Howick Local Board feedback on Plan Change 120
Due to central government legislation, Auckland Council is required to upzone and enable more housing across the city. This was previously under Plan Change 78 but has been replaced with Plan Change 120. A further change by Government changed the minimum dwellings from 2million to 1.4million, allowing Auckland Council some ability to alter the proposal.
At our meeting on 25 June, the Howick Local Board was asked for our feedback on two possible scenarios to meet these new requirements. Because of the incredibly short timeframe (we'd only been briefed the Friday prior), we agreed to defer the item until the following week. This also meant we could allow limited public input before we discussed and agreed our feedback.
On Thursday 2 July, the Howick Local Board heard from three resident and ratepayers associations (Howick, Cockle Bay, and Bucklands Beach) and three local residents. We then discussed their input, asked staff for advice, and debated our feedback. I've copied our full feedback below which can also be found online here: https://aucklandcouncil.resolve.red/portal/Meeting/12500/97720?showMinutes=1
Please note that this isn't my feedback - its the collective view of the Howick Local Board. I contributed to it but I didn't write it all.
This is an incredibly complex matter and the lack of time for us to properly consider the issues makes it even more challenging. Given the short timeframe, I focused my efforts on understanding the impact on the Botany, Burswood, and Huntington Park areas. I am concerned that there allowance for six storey terraced housing and apartment in areas that are known to flood (which we noted in our feedback). Unfortunately the intensification required by this Plan Change was mandated by an Act of Parliament and is not optional – Auckland Council must comply. This includes mandatory upzoning around town centres.
The next decision point sits with the Policy, Planning, and Development Committee of Auckland Council who are expected to meet on 21 July. Regardless of the committee’s decision, there will be a second opportunity of 20 days for further public submissions (expected to be August). The Streamlined Planning Process for PC120 will continue with hearings before the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) and recommendations by the IHP back to council. The legislation requires that Council decisions on the IHP recommendations are publicly notified by 28 June 2027.
That the Howick Local Board:
Howick Local Board Overall views and feedback on Plan Change 120 Amendment Scenarios A and B
a) tautoko / support Scenario A with a variation to support intensification in Meadowlands, and a reduction in intensification in Howick Village, especially for Howick Local Board area as it provides a more appropriate balance between enabling housing growth and ensuring development occurs in locations where infrastructure capacity exists, or where there is a realistic and funded pathway to deliver the infrastructure required to support growth, including around large town centres, precincts, and rapid transit corridors.
b) tono / request that some of the THAB zoning proposed for the Howick Village (specifically the Northern Slopes from Mellons Bay Road to Sale Street, and Ridge Road around Stockade Hill) are swapped to upzone around Meadowlands (as proposed under Scenario B).
c) tuhi tīpoka / note that Scenario A results in less additional development occurring in areas where significant infrastructure constraints remain, including limitations relating to stormwater management, wastewater and drinking water networks, transport infrastructure, schools, medical centres, parks, open space, and other community facilities.
d) express concern that both Scenarios would enable significant additional housing capacity in areas where infrastructure capacity remains constrained, including:
I. Stormwater and flood management infrastructure
II. Wastewater and drinking water networks
III. Transport and roading networks
IV. Public transport accessibility
V. Schools and community facilities, and
VI. Parks, reserves, and access to quality open space.
e) tuhi tīpoka / note the board’s direct experience with the impacts of growth outpacing infrastructure provision in developing areas such as Ormiston, as well as the challenges associated with ageing infrastructure in established areas such as Howick, Howick Beach, Mellons Bay and Cockle Bay.
f) kohuki / consider that future growth should be coordinated with the timely provision of supporting infrastructure to ensure communities remain functional, liveable, and resilient over the long term.
g) tuhi tīpoka / note that the impacts of Plan Change 120 vary across Auckland and that local circumstances differ considerably between communities; and acknowledge the expertise and knowledge of other local boards regarding matters affecting their respective areas, generally deferring to their views on local impacts outside the Howick Local Board area.
h) tuhi tīpoka / note that a significant proportion of the additional housing capacity enabled under the proposed amended scenarios is concentrated within the Howick, Highland Park, Pakūranga, and Botany areas, and request that the cumulative infrastructure implications of this level of intensification be carefully assessed and addressed through appropriate infrastructure planning and investment.
Levers
Walkable Catchment Heights
i) generally supports increased building heights within walkable catchments where there is strong access to rapid transit, employment, services, and supporting infrastructure, such as the Eastern Busway corridor. The board considers that increased height must also be assessed alongside legitimate qualifying matters relating to sunlight, heritage, landscape, infrastructure capacity, and local character.
j) tautoko / support keeping the existing viewshafts from Stockade Hill and The Glebe as qualifying matters.
k) tuhi tīpoka / note that while there are levers for population increases in a walkable catchment of train and frequent bus services, it must be recognised that the roading network in and through Howick is already at maximum capacity and should not be increased.
l) tuhi tīpoka / note that the Howick Village should have height restrictions around it to increase 360 degree view shaft protections from Stockade Hill and along Picton Street. Particular consideration should be given to protecting the historic character of the village as one of Auckland’s most distinctive historic town centres as consistent with the planning intent in the Auckland Unitary Plan’s Special Character Areas Overlay. It also aligns with the Howick-specific provisions introduced through Plan Change 34, which recognise the importance of managing development in a manner that protects the historic associations, views, scale, and character of Howick Town Centre.
m) tuhi tīpoka / note that the feeder roads to Howick and Highland Park are already at high levels of traffic and congestion due to current high levels of surrounding population growth, and as a result, Howick and Highland Park business areas and Bucklands Beach Peninsula should not be further intensified.
n) recommends further investigation of the potential visual and landscape effects of increased building heights around Botany Town Centre. Particular considerations should be given to:
I. the Eastern ridgeline backdrop and relevant landscape considerations (Ridgeline Protection Overlay under the RMA section 6(b) and section 7(c)(f)(g))
II. consistent community feedback over many years that Botany has developed a distinctive low-rise, street-based metropolitan centre character, and that any significant changes to building height should be carefully evaluated against these existing qualities.
o) recommends that Bucklands Beach Peninsula be returned to single house zone due to access constraints and infrastructure concerns.
p) tuhi tīpoka / note that in earlier information provided to the Policy, Planning, and Development Committee (workshop 27/05/2026), it was estimated that Scenario A would reduce future house prices by 1-2% and provide $0.7B in benefits, while Scenario B was estimated to reduce future house prices by 2-4% and provide $1.7B in benefits.
Intensification around town and local centres
q) only supports intensification around Meadowlands/Somerville areas as an exchange for reducing intensification levels in the Howick town centre and Bucklands Beach Peninsula (refer to point a and o above).
r) tuhi tīpoka / note that the accumulated burden of intensification now falls on the town centres (Howick, Pakūranga, Highland Park and Botany) with increases in Terraced Housing and Apartment Blocks (THAB) zoning of up to six storeys.
s) tuhi tīpoka / note that there is nothing in the proposed plan change or the legislation that required it to provide additional infrastructure or funding to respond to the population increase.
t) expresses concern about the treatment of Howick Village as a standard town centre for intensification purposes. It is imperative that Howick Village retains its identity as a village rather than evolving into a conventional metropolitan or urban town centre. The historical character, heritage values, tourism role, and unique sense of place are fundamental to the success of Howick Village and are highly valued by businesses, visitors and the community (note: Howick Village Centre Plan 2016). Community usage and expectation of Howick Village differ significantly from larger contemporary town centres like Botany, Ormiston, or Sylvia Park.
u) seeks clarification regarding the treatment of Ormiston Town Centre within PC120, including the development capacity already enabled. The local board would like to understand whether greater utilisation of existing growth capacity within Ormiston could reduce pressure for intensification elsewhere.
v) recommends that intensification around Pakūranga should support and give effect to Pakūranga Town Centre Masterplan.
Intensification along bus routes on the frequent transport network
w) supports sensible intensification around high-quality transport routes like the Eastern Busway, and support in principle intensification along the potential future Airport-to-Botany rapid transit.
x) supports the removal of the THAB upzoning for the FTN (frequent transit network) previously identified under PC120 between Howick, Meadowlands, and Botany (Sandspit, Litten and Millhouse Roads).
Intensification in the wider residential areas
y) tautoko / support retaining Auckland Unitary Plan operative zoning in suburban areas outside of centres, RTN stations and their walkable catchments within the local board area.
z) tuhi tīpoka / note concerns that infrastructure within parts of the local board area is ageing and lacks sufficient capacity to accommodate additional residential intensification.
Downzoning due to natural hazards
aa. tautoko / support the downzoning for natural hazards, particularly those identified in Half Moon Bay and Cockle Bay areas and across in flood plains. These areas still require significant infrastructural attention.
bb. tuhi tīpoka / note that the Bucklands Beach Peninsula and much of Howick’s coastline is already subject to coastal erosion issues, particularly along our beaches and clifftops, and should return to single house zone.
cc. tūtohu / recommend reinstating the single house zone provisions and reducing permitted impermeable site coverage in identified low-lying and coastal hazard-prone areas of Bucklands Beach, Eastern Beach, and Half Moon Bay where increased intensity has the potential to increase exposure to natural hazards, including coastal inundation, flooding, and erosion, while placing additional pressure on stormwater networks and other vulnerable infrastructure.
I. the board supports a precautionary, risk-based planning approach that seeks to avoid increasing the number of people, homes, and assets exposed to natural hazards, consistent with long-term climate resilience and infrastructure sustainability objectives
II. any future development capacity in these areas should be supported by robust natural hazard assessments, transparent communication and clear alignment grounded in community needs, and demonstrate that hazard risks can be appropriately avoided or mitigated.
dd. tuhi tīpoka / note that there are flood plains within the upzoning planned around the Botany Town Centre (as shown on Auckland Council’s floodviewer), especially for Keppoch Court, Newinn Crescent and Moyrus Crescent, and request that these locations are reviewed for controls to ensure that the zoning is appropriate based on the known flooding risks.
Partial withdrawal of Plan Change 120
ee. acknowledges that a partial withdrawal will limit the ability of certain property owners and residents to provide feedback where their properties are no longer affected by the plan change, however, the significant benefits of simplification and timely progression make this a preferred outcome.
ff. supports a targeted approach where changes are focused on areas that remain relevant to the purpose and scope.
Additional feedback
gg. tuhi tīpoka / note the cumulative impacts of growth and increased traffic movements through the Howick area, including traffic generated by growth in surrounding areas such as Beachlands and Maraetai, and request that the transport implications of this growth be fully considered when determining future housing capacity within the local board area.
hh. tono / request that greater consideration be given to opportunities for growth and intensification in locations with strong transport connectivity and strategic infrastructure capacity, including along major transport corridors such as Ti Irirangi Drive.
ii. express concern that the Howick Local Board has been requested to provide feedback on a complex and significant planning matter within an extremely limited timeframe, noting that:
I. the board received its first briefing on the proposals on 19 June 2026;
II. the relevant reports were not available until 20 June 2026;
III. the board has had limited opportunity to review the technical information, engage with its community, and develop considered feedback; and
IV. the decisions arising from Plan Change 120 will have long-term implications for the Howick Local Board community.
V. adjourned its business meeting to a week later to enable the community more time to prepare and present their position on Plan Change 120 through community meetings and public forums.
VI. has been able to consider community feedback in its deliberations and that the Howick Local Board feedback captures and represents its community’s position on the matter.
jj. tuhi tīpoka / note that the intensification required by this Plan Change was mandated by an Act of Parliament and is not optional – Auckland Council must comply. This includes mandatory upzoning around town centres (UPS-UD Policy 3).
kk. tuhi tīpoka / note that while residents submitted on the original PC120, the Howick Local Board has not been provided specific submissions from local residents – all submissions are available online and are not separated by local board (due to the way the data was captured). The Howick Local Board has been provided a brief summary of the 10,550 Auckland-wide submissions including key themes.
ll. tuhi tīpoka / note that for several years there has been strong sentiment expressed by ratepayer groups, members of the public, and local board members that the current zoning of central Howick Village as a Town Centre Zone, is both undesirable and erroneous. Additionally, the areas zoned THAB on either side of the Picton Street ridgeline are now larger than those proposed under the AUP, and threaten the very essence of what makes Howick the historic, charming, unique and desirable place it has always been in the past. The criteria applied to justify the zoning change from Local Centre to Town Centre was incorrectly applied (refer: Howick Town Centre – background to zoning), and therefore request that officers investigate options for a review of the current zoning of the Howick Town Centre area to better reflect the heritage, scale, location, amenity, and community aspirations of this historical part of Auckland.