper_5
AreaOnAreaOverl...
INPUT OUTPUT
Tester_6
Calculate each buildings area _area_building_calculated
AreaCalculator_2
_area_building_calculated >= $(BLDG_AREA_MIN)
Tester_4
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
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_
Drop unwanted attributes
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
InsidePointReplac...
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)
ZONEHEIGHT Zone_UID LB_Code LBG_Code NAME ZONECODE ZONENAME GROUPZONEC... GROUPZONEN... WORKFLOWJO... BaseZone [UP...
Drop unwanted attributes
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
ListConcatenator_4 INPUT OUTPUT
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Business_Area... Business_Area...
MUL_Category Rural_Town_N...
fGDB - Extent Rural Towns All Auckland
Rural_Town [E... Rural_Town_Na...
Calculate length of title road frontage
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
AttributeRemover_8 INPUT OUTPUT
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Join on _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
Drop unwanted attributes and lists
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
Rename net max area attribute
Filter on _yield
POINT AREA
Tester_7
TestFilter_8
Drop unwanted attributes
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_9 INPUT
AttributeCreator_38
OUTPUT
Round _yield DOWN to the nearest integer
Set attribute _yield = 0
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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)
Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id
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...
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
_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
Drop unwanted attributes
Rename attributes with _amalg suffix to reflect adjoining neighbour status
Drop unwanted attributes
Explode related adjoining title neighbour list
REFERENCED UNREFERENC...
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...
_count_total_titl...
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
Filter by _dwelling_count
Calculate _yield_1 $(VACANT_RECEIVER_AREA_MIN)
Calculate _yield as MIN _yield_1, _yield_2, _yield_3
Filter on _yield
Rename net max area attribute
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
Deaggregate any multi-parts
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
Round _yield DOWN to the nearest integer
Set attribute _yield = 0
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
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
OUTPUT
Drop unwanted attributes
_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
AttributeKeeper_5 INPUT OUTPUT
Deaggregate any multi-parts
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
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
Constraints - Building Platform CSL (Receiver)
fGDB - Building_Platform_Constraints_CSL_Receiver Merged schema
Tester_11
TestFilter_11
Drop unwanted attributes
InsidePointReplac...
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_...
Drop unwanted attributes
INPUT
INPUT
INSIDEPOINT
OUTPUT
UNTOUCHED
_title_footprint_...
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
Rename net max area attribute
Round _yield DOWN to the nearest integer
Set attribute _yield = 0
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)
Join on _title_footprint_polygon_crc_id
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
Drop unwanted attributes
OverlayAreaJoiner...
Tester_14
SUPPLIER
Calculate _yield = 1
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
No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield
Process FeatureMerger List Elements
INPUT
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
OUTPUT Wetland overlay area BONUS qualifying test Tester_13 Expose fme_feature_type AttributeExposer
Calculate _yield = 2
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
Calculate _yield = 1
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
Calculate _yield = 2
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
No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield
area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b1_greenhithe
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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...
Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints
Calculate _yield_2
Round _yield DOWN to the nearest integer
Set attribute _yield = 0
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
Filter by area for 3B2
Tester_12
Calculate _yield_1 AttributeCreator_21
Calculate _yield as MIN _yield_1 and _yield_2
TCLCaller_6
Filter on _yield TestFilter_6
Rename attributes: _yield to _yield_subdiv_3b2_rodneylandscape
No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield
_area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b2_rodneylandscape
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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...
AttributeRenamer...
INPUT
Yield = 0
Constraints - Building Platform Rodney Landscape
Yield < 0
fGDB - Building_Platform_Constraints_RodneyLandscape Merged schema
Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints
Calculate _yield_2
Round _yield DOWN to the nearest integer
Set attribute _yield = 0
AttributeRounder_6
AttributeCreator_31
WORKFLOWID TYPE TYPE_resolved SUBTYPE SCHEDULE NAME [Building_... NetAreaJoiner_8
Drop unwanted attributes AttributeKeeper_9
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
Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints
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
Drop unwanted attributes
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
No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield
_area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated_3b to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b3b_clevedon
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
_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
REFERENCED UNREFERENC... DUPLICATE_S...
OUTPUT
AttributeCreator_39 INPUT 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...
Filter by area for 3B4
Calculate _yield_2 - passed features
Calculate _yield_1_2 as MAX _yield_1 and _yield_2
Rename attributes: _yield to _yield_subdiv_3b4_runciman
No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield
area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated to _area_net_max_subdiv_3b4_runciman
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
Filter on _yield
Tester_27
AttributeCreator_45
TCLCaller_8
TestFilter_9
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
PASSED
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
Yield > 0
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...
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_...
Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints
NetAreaJoiner_9
Calculate _yield_1 AttributeCreator_23
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
AttributeKeeper_16 INPUT OUTPUT
Secondary Filter - 3B4
Filter by area for 3B4 Runciman B only Tester_29
Calculate _yield_3
Round _yield DOWN to the nearest integer
AttributeCreator_41
AttributeRounder_8
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
PASSED
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
FAILED
Default _yield_2 = 0 - failed features
AttributeCreator_44 INPUT OUTPUT
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
No dataset fanout Featuretype = Rural_Title_Yield
area_net_max_title_footprints_calculated to _area_net_max_subdiv_3c_2nd_3rd_rural_dwelling
Overwrite Existing Geodatabase = Yes Set Drop Table First = Yes
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
Cutsom Transformer Building Platform constraints
NetAreaJoiner_12
Calculate _yield_1_2 as MAX _yield_1 and _yield_2
TCLCaller_12
Round _yield DOWN to the nearest integer
Set attribute _yield = 0
AttributeRounder_...
AttributeCreator_51
INPUT
INPUT
Title_Features
INPUT
INPUT
INPUT
CANDIDATE
3_DWLG_TI...
COMPLETE
INCOMPLETE
AttributeRenamer...
_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...
_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...
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
_title_footprint_...
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
_title_footprint_...
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
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
Increment _yield_class_count
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology 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
Precinct Rule: 6.7, Table 2, 3.1
5000
2500
2.5
6
1
PR_10_328_0
Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct H|Te Toro
Infill
Precinct Rule: 6.7, Table 2, 3.1
5000
2500
2.5
6
1
PR_10_329_0
Residential precinct|Franklin sub-precinct I|Waiau Pa
Infill
Precinct Rule: 6.7, Table 2, 3.1
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
Precinct Rule: 5.29, Table 4.1.3, SH, NC basezone big yards, variable min site sizes and dev cap
1200
600
2.5
4
0
PR_10_336_0
Residential precinct|Omaha South sub-precinct C|
Infill
Precinct Rule: 5.29, Table 4.1.3, SH, NC basezone big yards, variable min site sizes and dev cap
2200
1100
2.5
6
0
PR_10_337_0
Residential precinct|Omaha South sub-precinct D|
Infill
Precinct Rule: 5.29, Table 4.1.3, SH, NC basezone big yards, variable min site sizes and dev cap
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
Precinct Rule: 7.7, Rule 2.1
1200
600
2.5
1
PR_10_374_0
Residential precinct|Penihana North sub-precinct C|
Infill
Precinct Rule: 7.7, Rule 2.2
2000
349
2.5
1
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
265
CfGS UID
CfGS Name
Assessment type
Notes
Parcel area min qualifier
Parcel area min infill
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
Precinct Rule: 5.4, SH applies Except Min site size
1400
700
2.5
1
1
PR_10_542_0
Residential precinct|Albany 3 sub-precinct C|
Infill
Precinct Rule: 5.4, SH applies Except Min site size
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
Precinct Rule: 6.5, See Table 1, 3.1
2800
1400
2.5
2.5
1
PR_11_262_0
Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 2|
Infill
Precinct Rule: 6.5, See Table 1, 3.1
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
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1500
750
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_115
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Beachlands 700m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_116
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Bombay 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_117
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Buckland 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_118
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Clarks Beach 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_119
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Glenbrook Beach 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_120
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Herald Island 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_121
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kingseat 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_122
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Maraetai and Omana Beach 700m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1400
700
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_123
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Riverhead 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_124
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Waiau Beach 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_125
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Waimauku 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_126
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Point Wells 1000m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
2000
1000
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_127
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Patumahoe 800m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1600
800
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_128
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kawakawa Bay 750m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
1500
750
2.5
0
OV_ASDC_144
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Albany North 1500m2|||
Infill
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
3000
1500
2.5
0
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
VAR 1
VAR 2
VAR 3
VAR 4
VAR 5
VAR 6
266
Parcel area min qualifier
Parcel area min infill
Access width min
Refer Subdivision Rules Table 3
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
SpecialCharacter|Residential - Isthmus B1|||
Infill
3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, B2: 600
1200
600
2.5
0
OV_SPCH_521 5
SpecialCharacter|Residential - Isthmus B3|||
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
SpecialCharacter|Residential - Isthmus C2|||
Infill
3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, C1: 400, C2 and C3: 600, C2a 1000
1200
600
2.5
0
OV_SPCH_523 3
SpecialCharacter|Residential - Isthmus C3|||
Infill
3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, C1: 400, C2 and C3: 600, C2a 1000
1200
600
2.5
0
OV_SPCH_523 4
SpecialCharacter|Residential - North Shore A|||
Infill
3.4, Rule 3.1 Table 1, A: 450, B: 500, C:600
900
450
2.5
1
OV_SPCH_523 5
SpecialCharacter|Residential - North Shore B|||
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
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 2_OV_SPCH_5 226
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 6
SpecialCharacter|Residential - Isthmus C2|||
Infill
3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, C1: 400, C2 and C3: 600, C2a 1000
1200
600
2.5
0
OV_SPCH_523 3
SpecialCharacter|Residential - Isthmus C3|||
Infill
3.3, Rule 3.1 Table 1, C1: 400, C2 and C3: 600, C2a 1000
1200
600
2.5
0
OV_SPCH_523 4
SpecialCharacter|Residential - North Shore A|||
Infill
3.4, Rule 3.1 Table 1, A: 450, B: 500, C:600
900
450
2.5
1
OV_SPCH_523 5
SpecialCharacter|Residential - North Shore B|||
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology 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
Neighbourhood Centre
Commercial
Neighbourhood Centre
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
5.55, note max GLA = 25300 as PA, 25000 as DA, Retial, Food and Beverage and Care, education and Height are limited
8
2
PR_9_219_0
Business precinct|Warkworth 1 sub-precinct C|
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
8
2
PR_9_220_0
Business precinct|Warkworth 1 sub-precinct D|
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_221_0
Business precinct|Warkworth 1 sub-precinct E|
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_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
5.57, GFA Limits and Frontage
PR_9_224_0
Business precinct|Warkworth 3 sub-precinct C|
Commercial
Town Centre
5.57, GFA Limits and Frontage
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
Neighbourhood Centre
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT)
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
4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT)
12.5
3
OV_SPCH_522 3
SpecialCharacter|Business Balmoral|||
Commercial
Town Centre
4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT)
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
4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT)
12.5
3
OV_SPCH_522 7
SpecialCharacter|Business Parnell|||
Commercial
Town Centre
4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT)
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
4.4.3 - Character Defining and Supporting Buildings (NO REDEVELOPMENT)
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
OV_SPCH_521 2_OV_SPCH_5 229
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
270
Appendix K: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rural zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology 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
CSL Vacant Donor and Receiver, SEA Donor
9
2
ZN_4_16
Rural Production
Custom
CSL Vacant Donor and Receiver, SEA Donor
9
2
3000000
1500000
ZN_4_46
Rural Coastal
Custom
CSL Vacant Donor and Receiver, SEA Donor
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
5.40 - Not in Table, General Rules Apply
8
2
16000
8000
PR_11_263_0
Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 3|
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
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
10000
6
OV_ASDC_131
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Helensville 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_132
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_133
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_134
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
OV_ASDC_135
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_136
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_137
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Waimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_138
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Okura Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
VAR 3
VAR 4 6
20000
10000
6
272
Zone height
Zone stories
VAR 1
VAR 2
VAR 3
VAR 4
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
10000
6
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
20000
10000
6
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Papakura Countryside Living 1ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
20000
10000
6
OV_ASDC_142
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Point Wells-Omaha Flats Countryside Living 5000m2|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
15000
7500
6
OV_ASDC_143
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Ngarango Otainui Island Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_146
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kumeu - Huapai Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
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
CSL Vacant Donor and Receiver, SEA Donor
9
2
3000000
1500000
ZN_4_15
Rural Conservation
Custom
CSL Vacant Donor and Receiver, SEA Donor
9
2
ZN_4_16
Rural Production
Custom
CSL Vacant Donor and Receiver, SEA Donor
9
2
3000000
1500000
ZN_4_46
Rural Coastal
Custom
CSL Vacant Donor and Receiver, SEA Donor
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
5.40 - Not in Table, General Rules Apply
8
2
16000
8000
PR_11_263_0
Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 3|
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
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
10000
6
OV_ASDC_131
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Helensville 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_132
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
20000
6
273
Zone height
Zone stories
VAR 1
VAR 2
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_136
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_137
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Waimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
40000
20000
6
OV_ASDC_138
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Okura Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
Subdivision Rules Table 10, CSL Locations are TRSS Receivers only if VAR_3 is populated
8
2
80000
40000
6
CfGS UID
CfGS Name
Assessment type
Notes
OV_ASDC_133
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||
Countryside Living
OV_ASDC_134
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||
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
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||
Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
20000
10000
1
CSL_Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_130
CSL_1
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||
Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
20000
10000
1
CSL_Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_131
CSL_1
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
20000
10000
1
CSL_Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_132
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||
Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
CSL_Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_133
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||
Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
CSL_Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_134
CSL_1
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||
Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
20000
10000
1
CSL_Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_135
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||
Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
CSL_Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_136
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
CSL_Waimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_137
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Waimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||
Waimauku Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
CSL_Okura Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_138
CSL_3
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Okura Countryside Living 2ha|||
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||
Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
20000
10000
1
CSL_Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_130
CSL_1
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||
Kaukapakapa Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
20000
10000
1
CSL_Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_131
CSL_1
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
20000
10000
1
CSL_Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_132
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||
Matakana - Warkworth Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
CSL_Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_133
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||
Paremoremo - Albany Heights Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
CSL_Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_134
CSL_1
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||
Algies Bay Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
20000
10000
1
CSL_Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_135
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||
Puhoi Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
CSL_Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
OV_ASDC_136
CSL_2
AdditionalSubdivisionControls|Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
Parakai-Helensville Countryside Living 2ha|||
40000
20000
40000
20000
0
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
CfGS name
275
Appendix L: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan special zones (CfGS zones) and assumptions
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology 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
6.18, Max 45 dwellings
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
5.30 Note Development Cap 690 dwellings, or 630 dwellings + 120 retirement
1
PR_10_379_0
Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct C|
Structure Plan
5.30 Note Development Cap 690 dwellings, or 630 dwellings + 120 retirement
1
PR_10_380_0
Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct D|
Structure Plan
5.30 Note Development Cap 690 dwellings, or 630 dwellings + 120 retirement
1
PR_10_381_0
Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct E|
Structure Plan
5.30 Note Development Cap 690 dwellings, or 630 dwellings + 120 retirement
1
PR_10_382_0
Residential precinct|Orewa 1 sub-precinct F|
Structure Plan
5.30 Note Development Cap 690 dwellings, or 630 dwellings + 120 retirement
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
5.24, Max 64 dwellings
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
5.13 Note Development Cap, max 2913 dwellings, 338 visitor units
0
20
5
PR_11_285_0
Comprehensive precinct|Gulf Harbour sub-precinct C|Waterfront Residential
Structure Plan
5.13 Note Development Cap, max 2913 dwellings, 338 visitor units
0
PR_11_286_0
Comprehensive precinct|Gulf Harbour sub-precinct D|Golf Residential
Structure Plan
5.13 Note Development Cap, max 2913 dwellings, 338 visitor units
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
5.13 Note Development Cap, max 2913 dwellings, 338 visitor units
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Rural precinct|Riverhead 3|
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
Rural precinct|Riverhead 4|
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
3.6 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_389_0
City centre precinct|Downtown West|
Rollover CBD
3.4 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_39_0
City centre precinct|Port [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.7 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_390_0
City centre precinct|Central Wharves [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.2 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_394_0
City centre precinct|Viaduct Harbour sub-precinct A [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.11 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_395_0
City centre precinct|Viaduct Harbour sub-precinct B [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.11 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_396_0
City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct A [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.14 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_397_0
City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct B [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.14 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_398_0
City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct C [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.14 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_399_0
City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct D [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.14 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_40_0
City centre precinct|Westhaven [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.13 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_400_0
City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct E [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.14 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_401_0
City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct F [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.14 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_402_0
City centre precinct|Wynyard sub-precinct G [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.14 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_41_0
City centre precinct|Viaduct Harbour [rcp/dp]|
Rollover CBD
3.11 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_414_0
City centre precinct|Quay Park sub-precinct A|
Rollover CBD
3.8 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_42_0
City centre precinct|Karangahape Road|
Rollover CBD
3.5 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_43_0
City centre precinct|Queen Street Valley|
Rollover CBD
3.9 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_45_0
City centre precinct|Cook Street Depot|
Rollover CBD
3.3 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_46_0
City centre precinct|Victoria Park Market|
Rollover CBD
3.12 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_47_0
City centre precinct|Quay Park|
Rollover CBD
3.8 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_48_0
City centre precinct|Learning|
Rollover CBD
3.6 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
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
3.1 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
0
PR_8_588_0
City centre precinct|Britomart sub-precinct B|
Rollover CBD
3.1 CBD Plan Rolled over - refer CCMP, or 2012 CfGS
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
Dwg min
Dwg max
FAR min
FAR max
GFA max (m2)
Second dwelling
CfGS UID
0
282
Appendix M: Rural zone processing guide
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Residential precinct|Greenhithe sub-precinct A|
1
1
1
PR_10_341_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct A|Wellsford
1
x
1
1
1
PR_10_342_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct B|Ti Point
1
x
1
1
1
PR_10_343_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct C|Sandspit
1
x
1
1
1
PR_10_344_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct D|Chenery Road Whangaparaoa
1
x
1
1
1
PR_10_345_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct E|Riverhaven Road Whangaparaoa
1
x
1
1
1
PR_10_346_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct F|Coal Mine Bay Whangaparaoa
1
x
1
1
1
PR_10_347_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct G|Balboa Dr Whangaparaoa
1
x
1
1
1
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
0. Vacant Sites/Latent Capacity CfGS UID
UP base zone
CfGS name
1. Minimum Site Area Subdivision
2. Transferable Rural Site 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
2A1: TRSS_2A1_Vac ant_Donor
2A2: TRSS_2A2_V acant_Receiv er
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
Final Checks and Calculations
PR_10_348_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct H|Silverdale
1
x
1
1
1
PR_10_349_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct I|Scotts Landing
1
x
1
1
1
PR_10_350_0
Residential precinct|Rodney Landscape sub-precinct J|Leigh
1
x
1
1
1
PR_11_263_0
Comprehensive precinct|Clevedon sub-precinct 3|
1
1
1
PR_11_565_0
Comprehensive precinct|Runciman sub-precinct A|
1
1
1
1
1
PR_11_566_0
Comprehensive precinct|Runciman sub-precinct B|
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
285
0. Vacant Sites/Latent Capacity CfGS UID
UP base zone
CfGS name
1. Minimum Site Area Subdivision
2. Transferable Rural Site 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
2A1: TRSS_2A1_Vac ant_Donor
2B. SEA Protection
2A2: TRSS_2A2_V acant_Receiv er
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
Final Checks and Calculations
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
286
Appendix N: List of rural towns Table 61: List of rural towns Rural town name
Local board
Local board group
Awana
Great Barrier
Hauraki Gulf Islands
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
Hauraki Gulf Islands
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
287
Rural town name
Local board
Local board group
Medlands
Great Barrier
Hauraki Gulf Islands
Muriwai
Rodney
Rural North
North Cove
Rodney
Rural North
Okiwi
Great Barrier
Hauraki Gulf Islands
Okupu
Great Barrier
Hauraki Gulf Islands
Okura
Hibiscus and Bays
Urban North
Omaha
Rodney
Rural North
Orapiu
Waiheke
Hauraki Gulf Islands
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
Hauraki Gulf Islands
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
Hauraki Gulf Islands
Vivan Bay
Rodney
Rural North
Waiau Beach
Franklin
Rural South
Waiau Pa
Franklin
Rural South
Waimauku
Rodney
Rural North
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Hauraki Gulf Islands
Whangateau
Rodney
Rural North
Whenuapai Coastal
Upper Harbour
Urban North
Whenuapai Village
Upper Harbour
Urban North
Whitford
Franklin
Rural South
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
289
Appendix O: Special areas with type, location and expected future development yields
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Residential not permitted under PAUP
Silverdale 2
Structure Plan
Hibiscus and Bays
Urban
Outside
Outside
33.8
Residential not permitted under PAUP
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
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban
Outside
Outside
1.0
Residential not permitted under PAUP
Framework plan requited for further development. No maximum dwellings or business land provision outlined in PAUP
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Special area size (hectares)
Total dwelling potential for area
Business Land Capacity
Location
Special Activity
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban
Outside
Outside
2.1
Bayswater Marina sub-precinct C [rcp/dp]
Special Activity
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban
Outside
Outside
0.1
Bayswater Marina sub-precinct F [rcp/dp]
Special Activity
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban
Inside
Inside
0.1
Gulf Harbour Marina sub-precinct A [rcp]
Special Activity
Hibiscus and Bays
Urban
Inside
Inside
38.5
Residential not permitted under PAUP
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
Residential not permitted under PAUP
Westpark Marina sub-precinct E [rcp]
Special Activity
Upper Harbour
Urban
Inside
Inside
13.0
Residential not permitted under PAUP
Area Type
Bayswater Marina sub-precinct B [rcp/dp]
(if applicable)
Warkworth
Dwelling Capacity
Total business land potential for area
Local Board
Name
RUB (PAUP)
Rural Town
MUL (2010)
Notes and comments
Provides for existing marina activity
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
Residential not permitted under PAUP
Alexandra Park sub-precinct A
Special Activity
Albert - Eden
Urban
Inside
Inside
16.9
Provides for existing marina activity
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Special area size (hectares)
Total dwelling potential for area
Dwelling Capacity
Total business land potential for area
Business Land Capacity
Name
Area Type
Capacity availability (special 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
Future Urban - Urban
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
Future Urban - Urban
Outside
Outside
120.0
Dairy Flat
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Urban
Outside
Inside
143.7
Drury Plan Change
Future Urban Zone
Franklin
Future Urban - Urban
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
Future Urban - Rural Town
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
Future Urban - Urban
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
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
138.8
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
184.1
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
472.1
Karaka
Future Urban Zone
Papakura and Franklin
Future Urban - Urban
Outside
Inside
959.1
Opaheke
Future Urban Zone
Papakura and Franklin
Future Urban - Urban
Outside
Inside
1,068.8
Peninsula Golf Course
Future Urban Zone
Hibiscus and Bays
Future Urban - Urban
Inside
Inside
42.5
Pukekohe North - Paerata
Future Urban Zone
Franklin
Future Urban - Rural Town
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
Future Urban - Rural Town
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
Future Urban - Urban
Outside
Inside
530.4
Red Hills North
Future Urban Zone
Rodney and HendersonMassey
Future Urban - Urban
Outside
Inside
179.4
Riverhead West
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
72.7
Scott Point (Pipeline)
Future Urban Zone
Upper Harbour
Future Urban - Urban
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
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)
Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP.
Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP.
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)
293
Capacity availability (special area type)
Special area size (hectares)
Total dwelling potential for area
Business Land Capacity
Location
Future Urban Zone
Hibiscus and Bays
Future Urban - Urban
Outside
Inside
72.9
Silverdale West Business
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Urban
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
Future Urban - Rural Town
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
Future Urban - Urban
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
Total business land potential for area
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.
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
Future Urban - Urban
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
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)
Wainui East
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Urban
Outside
Inside
621.7
Warkworth (Other)
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
Warkworth
56.8
Warkworth East
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
Warkworth
99.2
Warkworth Future Business
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
Warkworth
48.7
Warkworth North
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
Warkworth
163.9
Warkworth South
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
Warkworth
389.6
Warkworth West
Future Urban Zone
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
Outside
Inside
Warkworth
39.2
Wellsford
Future Urban Zone
Pipeline
Rodney
Future Urban - Rural Town
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
Future Urban - Rural Town
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
Future Urban - Urban
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
Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP.
Future Urban zoned area - no enabled capacity from the PAUP.
288.0
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)
Whenuapai Business
Future Urban Zone
Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour
Future Urban - Urban
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
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban
Inside
Inside
2.6
Not applicable
Devonport Naval Base sub-precinct B
Special Activity
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban
Inside
Inside
4.9
Provides for existing defence activities
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity availability (special area type)
Special area size (hectares)
Local Board
Location
Special Activity
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Total dwelling potential for area
Dwelling Capacity
Total business land potential for area
Business Land 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
No maximum number of dwellings indicated in PAUP.
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
Maximum number of dwellings set in PAUP
Other
Manurewa
Urban
Outside
Inside
5.1
45
41
0.00
0.00
Maximum number of dwellings set in PAUP
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
Dwellings not permitted under the PAUP
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
Dwellings not permitted under the PAUP
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
No maximum number of dwellings indicated in PAUP.
Outside
Outside
18.0
No maximum number of dwellings indicated in PAUP.
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity availability (special area type)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
Local Board
Location
MUL (2010)
Rodney
Rural
Outside
RUB (PAUP)
Outside
Rural Town (if applicable)
Special area size (hectares)
55.2
Total dwelling potential for area
Dwelling Capacity
Total business land potential for area
Business Land Capacity
Notes and comments
Not applicable Provides for existing laboratory activities
296
Appendix P: Business areas and centres with classifications including scenario assumptions
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and 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
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban Area
0.68
3.84
0.16
1%
100
76.30
Barrys Point
Business Area
Mixed Use
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.49
0.00
0.09
0%
100
90.83
Carbine Road
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.50
3.82
0.13
1%
100
76.30
Carbine Road
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
298
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)
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
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban Area
0.77
2.66
0.29
1%
100
76.30
Devonport
Centre
Town Centre
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban Area
0.97
2.80
0.30
50%
100
45.04
Devonport Naval Base
Business Area
Light Industry
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban Area
0.00
0.00
0.11
1%
100
76.30
Devonport Naval Base
Business Area
Mixed Use
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Neighbourhood 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
Neighbourhood 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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.28
3.00
0.11
1%
100
76.30
Ellerslie South
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
299
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)
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.37
4.00
0.25
60%
100
37.37
Great South Road/Ellerslie West
Business Area
Business Park
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.73
4.00
0.20
1%
100
13.00
Great South Road/Ellerslie West
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.91
3.94
0.23
1%
100
76.30
Great South Road/Ellerslie West
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
300
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)
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
301
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)
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
Manukau Road (Pukekohe)
Business Area
Light Industry
Franklin
Rural Town
0.25
3.82
0.11
1%
100
76.30
Manukau Road (Pukekohe)
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
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban Area
0.51
2.17
0.23
1%
100
76.30
Milford
Business Area
Mixed Use
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban Area
0.33
3.02
0.25
60%
100
37.37
Milford
Centre
Town Centre
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.34
2.18
0.14
1%
100
76.30
Morin Road
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.46
3.27
0.25
60%
100
37.37
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
302
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)
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.43
3.77
0.25
60%
100
39.36
Mt Wellington
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.42
3.90
0.25
60%
100
37.37
Mt Wellington Highway
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.35
3.49
0.25
60%
100
37.37
Mt Wellington North
Business Area
General Business
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.45
3.20
0.15
1%
100
59.04
Mt Wellington North
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.75
3.98
0.18
1%
100
76.30
Mt Wellington North
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.69
4.63
0.25
50%
100
45.04
Onehunga East
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.49
3.44
0.13
1%
100
76.30
Onehunga East
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.53
3.68
0.25
60%
100
37.37
Onehunga South
Business Area
Heavy Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.27
3.78
0.09
0%
100
90.83
Onehunga South
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.44
3.50
0.12
1%
100
76.30
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
303
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)
Onehunga South
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.73
4.72
0.25
60%
100
37.37
Onehunga West
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.39
3.89
0.11
1%
100
76.30
Onehunga West
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.38
1.27
0.29
60%
100
37.37
Panmure
Centre
Town Centre
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
304
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)
Parnell North
Business Area
Mixed Use
Waitemata
Urban Area
1.19
3.73
0.31
60%
100
37.37
Penrose
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Neighbourhood Centre
Puketapapa
Urban Area
0.72
2.45
0.30
50%
100
53.37
Royal Oak
Centre
Town Centre
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban Area
0.38
4.00
0.22
1%
100
13.00
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
305
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)
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.54
4.08
0.15
1%
100
59.04
Southdown
Business Area
Heavy Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.00
0.00
0.09
0%
100
90.83
Southdown
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
2.78
3.20
0.18
1%
100
59.04
Sylvia Park
Centre
Metropolitan Centre
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.34
13.60
0.15
50%
90
37.51
Sylvia Park
Business Area
Mixed Use
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.33
4.87
0.25
60%
100
37.37
Taharoto Road
Business Area
Mixed Use
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Devonport - Takapuna
Urban Area
1.42
7.38
0.25
50%
90
37.51
Takapuna
Business Area
Mixed Use
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
Urban Area
0.30
2.52
0.11
0%
100
90.83
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
306
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)
Te Papapa/Penrose South
Business Area
Light Industry
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Devonport - Takapuna
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
Neighbourhood 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
Neighbourhood 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
Maungakiekie - Tamaki
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
Neighbourhood 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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
307
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)
Whenuapai Pinepac
Business Area
Light Industry
Upper Harbour
Urban Area
0.08
2.07
0.11
1%
100
76.30
Whenuapai Village
Centre
Neighbourhood 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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
308
Appendix Q: Local board groups
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
_length_parcel_road_frontage_4levels
VAR_4
30
_length_parcel_road_frontage_56levels
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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)
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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:
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
329
Appendix U: Investigating potential for amalgamation of parcels located in the Mixed Housing zone of the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan
Capacity for Growth Study 2013: Methodology and Assumptions
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.
Investigating potential for amalgamation
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
Investigating potential for amalgamation
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
Investigating potential for amalgamation
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
Investigating potential for 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.
Investigating potential for amalgamation
4
Figure 3: New amalgamated parcels created by model - good outputs
Figure 4: New amalgamated parcels created by model - bad outputs
Investigating potential for amalgamation
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.
Investigating potential for amalgamation
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.
Investigating potential for amalgamation
7