I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 11 February 2016

9.30am

Reception Lounge, Level 2
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Auckland Development Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Members

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Dick Quax

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Member David Taipari

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Member Liane Ngamane

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

Katherine Wilson

Democracy Advisor

 

5 February 2016

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8133

Email: Katherine.Wilson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

Please note: Any attachments listed within this agenda as “Under Separate Cover” can be found at the Auckland Council website http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

 



TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years.  It will guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities.  Key responsibilities include:

 

·         Unitary Plan

·         Plan changes to operative plans

·         Designation of Special Housing Areas

·         Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

·         Spatial Plans including Area Plans

·         City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

·         Tamaki regeneration projects

·         Built Heritage

·         Urban design

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b)     where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only

(ii)      Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii)     Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv)    Power to establish subcommittees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·           Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·           Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·           Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·           In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·           The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·           However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·           All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·           All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·           Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·           Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·           Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

5.1     AECOM - Sentiment Survey - Trevor Hipkins                                                  7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

9          Reports Pending Status Update                                                                                  9

10        Proposed Variation 13 to Plan Change 14 - Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) to be made operative.                                                                                  17

11        City Centre Masterplan Targets Review                                                                   29

12        New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2015/16 Proposed Submission     69

13        Aotea Quarter Framework - adoption                                                                       81  

14        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

15        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 87

C1       Confidential Reports Pending Status Update                                                          87  

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr LA Cooper and Cr MP Webster has been received.

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 8 December 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

5.1       AECOM - Sentiment Survey - Trevor Hipkins

Purpose

1.       Mr Trevor Hipkins, Technical Director will present AECOM’s Sentiment Survey for the committee’s information.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive and thank Mr Hipkins for the presentation.

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

8          Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 

Reports Pending Status Update

 

File No.: CP2016/00888

 

Purpose

1.       To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutions from February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.

Executive Summary

2.       This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). It updates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutions from February 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.

3.       This report covers open resolutions only. A separate report has been placed in the confidential agenda covering confidential resolutions requiring follow up reports.

4.       The committee’s Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached for information (Attachment B).

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the reports pending status update.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Reports Pending Status Update

4

bView

Auckland Development Committee - Forward Work Programme 2016

4

Signatories

Author

Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 

PDF Creator



Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 

Proposed Variation 13 to Plan Change 14 - Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) to be made operative.

 

File No.: CP2015/26891

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Variation 13 to Plan Change (PC14) to Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative.

Executive Summary

2.       Variation 13 to PC14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) seeks to address the issue of the transfer of rural lot rights created in the Waikato District and placed in the Auckland District by prohibiting the transfer of subdivision rights between the two districts. The term transferable rural lot right relates to the ability to create a right to subdivide land at one location but transfer that same right to another location where it is utilised.

3.       The issue arose because the former Franklin District Council’s District Plan included provision for transferable title rights throughout its rural district. At the time of the Auckland, Council formation, Franklin District was split into three Local Government areas (Auckland, Waikato and Hauraki) and the Operative District Plan effectively allowed for the transfer of titles across these new boundaries.

4.       Variation 13 was notified by Waikato District Council and Auckland Council on 28 July and 31 July 2012 respectively. Following a hearing on submissions received, the council’s decision to approve Variation 13 (making the transfer of cross boundary lot rights a prohibited activity) was released in March 2015.

5.       Two appeals were received from Glenn Soroka, Pakua Trust and Taraire Developments Limited and Kent Baigent. Following negotiations, the Environment Court issued a consent order on 12 November 2015 resolving both appeals, which includes specific provisions allowing the transfer of both appellants remaining outstanding transferrable lot rights into the Franklin section of the Auckland region. The appeal process did not change the purpose or intent of Variation 13 to PC14.

6.       A copy of Variation 13 as proposed to be made operative is included as (Attachment A). The opportunity now exists to declare Variation 13 operative.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve in accordance with the consent orders issued by the Environment Court, Variation 13 to Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) to be made operative in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      authorise the Manager Planning South to complete the statutory processes required under Clause 20 to the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991, to make Variation 13 to Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative, including the determination of the operative and notification date.

 

Comments

7.       Plan Change 14 (PC14) to the Franklin District Plan was notified by the former Franklin District Council on 30 September 2003. PC 14 was a comprehensive replacement of existing rural issues, objectives, policies and rules to the Franklin District Plan aiming to better manage growth in the rural and coastal parts of the district, while offering environmental benefits.

8.       As part of PC14, “a transferrable rural lot right” provision was introduced throughout the Rural and Coastal zones, to manage growth, and to reduce the levels of land fragmentation that currently exist in rural areas (as the district has a large number of vacant rural lots on which dwellings could potentially be built). This mechanism relies upon a “donor lot” being created, either by protecting a bush feature on a property or amalgamating a vacant lot, giving rise to a transferable right which could be used in another location to create an additional lot (“receiver lot”) beyond what would normally be provided for in the District Plan.

9.       When PC14 was notified in 2003, with the inclusion of a transferable rural lot right, it was not anticipated that there would be a further local government reform and that Franklin District would be dissolved and its land area amalgamated into three separate and distinct territorial authorities. The creation of new territorial boundaries has meant in the context of implementing transferable rural lot right provisions that donor and receiver lots may be located in different territorial authority jurisdictions.

10.     The transferable lot right created an industry for transfers from low cost land areas to high cost areas (most notably in Auckland). Evidence provided at the hearing demonstrated that the majority of the donor lots are in Waikato District and the majority of receiver lots are in Auckland.

11.     To address the undesirable consequences and complexity of implementing transferable rural lot rights across territorial districts, Variation 13 proposed the method of transferable rural lot rights be confined to subdivisions in which the donor lot and receiver lot are located within Auckland. Variation 13 was notified in July 2012. A similar approach was adopted by the Waikato District Council in a complementary variation which seeks to ensure that any transfer of lots occurs only on an intra-district basis within the Waikato District.

12.     Following a joint hearing on submissions received, the decision of both councils to approve Variation 13 (making the transfer of cross-boundary lot rights a prohibited activity) was released in March 2015.

13.     The following parties appealed both councils’ decisions to the Environment Court: Glenn Soroka, Pakua Trust and Taraire Developments Limited and Kent Baigent. The appellants have a combined total of 30 lots consented in the Waikato by protecting bush that they wish to transfer to Auckland, including into the Environmental Enhancement Overlay Area (EEOA).

14.     Both of the appeals were settled by negotiation, through the recognition of these outstanding entitlements, and providing a specific rule for both parties which allows for the transfer of their remaining lot right entitlements across the boundary into Auckland including into the EEOA.

15.     On 12 November 2015 the Environment Court issued a consent order resolving the appeals. The appeal process did not change the purpose or intent of Variation 13 to PC14. Council can now approve Variation 13 to PC14 to be made fully operative.

16.     Declaring Variation 13 to PC14 operative is the last phase of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process for the Plan Change.  Effectively, the whole of PC14 becomes operative.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17.     This report addresses a procedural matter in making Variation 13 to PC14 operative. The Franklin Local Board will be notified of Variation 13 becoming operative and have been kept updated on progress regarding the resolution of the appeals.

Māori impact statement

18.     As part of the statutory notification process Auckland and Waikato District Councils notified all iwi groups with interests in the area affected by Variation 13. There were no submissions received from iwi groups, nor were there any submissions relating to Māori values. The iwi groups notified were:

·           Ngati Maru

·           Ngati Whanaunga

·           Ngati Paoa

·           Te Patukirikiri

·           Ngati Tamaoha

·           Te Ara Rangatu o Ngati Te Ata o Waiohua

·           Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

·           Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Trust

19.     The appellants do not represent iwi or claim to have any iwi affiliations.

Implementation

20.     The recommendation to make Variation 13 to PC14 operative is consistent with Council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

21.     Pursuant to clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, Council can now approve Variation 13 to PC14 and once approved, publicly notify the Plan Change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

22.     There will be some administrative costs involved in making the Variation 13 to PC14 operative and consequential updating of the Auckland District Plan (Franklin Section). These costs can be accommodated within the Plans and Places Department’s budget.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Operative Version of Variation 13 to PC14

4

Signatories

Author

Trevor Watson - Team Leader Planning - South

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 








Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 

City Centre Masterplan Targets Review

 

File No.: CP2016/00602

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the revised targets for the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP).

Executive Summary

2.       The CCMP was published in 2012 with nine outcomes and 36 targets. This review proposes keeping the nine outcomes, but replacing the initial targets with 24 new ones. These have been recommended for approval by the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB).

3.       A review of the targets themselves was always envisaged, and was endorsed in 2015 by the ACCAB. The aim was to reduce the number of targets, ensuring they could more accurately measure the city centre work programme and be reported on regularly.

4.       The proposed revised targets consist of 17 headline targets and seven supporting targets, including tourism, transport, safety, jobs creation, population, pedestrian numbers, and the experience of residents living in the city centre.

5.       The City Centre Masterplan Targets Review is appended to this report. It includes progress reports where data is already available. This shows that 12 measures are on, or exceeding, target; two are slightly below target; and the remainder do not yet have data or information available to report progress.

6.       The targets themselves have been revised following discussions with partners across the council family to ensure that, where possible, they reflect existing or recently-developed measures from within the council family.

7.       The process has highlighted some potential measures that could be included at a later stage, so it is anticipated that these measures will evolve further. This process of evolution was endorsed by the ACCAB.

Recommendations

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve the revised targets for the City Centre Masterplan; and

b)      note the progress already achieved against the outcomes.

Comments

8.       Analysis of the original targets found that many did not adequately measure the outcomes, were not available at the city centre level, were too vague or – given progress in the city centre – were not ambitious enough.

9.       The Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB) strongly supported a revision of the targets to better gauge progress during the period of extensive change now underway in the city centre. This change includes over $10 billion of private development anticipated over the coming years, as well as transport, streetscape and other major improvements. Some of the targets take this period of change into consideration – aiming to maintain current levels or rates of growth over the next five years, to be followed by accelerated improvements.

10.     The revision of targets was presented to the Auckland Development Committee at a workshop on 9 September 2015, where councillors generally supported this approach.


 

11.     As shown in the City Centre Masterplan Targets Review in attachment A, of the 14 measures where data is already available to report progress: 12 are on or above target, two are slightly below target and none are significantly below target. Some measures are significantly above target. For example, the population of the city centre rose by more than 5,000 people in 2015, against a target of 1,000.

12.     The measures are as follows, along with traffic light indicators of progress where data is already available. Further detail and reasoning behind each measure is published in the report itself.

Outcome 1: A vibrant and engaging international destination – an iconic destination and ‘must do’ for the international visitor to New Zealand

1.1     Average length of stay in commercial accommodation in the city centre is maintained at 2.2 nights to 2020, after which it increases.

Average for year to Sept 2015 was 2.25

1.2     Total guest nights increase by an average of 1.5% annually to 2020, after which the rate rises.

Average annual increase in last five years has been 1.4%

Outcome 2: A globally significant centre for business – the Engine Room of the Auckland economic powerhouse with a vibrant and vital retail and commercial core.

2.1     Increase the number of people employed in the city centre by 1,800 per year.

Annual increase for 2015 was 4,160

2.2     Maintain growth in retail expenditure (5% on average year on year) over the next five years.

Annual growth to Sept 2015 was 8.8%

Outcome 3: A city centre that meets the needs of a growing and changing residential population.

3.1     All Council city centre programmes and projects to include a focus on the views of children and young people.

Will be analysed at end of financial year

3.2     Increase in the proportion of residents who feel a sense of community in the city centre from 33% to 60% by 2040. 

Awaiting City Centre Residents Survey, due by mid 2016

Supporting targets

3.3     Decrease in crime rates in city centre by 5% every ten years.

2014 data showed a 20% annual drop

3.4     Improved satisfaction with what living in the city centre offers residents.

Awaiting City Centre Residents Survey, due by mid 2016

3.5     Increase in resident’s perceptions of a sense of safety in the city centre after dark.

Awaiting City Centre Residents Survey, due by mid 2016

3.6     Percentage of assets in the city centre that are graffiti free is more than 90% by 2020.

Average rate for 2015 was 86.5%

 


Outcome 4: A culturally rich and creative centre – a window on the world where all of Auckland’s many cultures are celebrated.

4.1     All significant council projects in the city centre to reflect the Te Aranga Principles.

Will be analysed at end of financial year

4.2     Maintain number of events in the city centre (by event permits) to 2020, after which it increases.

Baseline set; progress will be reported annually

Outcome 5: An exemplar of urban living – with a wide choice of high-quality residential options.

5.1     Population of the city centre increases by 1,000 people per year.

Increased by 5460 in 2015

Supporting targets

5.2     Residents’ perceptions of the city centre as a great place to live are maintained for the next 5 years

Awaiting City Centre Residents Survey. due by mid 2016

Outcome 6: Hub of an integrated regional transport system - well connected to its urban villages.

6.1     By 2040, more than 70% of people commuting into the city centre by vehicle will not be driving cars (travelling by public transport or as car passengers)

Last quarter 2015 was 58.3% (up from 56.6% a year earlier)

6.2     Achieve a 30% increase in the numbers of people cycling into the city centre in three years.

Baseline set for June-Dec 2015; progress will be reported six-monthly

Outcome 7: A walkable and pedestrian-friendly city centre, moving towards zero pedestrian deaths or serious injuries as a result of vehicle collisions.

7.1     Pedestrian counts in city centre increase at a faster rate than employment growth.

Average pedestrian count increase to Dec 2015 was 7.1% (employment growth was 4.1%)

7.2     Pedestrian improvements will be made to at least two of the identified higher-risk city centre streets each year.

2015 improvements included Beach Road and Nelson Street

Outcome 8: An exceptional natural environment and leading environmental performer.

8.1     Air quality to meet World Health Organisation guidelines (particulate matter and NO2).

NO2 levels have fallen but are slightly above guidelines

8.2     Increase in the number of New Zealand Green Building Council minimum 5-star-rated buildings in the city centre by 2 each year. 

Two in both 2015 and 2014

Supporting targets

8.3     Harbour water quality in the city centre meets recreational standards.

Measuring will begin early 2016

8.4     Increase in the number of street trees in the city centre by 25% by 2021.

Target already achieved – reset from 2016

Outcome 9: World-leading centre for higher education, research and innovation – the hub of creative and innovative products and services.        

9.1     Increase the number of international students enrolled at AUT and University of Auckland by 350 per year.

Increase for 2014 was 385

9.2     Maintain the percentage of businesses innovating at 80 per cent.

Baseline set at Jan 2016; reported in Business Monitor

13.     If approved, progress on the targets will be reported back to the Auckland Development Committee on an ongoing basis. They will also be reported regularly to the ACCAB.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14.     The Waitematā Local Board has supported the review of the targets, and has contributed guidance and advice on them.

15.     Outcome 7 has had the words ‘moving towards zero pedestrian deaths or serious injuries as a result of vehicle collisions’ added, following a request from the board. This principle is referred to as ‘Vision Zero’ in other parts of the world.

Māori impact statement

16.     The original targets did not reference Māori identity or establish a measure for how the city centre would contribute to the Auckland Plan outcome ‘A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world’.

17.     The City Centre Integration team ran regular hui with iwi through last year, where the Te Aranga principles were regularly referenced to guide projects; they proved to be a valuable and powerful tool. The principles are founded on intrinsic Māori cultural values and designed to provide practical guidance to enhance mana whenua presence, visibility and participation in the design of the physical realm. Through the city centre hui, it was recommended that a target should be included for ‘All significant council projects in the city centre to reflect the Te Aranga Principles’. This is now included in the revised list as measure 4.1.

Implementation

18.     A City Centre Residents Survey is due to commence within the next few months. It will provide data for four of the measures, along with other insights for the city centre. Some measures will evolve further following input from within the council family later this year.

19.     It is anticipated that an updated progress report will be published every six months; however some data will be available more regularly and so will be used to inform reporting and decision-making going forward. The attached report provides current progress where already available.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

The City Centre Masterplan Targets Review

4

Signatories

Author

Oliver Roberts – City Centre Strategic and Communications Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 





































Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 

New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2015/16 Proposed Submission

 

File No.: CP2016/00546

 

Purpose

1.       This report outlines a proposed Auckland Council position on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme Review and seeks the committee’s approval to provide the attached submission to the Ministry for the Environment.

Executive Summary

2.       On 24 November 2015, the Ministry for the Environment released a discussion document and a call for written submissions on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS). The NZ ETS is the government’s principal policy response to climate change. It enables New Zealand to meet its international emission reduction obligations through supporting and encouraging the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to below business as usual levels.

3.       It is proposed that Auckland Council supports the NZ ETS as the right mechanism to price greenhouse gas emissions. It possesses the flexibility and potential to drive efficient reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, since the NZ ETS came into effect in 2008, several adjustments have been made to its operation. This has weakened its ability to incentivise low carbon innovations and transform the New Zealand economy. Auckland Council could therefore support this review as an opportunity to strengthen this policy tool.

4.       The proposed Auckland Council submission (Attachment A) is based on several distinct roles of the council. Firstly, Auckland Council is an organisation affected through the operation of corporate and community facilities.

5.       Secondly, Auckland Council provides regional policy and planning perspective based on the strategic goals and commitments of the Auckland Plan and the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. These address a region that is responsible for 11,986 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, approximately 27 percent of New Zealand’s gross greenhouse gas emissions (without agricultural emissions that are outside the scope of the NZ ETS review).

6.       Finally, Auckland Council represents the interests of households, communities and businesses of the Auckland region. Proposed changes to the NZ ETS should deliver significant improvements and benefits to the region.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve the draft Auckland Council submission (Attachment A of the agenda report), including amendments requested by the committee, in response to the Ministry for the Environment’s NZ Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2015/16

b)      delegate to the Chair of the Auckland Development Committee and the Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee the approval of any minor revisions to the submission resulting from changes discussed at the meeting.

 


Comments

7.       The proposed submission outlines the percentage of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas profile that the Auckland region is responsible for. The NZ ETS plays a pivotal role in enabling Auckland to deliver its greenhouse gas reduction target. However, it is estimated that only 33 percent of the total abatement outlined in the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan is directly attributable to the existing NZ ETS. Improvements to the NZ ETS to ensure it functions in a more fair and equitable manner for participants and non-participating business, households and the wider economy would assist Auckland in achieving its targets within the Auckland Plan.

8.       Detailed responses to the relevant consultation questions have been provided. This includes the need to include agriculture within the scope of the NZ ETS in order to remove an unfair cost burden on other sectors of the economy. There is a need to provide certainty on the final form of the NZ ETS as this is the third review within seven years. Ongoing changes weaken Auckland businesses’ ability to effectively plan for the future.

9.       The proposed submission recommends a move to full surrender (have one unit surrendered for one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions emitted) so polluters take full responsibility for their emissions.

10.     Appendix 2 in the NZ ETS review document models potential impacts of moving to full surrender obligations. Currently under the existing NZ ETS, annual costs to a household are estimated by the government to be $20 (petrol and electricity) for a current effective carbon price of $3.50 a tonne (due to the one-for-two surrender). With a move to full surrender this cost would rise to $7 a tonne, with a resulting estimated cost to households of $40 a year.

11.     The actual date of when full surrender obligation will commence needs to be of a reasonable length of time in the future so the domestic economy (businesses and consumers) can manage any significant cost increases in carbon units. This includes identifying greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives, integrating these opportunities into planning processes, implementing them and changing behaviours. The proposed submission supports a full surrender date in 2017 as a reasonable length of time.

12.     The proposed submission further acknowledges the need to address the medium and long term supply of units, given the shortage of NZ units, and therefore supports some international units becoming eligible for NZ ETS compliance in the 2020s. To ensure they have the highest environmental integrity, it is recommended that any international projects are Gold Standard. For Joint Initiative projects between Auckland businesses and island states in the Pacific region the Gold Standard could be waived. This is because of the opportunity to remove carbon at a lower price and the benefits to our neighboring communities are high. 

13.     A second consultation paper from the Electricity Authority, entitled “Implications of evolving technologies for pricing of distribution services,” was considered concurrently with the NZ ETS discussion document. The proposed submission does not address any of the 16 questions posed by the Electricity Authority as these were of a highly technical and detailed nature. Instead, a link has been made between the two, highlighting to the Ministry for the Environment the need to coordinate responses from these two consultations. Outcomes sought by the Electricity Authority’s review otherwise have the potential to undermine the objective of the NZ ETS review.

14.     The recent United Nations Climate Change meeting in Paris (COP21) was an historic moment in which the world’s nations achieved a common agreement. The agreement outlined a shared responsibility and reaffirming the direction for global efforts to meet the climate change challenge. For the first time there is a common line of sight from local, national and international obligations and commitment to mitigate the effects of climate change.

 

15.     Cities like Auckland will continue to play an important role in meeting these emission reduction obligations through working alongside central government. The NZ ETS is only one policy mechanism available to government. The proposed submission invites the government to work together on other policy areas, for example, in transport, land use planning and procurement so we can meet our shared emissions reduction targets and make New Zealand economically competitive and climate resilient.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16.     The previous views of local boards and councillors on the New Zealand ETS and their related plans and sustainability aspirations were considered in the writing of this proposed submission.

17.     A Regional Strategy and Policy Committee and local board chair workshop was scheduled for 16 December 2015 but cancelled due to low attendance. Instead, an email was sent to all local boards with a report outlining the consultation process with an invitation to provide feedback. This was followed up with a reminder by the local board advisors. There have been no responses received to date.

Māori impact statement

18.     A summary of the consultations was provided by email to all 19 mana whenua of the region. They were invited to provide feedback and to date, none has been received.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2015/16 Proposed Submission

4

Signatories

Author

Melanie Hutton - Senior Sustainability and Resilience Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 









Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 

Aotea Quarter Framework - adoption

 

File No.: CP2016/00519

 

Purpose

1.       To seek adoption of the Aotea Quarter Framework (see Attachment A), a 20-year strategic vision for the Aotea Quarter area of Auckland’s city centre.

Executive Summary

2.       The Aotea Quarter Framework (the framework) is a non-statutory, strategic document to guide discussions and decision-making on current and emerging matters relating to the Quarter which is geographically defined as the area bound by Victoria Street, Hobson Street, Myers Park northern boundary and edge of Albert Park running to the east of Queen Street, approximately 42 hectares.

3.       The framework builds on the previous Aotea Quarter Plan (2007) and Action Plan (2010) and captures the strategic direction for the Quarter set down in the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) 2012. 

4.       The framework sets the following 20-year strategic vision for the area:

“The Aotea Quarter is the civic, arts, and cultural heart for the people of Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland: a vibrant, resilient and unique place to indulge the senses, express creativity and celebrate our Māori, Pacific and diverse cultures.”

5.       The framework identifies four outcomes to deliver the Quarter vision.  These are:

Outcome Tahi – a civic and cultural heart: The Quarter core as the enduring home for the arts, culture, entertainment and civic life, creating a unique destination.

Outcome Rua – transport-enabled development: A public transport node that improves accessibility, supports growth and enables high-quality development.

Outcome Toru – supporting neighbourhoods: Liveable, vibrant and diverse inner-city neighbourhoods engaging with and supporting the Quarter core.

Outcome Wha – cultural and sustainable showcase: Spaces and buildings that lead and showcase Auckland’s drive for sustainability, and celebrate its unique cultural identity through the Te Aranga principles.

6.       The final framework has been shaped through public, stakeholder and partner engagement on Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework, a document that was heavily consulted on during September and October 2015, following its approval by the committee at its August 2015 meeting (Resolution number AUC/2015/165). 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      adopt the Aotea Quarter Framework

b)      authorise the delegation of any final editorial changes to the Aotea Quarter Framework to the chair and deputy chair of the Auckland Development Committee.

 


Comments

7.       The Aotea Quarter Framework (the framework) builds on the Aotea Quarter Plan (2007) and Action Plan (2010), which enabled a number of significant improvements in the Quarter including Aotea Square redevelopment, Elliott Street and Lorne Street shared space schemes and the international award-winning Auckland Art Gallery - Toi o Tāmaki architectural addition and upgrade. It also captures the strategic direction set for the Quarter in the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) 2012.

The process for pulling the framework together has been a collaborative effort across the wider council family including many of the Council-Controlled Organisations.

8.       The vision set out in the framework is:

“The Aotea Quarter is the civic, arts, and cultural heart for the people of Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland: a vibrant, resilient and unique place to indulge the senses, express creativity and celebrate our Māori, Pacific and diverse cultures.”

9.       The framework identifies four outcomes to deliver the Quarter vision.  These are:

Outcome Tahi – a civic and cultural heart: The Quarter core as the enduring home for the arts, culture, entertainment and civic life, creating a unique destination.

Outcome Rua – transport-enabled development: A public transport node that improves accessibility, supports growth and enables high-quality development.

Outcome Toru – supporting neighbourhoods: Liveable, vibrant and diverse inner-city neighbourhoods engaging with and supporting the Quarter core.

Outcome Wha – cultural and sustainable showcase: Spaces and buildings that lead and showcase Auckland’s drive for sustainability, and celebrate its unique cultural identity through the Te Aranga principles.

10.     The framework preparation process included a thorough feasibility and investigation stage comprising production of internal topic papers desktop review of existing work and the commissioning of independent commercial market advice (Jones Lang LaSalle - Aotea Quarter Commercial Report, May 2015) and bulk and massing studies for council-owned development opportunity sites.  This work led to an ‘Issues and Opportunities’ document in April 2015 that was used as a tool to engage with partners and stakeholders such as the Waitemata Local Board, mana whenua, the Universities and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board.

11.     In August 2015, the Auckland Development Committee approved the ‘Towards the Aotea Quarter - Consultation Document’ for release (Resolution number AUC/2015/165), with an extensive six-week public consultation period from 10 September to 22 October 2015.  The consultation document was based on the evidence and findings from the Issues and Opportunities document and initial engagement.  A range of creative engagement techniques were employed through the consultation period including walking tours (including specific mana whenua and universal accessibility experts), focus groups (residential, business, community and arts/culture), vox pops on the street, online surveys and meetings with key stakeholders. 

12.     Towards the Aotea Quarter Framework Feedback Report (see Attachment B) highlighted themes and findings which have been incorporated within the framework under each of the four outcomes. 

13.     The framework seeks to strike a balance in emphasis between nurturing and prioritising Aotea Quarter as Auckland’s premier civic, arts and culture area and offering strong direction on how future development sites can capitalise on the significant transport-enabling projects.  In this context, it also advocates for further investment in interconnecting public realm projects and placemaking improvements. Key projects and initiatives identified under each of the outcomes are as follows:


 

Outcome Tahi – a civic and cultural heart

a)  Development of a virtual and potentially physical hub that will provide information on activities/events occurring in the Quarter, showcase cultural stories and perhaps reveal city plans (e.g. an architectural centre) reinforcing the core as the regional centre for arts, culture, entertainment and civic activity.

b)  Development and delivery of a placemaking/place activation strategy for the Quarter as a means of enhancing the destinational offer and better projecting the Quarter’s identity regionally, as well as nationally and internationally.

c)  Improvements to the library and its surrounds to ensure it remains relevant as a public resource and is better connected to the wider Quarter core with, for example, the corners of the building opened up to address Wellesley Street and Rutland Streets, a formal footpath along the eastern edge of the library (alongside Mayoral Drive) and improved pedestrian crossing across Wellesley Street. 

 

Outcome Rua – transport-enabled development

a)  Realisation of the development opportunity on four council-owned sites – West Bledisloe, Aotea Centre (including adjoining land), Civic Administration Building and South Town Hall – to bolster the Quarter’s vibrancy and destinational qualities and support the City Rail Link Aotea Station.

b)  Delivery of a range of cycle improvement initiatives aimed an leveraging on the recent surrounding cycleway investment and ‘filling the gaps’, including additional bike storage, new routes into and through the Quarter, specifically, an east-west cycle link connecting Nelson Street with Queen Street and over to Grafton Gully.

c)  Multiple improvements to Mayoral Drive (e.g. free left turn removal at Vincent Street, introduction of mid-block crossings, intersection upgrades, and active frontage promotion) so that it can positively contribute to the public life of the Quarter and better connect the core to the surrounding neighbourhoods.

 

Outcome Toru – supporting neighbourhoods

a)  Delivery of a package of place improvement projects and initiatives within the Airedale Street sub-area as a way of unlocking latent development potential and its role as an important residential neighbourhood that supports the wider Quarter.

b)  Delivery of a package of place improvement projects and initiatives within the Federal Street/Mayoral Drive sub-area as a way of realising its full potential as a vibrant and active urban block lying adjacent to the proposed Aotea Station and being on the CCMP pedestrian laneway circuit. 

c)  Quarter specific projects aimed at addressing matters relating to rough sleeping (e.g. improvements to public amenities such as 24-hour toilets, hot showers, storage lockers and additional emergency accommodation) as part of a city centre-wide approach.   

 


Outcome Wha – cultural and sustainable showcase

a)  Application of Te Aranga Māori Design principles to new physical improvement projects and development in the Quarter, specifically those involving council land, as a means of celebrating the Quarter’s unique identity.

b)  Development of a strategy which defines, promotes and delivers appropriate cultural offer within the Quarter ensuring that the Māori, Pacific and diverse cultures are fully celebrated.

c)  Development of a sustainability strategy of the Quarter, leveraging off many of its attributes, to create an internationally relevant example of a civic centre that models urban sustainability.

14.     Central to delivering the ambitious programme of projects identified in the framework implementation plan is the continual need to integrate and coordinate resources across council groups as well as with the numerous independent arts venues, businesses and community groups that are collectively working towards delivering the vision.

15.     Project information will continue to evolve post-adoption of the framework with further feasibility analysis and investigation to support a proposed funding package proposal to the 2018 Long Term Plan review.  Additionally, the broad design and development principles established for identified opportunity sites will be further refined through site specific briefs.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16.     Feedback and input from the Waitemata Local Board has been provided on several occasions and has been used to inform the direction of the framework. The Board has also been actively involved in the consultation process as a supporter and facilitator.

Māori impact statement

17.     The project team has actively engaged mana whenua in regular hui in April, June, July, August, and October 2015.  Iwi groups represented at these hui included Ngāti Maru Runanga, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Maia Ltd, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaoho Trust, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki and Te Akitai-Waiohua Kaitiaki with the other recognised Tāmaki Makaurau groups being copied in on meeting minutes. Many of these groups participated in a walking tour carried out on the 13 October 2015.  Mana whenua representatives ensured that the Te Aranga design principles process was tailored to the Quarter and through their advice, Outcome Wha was formed up. Restoring Te Wai Horotiu (culvert stream running under Myers Park and down Queen Street) back to an open water course was a consistent message during the discussions.  In addition, the Independent Māori Statutory Board have inputted in both the consultation document and the final framework text.

Implementation

18.     The framework document has been coordinated by the City Centre Integration and Auckland Design Office City Centre Design Unit, with key inputs from Regional Facilities Auckland, Pānuku Development Auckland, Auckland Libraries, Parks, Sports & Recreation, Community Engagement / Empowerment, Auckland Property, Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development and Auckland Transport representatives. It is a non-statutory, living document that will continue to evolve overtime responding to new opportunities to fulfil the potential of Aotea Quarter.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Aotea Quarter Framework (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Towards the Aotea Quarter Framework Feedback Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

Signatories

Authors

Gavin Flynn – Development Programme Senior Lead, Development Programme Office – Infrastructure and Environment Services

Tim Watts - Head of Design Panuku Development Auckland  

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - GM - Auckland Design Office

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


Auckland Development Committee

11 February 2016

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Confidential Reports Pending Status Update

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information regarding development proposals.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information regarding development proposals.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.