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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Planning Committee

 

OPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Denise Lee

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

IMSB Member Liane Ngamane

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, JP

Cr Wayne Walker

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

Cr Penny Hulse

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Elaine Stephenson

Senior Governance Advisor

 

3 March 2017

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

 


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

  

9          Options for refreshing the Auckland Plan                                                                  5

10        Auckland Plan Refresh: proposed engagement and consultation approach      17

13        Attachment to Item 13 - Submission on "Review of the Unit Titles Act 2010 discussion document"                                                                                                                    29   

 

    


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

Options for refreshing the Auckland Plan

 

File No.: CP2017/02958

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide information on refreshing the Auckland Plan and to get agreement on the option to be taken forward

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Plan is designed to act as the common platform for getting agreement on and working towards Auckland’s long term future. Legislatively required, it must set a 20-30 year strategic direction for Auckland’s growth and development, integrating social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives.

3.       The current plan was adopted in 2012 and has provided direction in some significant areas, including the development of the Unitary Plan. The Auckland Plan has proven to be an important and useful document but it has shortcomings which have become evident during implementation. These shortcomings include outdated data, limited integration, a complex structure, too much low-level content, limited prioritisation, and a weak monitoring and reporting framework. In addition, the plan is in hard copy form and therefore cannot be easily updated or accessed.

4.       Five options have been identified to address these problems through a refresh of the plan. Option 4 (a streamlined spatial approach) is recommended on the basis that it provides appropriate focus on spatial components while ensuring these are strongly connected to the achievement of high-level social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives. The option structures the plan around a small number of inter-linked themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges.

5.       Option 4 estimated at $2.69 - $3.53 million, is in the mid-range of cost estimates for the options identified in this report.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve option 4 to refresh the Auckland Plan.

 

 

Comments

 

Why have an Auckland Plan

 

6.       Auckland Council is legislatively required to develop a spatial plan for Auckland. The plan performs a critical function by agreeing a common long-term plan for Auckland’s future and uses this as a basis for engaging with multiple partners and stakeholders. It must set a 20-30 year strategic direction for Auckland’s growth and development (the Development Strategy), integrating social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives and outline a high-level Development Strategy that will achieve that direction and objectives.

7.       The plan provides the ability to coordinate and align land use and infrastructure planning and provision so that it meets the rapid growth in Auckland. It gives greater certainty to other parties (e.g. central government, infrastructure providers) for the investment decisions they need to make.

8.       The consistent direction set in the plan is expressed through various statutory and operational plans and decisions (Attachment A. Auckland Plan’s relationship with other plans).

 

Why refresh the Auckland Plan

9.       The current Auckland Plan was adopted in 2012 and was an important and useful document for its time. Consistent with international best practice, there was a commitment to review the plan after six years in recognition of the large number of ‘unknowns’ at that very early period in the life of the new council, including the rate at which Auckland would grow.

10.     The plan set the growth model for Auckland. The Unitary Plan took its direction from this and enabled the model through its zoning.

11.     In the interim, the plan has provided direction in some significant areas. For example, it built the strategic case and the momentum for the construction of the City Rail Link. Inclusion of this in the plan was not simply about agreeing a project but about creating the framework for Auckland’s future transport strategy.

12.     While these are significant achievements, the plan has shortcomings which have become evident through implementation and which means it cannot provide the support for decision-making the legislation intends.

Table 1: Problem definition of the current plan

Problem

 

Description

Out of date data

·    Based on 2006 data

·    Does not reflect strategic work carried out since the plan was adopted

Integration/Development Strategy

·    Development Strategy sits separately from other strategic directions

Complex structure

 

·    Contains too many layers and components

·    People find it hard to work with which affects implementation

·    Limited integration between different components

Mixed content

·    Includes range of strategic and operational content

·    Detailed content better addressed in other plans and processes

No prioritisation

·    Does not prioritise across the large number of strategic directions in the plan

Hard copy document

·    Unable to update document to reflect significant changes

Targets

·    Too many targets and many unmeasurable

·    Unclear ownership of targets

·    Difficult to track progress as a result

 


Options description

13.     The following table outlines five options to address these problems through a refresh of the plan. (A comparative table is provided in Attachment B).

 

Option 1: Light update

·        Updates general facts and figures

·        Brings the plan ‘up to date’ but makes no change to strategic direction of the plan or the Development Strategy as a result

·        No changes to structure or layout

·        Keeps current hard copy plan and makes schedule of changes available online

 

Option 2: Full update

·        Updates general facts and figures

·        Rewrites all chapters in their current form to address new strategic content and new issues

·        Rewrites Development Strategy to reflect Unitary Plan decisions; Infrastructure Strategy; strategic work on urban, rural and future urban development areas; National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity requirements; creates new growth model.

·        Amends targets using existing measurement framework

·        Creates new hard copy plan of similar size

 

Option 3: Development Strategy only

·        Updates facts and figures relevant to the Development Strategy only

·        Rewrites Development Strategy to reflect Unitary Plan decisions; Infrastructure Strategy; strategic work on urban, rural and future urban development areas; National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity requirements; creates new growth model

·        Sets no overall social, economic, environmental or cultural objectives

·        No update/inclusion of other material in existing plan

·        Creates digital plan

 

Option 4: Streamlined spatial (Recommended) (Attachment C: Recommended Option description)

·        Updates and adds new general facts and figures

·        Uses small number of organizing and inter-linked themes around Auckland’s key challenges

·        Sets high level objectives (spatial and non-spatial) in these theme areas with brief narrative

·        Focuses on Development Strategy to reflect Unitary Plan decisions; Infrastructure Strategy; strategic work on urban, rural and future urban development areas; National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity requirements; creates new growth model

·        Excludes any further non-spatial initiatives, narrative or detail and removes more detailed operational directives

·        Creates limited number of high level indicators to track progress and measures to guide the work programme

·        Removes all other material in existing plan

·        Creates digital plan

 

Option 5: Streamlined spatial and non-spatial

All features of Option 4 plus:

·        Includes detailed non-spatial initiatives and narrative.

 

Options assessment

14.     Each option has been assessed against the problems identified with the current plan.

15.     Option 1 would bring the plan up-to-date. It would not use that data to make any other changes to the plan and therefore would not address the other problems identified. Updated data in itself adds limited value.

16.     Option 2 would use the updated data to review and rewrite the entire plan, including the Development Strategy. The plan would retain the existing structure and large volume of narrative. This would not result in any gains in achieving a less complex and more accessible plan. Since it retains the existing structure, converting to a digital plan would be problematic, costly and provide limited advantage.

17.     Option 3 would update the Development Strategy but would make it unable to play its role in achieving social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland. Such strategic direction in the current plan would be lost. It would be a substantially smaller and more narrowly focused document than the existing plan.

18.     Option 4 (recommended) would provide appropriate focus on spatial components of the plan while ensuring these are strongly connected to the achievement of high-level social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives. It would be a substantially smaller document than the existing plan. By structuring it around a small number of themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges, it would ensure the plan is strategic, spatial and well integrated across these objectives. It would not contain large volumes of detailed initiatives and narrative. This option creates a more effective monitoring and reporting framework that enables better tracking of progress. The themed approach works more effectively on a digital platform, increasing the ability of Aucklanders to engage with the plan.

19.     Option 5 would provide focus on the spatial and non-spatial components. The inclusion of non-spatial components at a detailed initiatives level would detract from the strategic nature of the plan. It would also create a large body of content, some of which should more properly be contained in other strategies, policies and plans. Notwithstanding this, it would be a substantially smaller document than the existing plan.


 

Costs

20.     There are four parts to the cost of the options outlined in this report: (i) early engagement - public (ii) formal consultation (iii) staff costs in preparing the plan, and (iv) development of the digital plan/production costs for hard copy plan.

Option

Component costs

Total costs

Option 1: Light update

$0 (engagement and consultation)

$630,000 - $790,000 (existing staff)

$0 (schedule of changes on web)

$630,000 - $790,000

Option 2: Full update

$110,000 - $249,000 (early engagement)

$480,000 (formal consultation)

$ 2,800,000 – 3,300,000 (existing staff)

$460,000 (hard copy production costs)

$3,850,000 - $4,489,000

Option 3:  Development Strategy only

$110,000 - $249,000 (early engagement)

$480,000 (formal consultation)

$1,300,000 - $1,600,000 (existing staff)

$200,000 - $500,000 (digital plan)

$2,090,000 - $2,829,000

Option 4: Streamlined spatial (recommended)

$110,000 - $249,000 (early engagement)

$480,000 (formal consultation)

$1,900,000 - $2,300,000 (existing staff)

$200,000 - $500,000 (digital plan)

$2,690,000 - $3,529,000

Option 5: Streamlined spatial and non-spatial

$110,000 - $249,000 (early engagement)

$480,000 (formal consultation)

$2,300,000 - $2,800,000 (existing staff)

$200,000 - $500,000 (digital plan)

$3,090,000 - $4,029,000

 


 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21.     All local board chairs were invited to the Planning Committee Workshop on 1 March 2017 on options for refreshing the Auckland Plan. Not all were able to attend. Of those attending, chairs provided practical examples of how local boards use and value the existing plan. The Auckland Plan provides high-level strategic direction to achieve Auckland-wide outcomes. Local boards use the direction when preparing their local board plans to support better alignment between local and regional investment and activities.

22.     Given the dynamic nature of growth, views included that the plan needs to be a living document; that there is a pressing need to update information, particularly for high-growth local boards following the Unitary Plan decisions, the refresh of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. Feedback also included the need to review the underlying growth assumptions, projections and development strategy and assess how we are tracking to identify areas for improvement and/or focus. The need to continue to work with Auckland Transport and Watercare on the refresh of the plan was also noted.

23.     Local board chairs have been invited to all Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan during March and April 2017.

24.     Briefings on the Auckland Plan Refresh to local board members were held on 20 and 27 February 2017. Further cluster workshops with local boards are planned for 20 and 27 March, and 17 and 24 April 2017.  Additional workshops will be scheduled to ensure the involvement of boards throughout all phases.

Māori impact statement

25.     One of the outcomes of the current Auckland Plan is “a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”.  The Auckland Plan Refresh and its contribution to Māori well-being will be of interest to Māori.  The plan’s development will be informed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance and the Māori Plan.

26.     There has been no engagement with mana whenua or mataawaka on the options for refreshing the Auckland Plan.

27.     All options proposed in this report incorporate retention of current principles of the Auckland Plan outcomes as well as inclusion of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi in the context-setting part of the plan. In addition, issues of significance and outcomes identified in the Māori Plan would be considered throughout the development of thematic areas in options 2, 4 and 5. 

28.     As noted in the report on the approach to engagement and consultation (also on this agenda) there will be engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka on the development of the content of the refreshed plan. Engagement with mana whenua will be a co-designed approach. Engagement with mataawaka will take place during the early engagement phase. The approach is currently being designed.

Implementation

29.     A decision to approve the option for refreshing the Auckland Plan is required at this meeting.


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A: Auckland Plan relationship to other plans

11

b

Attachment B: Options comparison

13

c

Attachment C: Recommended option description

15

      

Signatories

Author

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

Auckland Plan Refresh: proposed engagement and consultation approach

 

File No.: CP2017/01518

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the Committee’s approval of the engagement and consultation approach for the refresh of the Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2.       Engagement and consultation for the Auckland Plan refresh includes early public engagement, stakeholder engagement, formal consultation and closing the loop phases.

3.       This report seeks approval of one of two options recommended for early public engagement: option 1: targeted early public engagement; or option 2: Auckland-wide early public engagement involving every household.

4.       Early public engagement on the big issues facing Auckland will take place from May to June 2017.  Feedback received will inform the development of the draft refreshed Auckland Plan.

5.       Engagement with key partners and stakeholders needs to commence at the early stages of the refresh to provide opportunities for early input into the direction of the plan and will continue throughout the year at various milestones in the drafting of the plan.

6.       Formal consultation on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan, through a legislatively required Special Consultative Procedure, is proposed for February to March 2018.  Under the Special Consultative Procedure, the council is required to develop a statement of proposal to provide the basis for consultation with the community.

7.       It is proposed to run the Special Consultative Procedure for the draft refreshed Auckland Plan at the same time as the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 in February/March 2018 and there is potential to combine or align consultation events.  Working with other planning processes is considered to be an effective use of resources and is designed to avoid competing engagements and consultation fatigue.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve “option 1: targeted early public engagement”, using channels such as online feedback/polling and workshops with community group representatives for early public engagement, to take place during May to July 2017.

b)      approve the approach for engagement with key partners and stakeholders throughout the preparation and development of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

c)      approve the use of the Special Consultative Procedure on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan, concurrent with the draft Long-term Plan, in 2018.

 


Comments

 

Background

 

8.       The process to refresh the Auckland Plan began following the Planning Committee resolution of 29 November 2016: “agree in principle, the broad approach and timeline to preparing a refreshed Auckland Plan” (Resolution number PLA/2016/10).

9.       The proposed timeline for the Auckland Plan Refresh is shown in Attachment A.

10.     Section 80 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the council to engage with stakeholders in the preparation and development of the Auckland Plan and to formally consult on a draft plan using a Special Consultative Procedure.  This legislation drives the approach set out in this report to engaging and consulting on the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Approach to engagement and consultation

11.     The objectives of consultation and engagement for the Auckland Plan Refresh are outlined in the table below:

Objectives

 

Influence Auckland’s future

·     Inform Aucklanders that Auckland has a 30 year strategic plan for its development

·     Give people a say in Auckland’s future plans

·     Develop the plan with communities, infrastructure providers, private sector and the rural sector

Align implementation efforts

·     Ensure partners and stakeholders understand the role they play in implementing the plan

·     Seek feedback from partners, stakeholders and Aucklanders to inform what role council should play in implementing the plan

·     Help people make the connection between the outcomes being sought for Auckland and council’s ongoing decisions and policies

Shape the priorities for the Long-term Plan

·     Provide input to the options in the Long-term Plan 2018-28

·     Help people make the connection between the outcomes being sought for Auckland and council’s investment decisions

 

Engaging with elected members

12.     Engagement with elected members recognises the responsibilities and accountabilities for decision making through the shared governance model. Engagement will occur on an ongoing basis throughout the preparation and development of the plan through workshops with the Planning Committee and local boards.

13.     The committee will recommend the statement of proposal on the draft plan and final plan to the Governing Body for approval. Elected members also have a key role in engagement and consultation with stakeholders and communities.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure1: Elected members engagement

 

14.     There are four main phases to the engagement and consultation plan:

Phase 1: Early public engagement

May-July 2017

Phase 2: Stakeholder engagement

March 2017-March 2018

Phase 3: Formal consultation (SCP)

February-March 2018

Phase 4: Closing the loop

April-June 2018

 

Phase 1: Early public engagement (May – July 2017)

15.     This phase involves public engagement on the “big issues” and high level strategic direction of the refreshed Auckland Plan. It provides an opportunity for the public to provide input before a draft plan is prepared.

16.     Early engagement prior to formal consultation is considered best practice and contributes to meeting legislative requirements to involve stakeholders, including our communities, in the preparation and development of the plan.

17.     Auckland Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy is based on the following principles:

·        conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and give effect to its identified priorities and outcomes in an efficient and effective manner;

·        make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the views of all of its communities;

·        take account of the diversity of the community, and the community's interests; and the interests of future as well as current communities; and the likely impact of any decision on them;

·        provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes; and

·        ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region, including by planning effectively for the future management of its assets.

18.     The early engagement process is likely to include summary information on the opportunities and challenges Auckland faces over the next 30 years. This could form the basis for feedback on any gaps identified, opportunities and priorities for Auckland in the future. The feedback received through this process will be reported to the Planning Committee in July/August and will be used to inform the drafting of the refreshed plan.

19.     It is important to note that draft local board plans will be out for formal consultation (SCP) during the same time as the early public engagement phase of the Auckland Plan Refresh. Local board plans guide local board decision-making and advocacy and are referred to when local boards contribute to the development of regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws.

20.     Bearing this in mind, two options have been identified for the Auckland Plan Refresh early public engagement.

Option 1:

Targeted early public engagement

Recommended

Targeted early public engagement on the Auckland Plan Refresh would be focused on eliciting public views and input through channels such as online polling or the People’s Panel. It would also include combined workshops of community group representatives where in-depth discussions can be had.

Option 2:

Auckland-wide early public engagement

(aligned with local board plan consultation process)

Auckland-wide early public engagement on the Auckland Plan Refresh would involve every household. This would be aligned with the draft local board plan formal consultation (Special Consultative Procedure).

The Auckland Plan regional context and draft local board plan summaries would be combined in a summary document sent to all households. The material would be presented at local board Have Your Say events, online and through other channels. Implementation of this approach would be subject to local board views.

 

Legislative requirement

21.     Section 80 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the council to engage with stakeholders, including the “communities of Auckland”. There is no prescribed way of carrying out this engagement and “communities of Auckland” is not defined. The key, however, is that communities must be involved, in some form, throughout the preparation and development of the amended plan and council must be able to document how this engagement has occurred. This is in addition to formal consultation prior to adoption of an amended plan.

22.     OPTION 1 (Recommended): This option fulfils the legislative requirements and achieves similar community views and input as option 2, albeit on a more targeted basis. Given that engagement during “phase 3: formal consultation” on a draft plan would afford opportunities to engage with all Aucklanders, this option is a legitimate and cost effective way to obtain community views during this early development stage of the plan. Workshops with community representatives provide the opportunity to have more in-depth discussions.

23.     OPTION 2: This option provides an opportunity for Aucklanders (through every household) to engage with council’s planning framework at both the local and regional level. It also supports the governance model, with the public input on the Auckland Plan Refresh shared with the local boards. This approach is considered to be an efficient use of organisational resources if every household is to be engaged (compared to running two separate processes). However, care will be needed to ensure there is clarity for the community on the processes they are inputting to and the feedback is directed accordingly. Implementation of this approach would be subject to local board views.


 

 

Comparison for each option

24.     Attachment B provides a summarised list of the pros and cons of both options. Outlined below is an estimate of costs for each option. A breakdown of these costs is also shown in Attachment B.

 

Option 1: Targeted early public engagement

Recommended

$ 110,000

Option 2: Local board-facilitated engagement

$ 249,000

 

25.     Public feedback will be collected and processed using a number of different channels, such as face to face, online, hard copy and social media, depending on the option chosen. Shape Auckland and the council website will be the digital hubs for the communications and early engagement phase.

Phase 2: Stakeholder engagement (March 2017 – March 2018)

26.     The legislation requires council to “involve central government, infrastructure providers (including network utility operators), the communities of Auckland, the private sector, the rural sector, and other parties (as appropriate) throughout the preparation and development of the plan”.

27.     The purpose of involving partners and stakeholders is to:

·        continue the conversation on Auckland’s long-term future

·        tell the story of what has changed since the plan was adopted in 2012, seek their early feedback and any additional perspectives they may have

·        share evidence and identify challenges and future direction

·        seek their input into the drafting of the plan

·        recognise the critical implementation and partnering role they will play.

28.     This engagement needs to commence at the early stages of the Auckland Plan Refresh to provide opportunities for early input into the direction of the plan. It will continue throughout the year at various milestone points in the drafting of the plan.

29.     Engagement will occur through a variety of channels. The intention is to use existing events/forums where possible rather than create additional events and meetings.


 

Partner/ Stakeholder Group

How they will be engaged

Central Government

·   Input to the development of strategic content

·   An agreed terms of reference on how council and central government will work together

·   Auckland Central Government/Local Government forum

Mana whenua and mataawaka

·   Co-designed engagement approach with mana whenua

·   Hui with mana whenua in March and April 2017 to agree the approach to working together

·   Channels for engaging mataawaka groups and individuals

Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB)

·   IMSB staff contribute to the development of strategic content for Māori outcomes through involvement in technical workshops

·   IMSB staff membership on Auckland Plan Refresh Steering Group

·   IMSB members on the Planning Committee

Advisory panels

·   Build awareness of Auckland Plan Refresh, process and timing at induction workshop in April 2017

·   Workshops on the strategic content in April 2017

·   Seeking advice on community groups, opportunities to engage, and community forums

Sector groups (Rural, Infrastructure and Private)

·   Leverage existing forums and meetings where possible to engage

·   Input to the issues/options and direction as key influencers in the Auckland region

Neighbouring Councils

·   Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA) forum

·   Leverage existing forums and meetings to engage

Council controlled organisations

·   Input to the development of strategic content

·   Members of Auckland Plan Refresh Steering Group

 

Phase 3: Formal Consultation on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan (February – March 2018)

30.     Engagement will occur through a variety of channels. The intention is to use existing events/forums where possible rather than create additional events and meetings.

31.     Formal consultation on the draft Auckland Plan will involve public consultation, stakeholder events, analysis and reporting.

32.     Under the legislated Special Consultative Procedure, the council is required to develop a statement of proposal to provide the basis for consultation with the community.

33.     Formal consultation, through a Special Consultative Procedure, on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan is proposed for February to March 2018.

34.     It is proposed to run the Special Consultative Procedure for the draft refreshed Auckland Plan at the same time as the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 in February/March 2018. There are tightly specified legal requirements around the long-term plan consultation, requiring separate consultation material for the two plans, but there would be potential to combine or align consultation events.

35.     This approach is considered to be an effective use of resources and is designed to avoid competing engagements and consultation fatigue.

36.     The Planning Committee will meet on 5 June 2018 to make final decisions on the refreshed Auckland Plan. The Governing Body will meet to adopt the final refreshed Auckland Plan on 26 June 2018.

Phase Four: Closing the loop (April – June 2018)

37.     The council has to make sure that people who provided views have access to a clear description of the Auckland Plan Refresh decisions with supporting material. We plan to provide this information on the council website and then communicate this by:

·        Emailing people who have participated in the process

·        Our Auckland and council digital and social channels

·        Media release

·        Print and online advertising

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

 

38.     Local board chairs were included in the first Planning Committee Workshop on 7 February 2017 and have been invited to all Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan during March and April 2017.

39.     Briefings on the Auckland Plan Refresh to local board members were held on 20 and 27 February 2017, which included option 2, local board facilitation engagement. Further cluster workshops with local boards are planned for 20 and 27 March, and 17 and 24 April 2017. Additional workshops will be scheduled to ensure the involvement of boards throughout all phases.

40.     If the Planning Committee approves option 2 for early public engagement, implementation would be subject to local board views.

Māori impact statement

41.     One of the outcomes of the Auckland Plan is “a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The Auckland Plan Refresh and its contribution to Māori well-being will be of interest to Māori. The plan’s development will be informed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance and the Māori Plan. Staff will review relevant mana whenua planning documents prior to engagement.

42.     Key issues of interest to Māori are likely to include Māori housing, accessible and affordable transport to employment in the West and South, papakāinga and marae development, rangatahi skills development and pathways to employment, Māori business development, protection and management of waahi tapu and initiatives affirming Māori cultural identity.

43.     Engagement with mana whenua will be a co-designed approach and will take place during the early engagement phase.

44.     Engagement with mataawaka will take place during the early engagement phase. The approach is currently being designed.

Implementation

45.     A decision to approve the engagement and consultation approach of the Auckland Plan Refresh is required at this meeting.

46.     A database of stakeholders and a detailed project schedule of engagement activities are being developed.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A: Overall refresh timeline

25

b

Attachment B: Cost comparisons for early engagement options

27

     

Signatories

Authors

Karyn Hill – Project Manager Consultation & Engagement Auckland Plan Refresh

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

Attachment to Item 13 - Submission on "Review of the Unit Titles Act 2010 discussion document"

 

File No.: CP2017/03004

 

  

 

 

To provide the submission on the Government’s Review of the Unit Titles Act 2010 discussion document for approval in Item 13 of the agenda.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment B to Item 13 - Submission on Review of the Unit Titles Act 2010 discussion document

31

     

Signatories

Author

Elaine Stephenson - Senior Governance Advisor

 


Planning Committee

07 March 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator