District Plan criteria for Good Public Transport Accessibility
Tony Randle made this Official Information request to Wellington City Council
The request was partially successful.
From: Tony Randle
Dear Wellington City Council,
The proposed District Plan 2021 includes the following Statement about Medium Density Residential Zone (MDRZ):
“The Medium Density Residential Zone encompasses areas of the city located near commercial centres and with good public transport accessibility. These are areas used predominantly for residential activities with moderate concentration and bulk of buildings, such as detached, semi-detached and terraced housing, low-rise apartments and other compatible activities”
WCC District Plan Introduction to MDRZ
I am interested in the WCC understanding an assessment criteria it uses to determine if an area has “good public transport accessibility” and so could be considered to being a MDRZ.
1) Can the WCC please provide copies of the reports, presentations and/or working papers where the definition of "good public transport accessibility" was discussed and/or analysed for use in the proposed District Plan?
2) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with Auckland Transport and/or Auckland Council or any other local government councils or agencies where there was discussion on the definition of “good public transport accessibility”?
3) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi or any other government ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on the definition of “good public transport accessibility”?
4) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the Greater Wellington Regional Council or any other local government councils or agencies where there was discussion on whether the Johnsonville Line would or would not meet the definition of “good public transport accessibility”?
5) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi or any other government ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on whether the Johnsonville Line would or would not meet the definition of “good public transport accessibility”?
6) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi, or any other government ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on the One Network Framework and its alignment with the definition of “good public transport accessibility” in the proposed District Plan?
I am also interested in the WCC engagement with The Road Efficiency Group that developed the One Network Framework for Waka Kotahi and was used by the WCC Spatial Plan to decide that medium density housing should be built close to railway stations (which is reflected in the proposed District Plan). I understand that the WCC is a member of the The Road Efficiency Group. The One Network Framework Mode Classification for public transport is listed: https://nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/road...
7) Can the WCC please provide copies of any reports, presentations and/or working papers from The Road Efficiency Group that provided supporting analysis and/or the criteria used in the One Network Framework Mode Classification PT1:"All metro rail corridors and dedicated corridors for non-rail public transport: all services.”?
8) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with The Road Efficiency Group where there was discussion on the One Network Framework and its alignment with the definition of “good public transport accessibility” in the proposed District Plan?
9) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the The Road Efficiency Group where there was discussion on whether the Johnsonville Line would or would not meet the definition of “good public transport accessibility”?
If the requested information is held in electronic form, it is preferred that it is provided in its complete and original electronic format.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Randle
From: BUS: Assurance
Wellington City Council
Tēnā koe Tony
Thank you for your email dated 14/01/2022 requesting information about
Medium Density Residential Zone (MDRZ).
Our team will manage your request under the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 which requires us to provide a decision
as soon as possible, but no later than 14/02/2022, being 20 working days
of receipt.
The reference number for your request is IRC-2827.
Please contact us if you have any further questions.
Kind regards
The Assurance Team
Email: [1][email address]
Wellington City Council | W [2]Wellington.govt.nz | [3]Facebook|
[4]Twitter
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that
confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the
sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
[5]http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/Images...
show quoted sections
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Dear Mr. Randle,
Thank you for your request made under the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the Act), and received by the Council
on 14 January 2022. In your email you requested information in respect of
the Medium Density Residential Zone (MDRZ).
Given the scope of your request, information is still being collated.
The Act requires that we advise you of our decision on your request no
later than 20 working days after the day we received your request.
Unfortunately, it will not be possible to meet that time limit and we are
therefore writing to notify you of an extension of the time to make our
decision to 28 February 2022.
This extension is necessary because consultations necessary to make a
decision on your request are such that a proper response cannot reasonably
be made within the original time limit.
Right of review
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Further information is available on the Ombudsman website,
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
Thank you again for your request, if you have any question please feel
free to contact me.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315
E [2][email address] | W [3]Wellington.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that
confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the
sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
[4][IMG]
From: Tony Randle <[5][FOI #18190 email]>
Sent: Friday, 14 January 2022 10:26 am
To: BUS: Assurance <[6][email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - District Plan criteria for Good
Public Transport Accessibility
Dear Wellington City Council,
The proposed District Plan 2021 includes the following Statement about
Medium Density Residential Zone (MDRZ):
“The Medium Density Residential Zone encompasses areas of the city located
near commercial centres and with good public transport accessibility.
These are areas used predominantly for residential activities with
moderate concentration and bulk of buildings, such as detached,
semi-detached and terraced housing, low-rise apartments and other
compatible activities”
WCC District Plan Introduction to MDRZ
I am interested in the WCC understanding an assessment criteria it uses to
determine if an area has “good public transport accessibility” and so
could be considered to being a MDRZ.
1) Can the WCC please provide copies of the reports, presentations and/or
working papers where the definition of "good public transport
accessibility" was discussed and/or analysed for use in the proposed
District Plan?
2) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with Auckland
Transport and/or Auckland Council or any other local government councils
or agencies where there was discussion on the definition of “good public
transport accessibility”?
3) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the
Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi or any other government
ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on the
definition of “good public transport accessibility”?
4) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the
Greater Wellington Regional Council or any other local government councils
or agencies where there was discussion on whether the Johnsonville Line
would or would not meet the definition of “good public transport
accessibility”?
5) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the
Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi or any other government
ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on whether
the Johnsonville Line would or would not meet the definition of “good
public transport accessibility”?
6) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the
Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi, or any other government
ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on the One
Network Framework and its alignment with the definition of “good public
transport accessibility” in the proposed District Plan?
I am also interested in the WCC engagement with The Road Efficiency Group
that developed the One Network Framework for Waka Kotahi and was used by
the WCC Spatial Plan to decide that medium density housing should be built
close to railway stations (which is reflected in the proposed District
Plan). I understand that the WCC is a member of the The Road Efficiency
Group. The One Network Framework Mode Classification for public transport
is listed:
[7]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7) Can the WCC please provide copies of any reports, presentations and/or
working papers from The Road Efficiency Group that provided supporting
analysis and/or the criteria used in the One Network Framework Mode
Classification PT1:"All metro rail corridors and dedicated corridors for
non-rail public transport: all services.”?
8) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with The Road
Efficiency Group where there was discussion on the One Network Framework
and its alignment with the definition of “good public transport
accessibility” in the proposed District Plan?
9) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the The
Road Efficiency Group where there was discussion on whether the
Johnsonville Line would or would not meet the definition of “good public
transport accessibility”?
If the requested information is held in electronic form, it is preferred
that it is provided in its complete and original electronic format.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Randle
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #18190 email]
Is [9][Wellington City Council request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests
to Wellington City Council? If so, please contact us using this form:
[10]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
References
Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://wellington.govt.nz/
4. https://wellington.govt.nz/?utm_source=e...
5. mailto:[FOI #18190 email]
6. mailto:[email address]
7. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. mailto:[FOI #18190 email]
9. mailto:[Wellington City Council request email]
10. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
11. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Dear Mr. Randle,
Further to my email dated 14 February 2022 I am now able to provide you
with the information you have requested in respect of Medium Density
Residential Zones.
Copies of the information held in respect of questions 1 to 9 can be
accessed via the following Dropbox link:
[1]https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1y75jr85azkmz...
Please note: under section 7 (2)(a) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987, some information has been redacted as
it contains personal information about private individuals.
If you disagree with the decision to redact the documents, you can apply
in writing to the Ombudsman to have the decision investigated and reviewed
under section 27 (3) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987.
In addition to the Dropbox documents; the following information also
provides some useful context in respect of your request.
The assessment to determine if an area has “good transport accessibility”
for medium density residential zoning is covered in the Wellington Outer
Suburbs Assessment & Evaluation Report (2020) by Beca and Studio Pacific
Architecture and can be accessed via the Councils website:
o [2]Introduction
o [3]Northern Suburbs Assessment
o [4]Western Suburbs Assessment
o [5]Southern and Eastern Suburbs Part 1
o [6]Southern and Eastern Suburbs Part 2
The Introduction report includes a matrix of medium density enablers. For
public transport, this included a 10 minute walking catchment or 800 m
from a rail station or arterials with high frequency public transit
(weighting ‘3’), and 2-3 minutes walking or 200 m from other bus networks
(weighting ‘1’).
The draft district plan used this assessment to map the medium density
residential zones. The mapping was also based on [7]NPS-UD directions and
guidance, and the Ministry for the Environment’s fact sheet on
intensification. We are reviewing the draft district plan consultation
feedback now. The Council does not hold any more recent reports,
presentations or working papers on "good public transport accessibility"
relating to the medium density residential zone.
The Council has not corresponded with other local government or central
government agencies on this topic at this time.
The One Network Framework (ONF) documents are online here:
[8]https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/....
Because all that has been done to date in Wellington City is to classify
the ‘current network’, the documentation for current networks, and how to
apply PT1, is here:
[9]https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/....
The ONF does not specifically relate to medium density zoning, although it
does give a common categorisation to improve integration of transport and
land use planning.
The Road Efficiency Group did not work on how the ONF aligns with
assessment of good public transport accessibility in the proposed District
Plan. Implementation of the ONF has included comparing the current ONF
classification against District Plan and Network Operating Framework (if
available), focusing on the areas that will see a planned change of use or
growth. Future district plan changes can consider the ONF.
We do not hold any correspondence with The Road Efficiency Group in
respect of the Johnsonville Line.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315
E [10][email address] | W [11]Wellington.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that
confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the
sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
[12][IMG]
Dear Wellington City Council,
The proposed District Plan 2021 includes the following Statement about
Medium Density Residential Zone (MDRZ):
“The Medium Density Residential Zone encompasses areas of the city located
near commercial centres and with good public transport accessibility.
These are areas used predominantly for residential activities with
moderate concentration and bulk of buildings, such as detached,
semi-detached and terraced housing, low-rise apartments and other
compatible activities”
WCC District Plan Introduction to MDRZ
I am interested in the WCC understanding an assessment criteria it uses to
determine if an area has “good public transport accessibility” and so
could be considered to being a MDRZ.
1) Can the WCC please provide copies of the reports, presentations and/or
working papers where the definition of "good public transport
accessibility" was discussed and/or analysed for use in the proposed
District Plan?
2) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with Auckland
Transport and/or Auckland Council or any other local government councils
or agencies where there was discussion on the definition of “good public
transport accessibility”?
3) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the
Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi or any other government
ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on the
definition of “good public transport accessibility”?
4) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the
Greater Wellington Regional Council or any other local government councils
or agencies where there was discussion on whether the Johnsonville Line
would or would not meet the definition of “good public transport
accessibility”?
5) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the
Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi or any other government
ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on whether
the Johnsonville Line would or would not meet the definition of “good
public transport accessibility”?
6) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the
Ministry for the Environment, Waka Kotahi, or any other government
ministries, departments or agencies where there was discussion on the One
Network Framework and its alignment with the definition of “good public
transport accessibility” in the proposed District Plan?
I am also interested in the WCC engagement with The Road Efficiency Group
that developed the One Network Framework for Waka Kotahi and was used by
the WCC Spatial Plan to decide that medium density housing should be built
close to railway stations (which is reflected in the proposed District
Plan). I understand that the WCC is a member of the The Road Efficiency
Group. The One Network Framework Mode Classification for public transport
is listed:
[13]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7) Can the WCC please provide copies of any reports, presentations and/or
working papers from The Road Efficiency Group that provided supporting
analysis and/or the criteria used in the One Network Framework Mode
Classification PT1:"All metro rail corridors and dedicated corridors for
non-rail public transport: all services.”?
8) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with The Road
Efficiency Group where there was discussion on the One Network Framework
and its alignment with the definition of “good public transport
accessibility” in the proposed District Plan?
9) Can the WCC please provide copies of the correspondence with the The
Road Efficiency Group where there was discussion on whether the
Johnsonville Line would or would not meet the definition of “good public
transport accessibility”?
References
Visible links
1. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1y75jr85azkmz...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
9. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
10. mailto:[email address]
11. http://wellington.govt.nz/
12. https://wellington.govt.nz/?utm_source=e...
13. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
From: Tony Randle
Dear Ian Hunter,
Thank you for the information provided.
There are a number of matters that require clarification and there appears to be some missing information.
Matters for Clarification:
A number of documents provided cannot be understood witho0ut further information. Can the WCC please provide the further information on the following documents:
A. District plan provisions for assisted housing - voluntary vs mandatory.pdf
B. Fact sheet Group 5 for design 6.10.21.pdf
C. Inclusionary housing - framework paper.pdf
D. Inclusionary Zoning Draft Issues and Options Paper.pdf
E. Mandatory_Inclusionary_Zoning-Final.pdf
F. Operative vs Draft District Plan heights.pdf
G. Request for proposal SIA Assisted Housing.pdf
H. Resource Consents of Multi-Units 2016 to 2021.pdf
The information required for A - H above information is:
1. Was this document created by the WCC or a third party ?
2. When was the document completed or, if from a third party, received by the WCC ?
3. Who is the author of the document ?
4. Was the document provided by way of an email and, if so, can a copy of this email be provided ?
I note that the provided information does not include any communications between the WCC and the Road Efficiency Group who created the One Network Framework (ONF). I also note that the WCC specifically answered Item 9 in stating "We do not hold any correspondence with The Road Efficiency Group in respect of the Johnsonville Line."
However, The WCC response includes the following statement:
"Implementation of the ONF has included comparing the current ONF classification against District Plan and Network Operating Framework (if available), focusing on the areas that will see a planned change of use or growth."
It is unclear if this statement refers to any work undertaken between the Wellington City draft District Plan and the Road Efficiency Group who created the ONF.
I. Can the WCC also specifically confirm that it has not communicated with the Road Efficiency Group on any 'supporting analysis and/or the criteria used in the One Network Framework Mode Classification PT1:"All metro rail corridors and dedicated corridors for non-rail public transport: all services.”?' which is requested item 7 ?
J. Can the WCC also specifically confirm that it has not communicated with the Road Efficiency Group 'on the One Network Framework and its alignment with the definition of “good public transport accessibility” in the proposed District Plan?' which is requested item 8 ?
There also appears to be some missing information which are attachments of linked information referred to in emails. Can the following be provided for the following emails:
K. Email 49.pdf PowerPoint Missing document(s) - Presentation to the Councillor Working Group 24 August 2021 - Heritage and Inclusionary zoning.pptx
L. Email 40_Redacted.pdf Missing document(s) - Issues and Options Report; Councillor Presentation; Initial Steering Group Presentation; Early advice against IZ1; Early Advice against IZ2 Kirdan Lees Economics Review; First test of draft IS provisions
M. Email 42_Redacted.pdf Missing document(s) - "a snapshot of the key tables based on the original WCC data provided."
N. Email 36_Redacted.pdf Missing document(s) - "attached our slides for you to circulate to the meeting group"
O. Email 31_Redacted.pdf Missing document(s) - "Here's the last Councillor presentation" … "And the Councillor presentation before that"
P. Email 6_Redacted.pdf Missing document(s) - "2. WCC’s Inclusionary Zoning issues and options paper [Note: we have since changed the name from “inclusionary zoning” to “assisted housing”] ; 5. Demographic information on Tawa, Johnsonville and Te Aro [Please use these reports for community demographic profiles but not for population projections – see below] ; 6. Population forecast by suburb 2021-2051 [These are the latest projections (June 2021)]"
Q. Email 16_Redacted.pdf Missing document(s) - "Attached as we discussed."
R. Email 14_Redacted.pdf Missing document(s) - "Item 1: Please find attached some comments on your summary."
I would highlight at this point that the original request stated "If the requested information is held in electronic form, it is preferred that it is provided in its complete and original electronic format."
In addition there was a spreadsheet that was provided in PDF format. A copy of the original spreadsheet is requested for the following:
S. MHUD housing Place summaries v12 Wellington City.pdf
Is provided to ensure my information request is fully responded by the WCC. This is not a new request.
Finally, Oral submissions on the District Plan are scheduled from the 9th of March. It would be appreciate if the response could be provided before the JCA has to submit to Councillors.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Randle
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Appendix 1 2021 08 31 Presentation Councillor workshop on inclusionary zoning.ppt
4.8M
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 2 Inclusionary Zoning Draft Issues and Options Paper.pdf
653K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 3 2021 07 01 Presentation Steering Group on inclusionary zoning.ppt
5.8M
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 4 Memo Housing affordability report back.pdf
350K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 5 9 April 2021 memo risks of mandatory inclusionary zoning in the district plan.pdf
334K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 6 2021 06 25 Assessing inclusionary zoning for Wellington city housing market Kirdan Lees Sense Partners.pdf
451K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 7 Example affordable housing and inclusionary zoning district plan provisions.pdf
269K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 8 2021 09 03 WCC Inclusionary Zoning Draft Findings 002 before corrected HBA data.pdf
560K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 9 Beca Housing Choice and Affordability presentation Sept 2021.pdf
2.7M
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 10 Submission to Falinkski Inquiry 2021.pdf
626K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 11 Te Aro demographics.pdf
1.7M
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 12 Copy of Population Forecast by suburb 2021 2051.xlsx
21K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 13 Copy of Social housing survey.pdf
97K
Download
View as HTML
Appendix 14 Options to assess in SIA on assisted housing.pdf
77K
Download
View as HTML
Dear Mr Randle,
Further to your email received on 2 March 2022 I am now able to provide
the clarification and additional documentation requested.
My response is highlighted in red below.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315
E [1][email address] | W [2]Wellington.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that
confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the
sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
show quoted sections
From: Tony Randle
Dear Ian Hunter,
Thanks for the further information and for the efforts by officers to provide it.
Unfortunately, the WCC response within the email did not work for items A - H. This information was scrambled in the response.
Can the WCC please provide this information as a separate pdf or equivalent ?
Yours sincerely,
Tony Randle
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Hello,
I'm currently away from the office on annual leave until 19 April 2022.
In my absence, could you please contact the Assurance Team via the
following: [email address]
Alternatively, I will respond to any non-urgent messages on my return.
Kind regards,
Ian
Official Information Team.
From: Tony Randle
Dear Wellington City Council,
Can someone from the WCC please update me on when my followup reply of 26 March about corrupt information in the WCC substantive response will be provided?
Yours faithfully,
Tony Randle
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Dear Mr Randle,
Further to your email below, please find attached a PDF copy of the response sent to you on 25 March 2022.
I am unsure why the response may have appeared scrambled on the FYI site.
The appendices referred to in the response of 25 March 2022 have been provided and appear to be accessible on the FYI site.
Kind regards,
Ian
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
