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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Planning Committee

 

OPEN 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, CNZM, 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

 

31 May 2017

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee guides 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:

 

·         Relevant regional strategy and policy

·         Infrastructure strategy and policy

·         Unitary Plan

·         Spatial plans

·         Plan changes to operative plans

·         Housing policy and projects

·         Special Housing Areas

·         City centre development

·         Tamaki regeneration

·         Built heritage

·         Urban design

·         Environmental matters relating to the committee’s responsibilities

·         Acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and within approved annual budgets

 

o   Panuku Development Auckland

 

o   Auckland Transport

 

o   Watercare Services Limited

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)      The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)     The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

(b) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

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

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

9          Use of Urban Renewal Tools by Panuku                                                                    9

10        Consideration of passenger rail service from Hamilton to Auckland                   15

11        Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2016/2017 Allocation                  33

12        Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 6 June 2017    55  

13        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

14        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 57

C1       Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Self Family Trust Environment Court Appeal (ENV-2016-AKL-000199) - Ngā Kapua Kohuora (Crater Hill) and Pūkaki             57

C2       Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - North/West Appeals - Okura           57

C3       Auckland Council Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Waitakere Ranges Protection Society Appeal (CIV-2016-404-002290)                                                                                    58

C4       Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Record of Urgent Decisions Made Under Delegated Authority                                                                                                    58  

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had 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 Planning Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 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 Governance 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.

 

 

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

 

There were no notices of motion.

 


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

Use of Urban Renewal Tools by Panuku

 

File No.: CP2017/10141

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To describe how the existing statutory urban renewal tools available to Panuku Development Auckland can be used to facilitate positive development outcomes and to seek endorsement for the prudent use of these tools within our priority locations.

Executive summary

2.       Panuku is tasked to undertake urban renewal within priority town centres identified by the council. These are classified as Support, Unlock or Transform areas indicating the level of intervention likely to be required.  Generally the Unlock and Transform locations are in places where, for various commercial reasons, the market has not delivered successful development. To initiate positive change at scale in these centres it will be vital that Panuku has the ability to invest, acquire strategic property and create large continuous development sites. Specific development objectives will be identified as part of Panuku strategic planning for the area which is presented in the High Level Project Plan.

3.       In some cases aggregation of land beyond holdings already in council ownership may require judicious use of the compulsory acquisition powers of the Public Works Act in order to achieve comprehensive regeneration outcomes.

4.       The designation process under the Resource Management Act may also be utilised where additional control over land would be beneficial.

5.       Engagement on this issue has been undertaken at a Planning Committee workshop, local board meetings and the Mana Whenua Forum. The focus of these discussions was the benefits and risk associated with these tools. All fora indicated in principle support for the use of these statutory urban renewal tools (Public Works Act and designations under the Resource Management Act).

6.       Panuku needs appropriate delegations and funding to use the existing statutory powers available to enable effective urban renewal. Delegations similar to those that Auckland Transport utilises for its transport role are sought from the Auckland Council chief executive officer in order to make the Public Works Act processes more efficient.

7.       The use of statutory tools will be limited to those areas agreed by the council as Transform and Unlock locations. Specific action would only be taken where such a move is deemed by Panuku as supportive of town centre urban renewal. The use of designation powers will require the approval of the council as Panuku is not a requiring authority. Any site acquisition under the Public Works Act would not specifically require local board or Planning Committee approval but would need to be within the High Level Project Plan area, and in accordance with High Level Project Plan objectives. These Project Plans are approved by the council. The tools are also part of a robust statutory process with appropriate safeguards.

8.       Panuku will ensure it has appropriate authorisation and budgets to support any acquisition process, as is the case now.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      endorse, in principle, the prudent use of statutory urban renewal tools by Panuku Development Auckland in Unlock and Transform development locations, where:

i)    the relevant council committee has endorsed a High Level Project Plan

 

ii)   any designation proposal has the support of all relevant council-controlled organisations, particularly Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited, as required on a case-by-case basis

iii)   Panuku has the necessary budget provision.

 

Comments

 

The Public Works Act: Compulsory Acquisition

 

9.       The Public Works Act enables compulsory acquisition of land for a “public work”.  It can be used to enable the purchase of land for roads, parks, infrastructure and other public works including housing and wider urban renewal purposes.

10.     Statutory definitions under the Public Works Act and the Local Government Acts (1974 and 2002) include “housing” and “urban renewal” as purposes for which council may compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act.

11.     Most land acquisitions do not proceed compulsorily.  Acquisitions often occur on the open market, or after negotiation and agreement.  Where an agreement cannot be reached the Public Works Act may enable compulsory acquisition for land as a last resort. Fair compensation is paid, decided through a statutory process. Generally, before proceeding with a compulsory acquisition of land, the council will need to be able to demonstrate good reason for acquiring the land compulsorily.

12.     Land owners have the right to object to the acquisition to the Environment Court if they dispute the taking of land or to the Land Valuation Tribunal if an agreement on value cannot be reached.

13.     There is some history of council using compulsory acquisition in the past such as the comprehensive redevelopment of Freemans Bay and more recently for urban renewal in the Merchants Quarter in New Lynn.

14.     Panuku requires appropriate delegation of powers to undertake the required statutory steps to utilise the tools to enable urban renewal. Auckland Transport has full delegation for transport matters. This delegation authorises Auckland Transport to commit the council to financial transactions relating to acquisitions (i.e. authority to acquire), plus express authorisation to enter into negotiated agreements and serve the various notices. Its delegation is subject to the powers being exercised in relation to the Auckland Transport system and/or for a transport related purpose for which an appropriate budget has been identified.

15.     Panuku Development Auckland will seek a similar delegation from the Auckland Council Chief Executive Officer, subject to the powers being exercised in relation to achieving urban renewal.  That delegation will allow Panuku to commit the council to financial transactions and use various Public Works Act powers, including signing notices under the Public Works Act, to facilitate compulsory acquisition to achieve urban renewal where required.

Resource Management Act Designations

16.     Designations are a tool enabled by Part 8 of the Resource Management Act (s166-186). Among other things, they enable central and local government and network utility operators (collectively known as requiring authorities) to protect land to enable future public works. Generally designations fall into two categories; designations that enable a specific public work to be constructed such as for road widening, and designations to exert control over third party land such as the aeronautical protection around airports. They provide a very useful tool to enable efficient development and infrastructure provision required for a well-functioning city.

17.     Information about a designation is shown in the District Plan and includes the geographic extent of the designation, the purpose of the designation, details of the requiring authority and any conditions. Work in line with the purpose of the designation undertaken by the requiring authority is not subject to standard resource consent requirements so it effectively acts as a form of ‘spot zoning’ for the land, as it relates to the implementation of the designation. Individual land owners, whose land is included within the designation, cannot undertake work that “prevents or hinders” the purpose of the designation without the consent of the requiring authority. 

18.     A designation will assist with making a case that would provide confirmation that any subsequent Public Works Act acquisitions are fair, sound and reasonably necessary. As Auckland Council is a requiring authority it has the ability to designate land for public works. Panuku cannot itself be a requiring authority, but could administer or implement the designation on the council’s behalf. There are no recent examples of designations for urban renewal.

19.     Designation for urban renewal (as a “public work”) could potentially have the following benefits;

·          Control of third party use: A designation would enable the council to control development outcomes over third party land, to ensure that the development of that land happens in a form that supports wider strategic objectives and infrastructure investment.

·          Clarity of strategic intent: Designations are shown in the District Plan maps and perform an important public information role making landowners and prospective purchasers aware their site is likely to be impacted positively or negatively by public works. They would also provide for much more certainty of outcome for landowners and investors which could have benefits in terms of reducing development risk.

·          The enablement of specific urban renewal works: Works undertaken by the requiring authority in line with the purpose and conditions of a designation do not require district level land use consents. Regional level consents such as for earthworks are still required. 

·          Support for the compulsory acquisition of private land for urban renewal works under the Public Works Act:  A designation for a public work under the Resource Management Act is not a pre-requisite for the compulsory acquisition of land for a public work under the Public Works Act.  However, a designation for urban renewal will provide significant support for the subsequent compulsory acquisition of that land subject to the designation.

·          Increased scale of intervention: The use of designations could enable Panuku to be more ambitious in terms of seeking particular development outcomes over a wider area. While the Public Works Act enables compulsory purchase of individual sites to enable urban renewal to occur and can happen with or without a designation, designation under the Resource Management Act enables Panuku to protect the development potential and form of an area it does not own and better manage land fragmentation issues. It could also mean that Panuku could have control over the ultimate form of development without necessarily having to purchase land.

20.     A designation for urban renewal purposes would have time and cost implications similar to a major Resource Consent application. However, it is justified if it mitigates the risk of not otherwise achieving a project, particularly where a number of separate properties need to be acquired.

21.     There is a need to demonstrate financial responsibility. This means that the requiring authority must be able to demonstrate that it has the ability to implement the designation. This could include the purchase of all designated sites in a situation where acquisition was desired or owners chose to require the council to purchase their property.

22.     When using the statutory urban development tools Panuku will utilise the existing Strategic Development Fund arrangements, but may seek additional funding in the Long Term Plan and business cases in the future.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23.     A memo was sent to all Local Boards on 13 April 2017, detailing the background and need for the use of the statutory urban renewal tools.  This was followed by a Local Board workshop held on Monday 8 May. The workshop was well attended and feedback was generally supportive of a greater use of these tools. Formal feedback was received from the Waitematā Local Board. A copy of this feedback is included as Attachment A to this paper.

Māori impact statement

24.     In a presentation to the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum on the 18 April 2017, the impact of the use of urban renewal tools on mana whenua was discussed. The forum was attended by representatives of 11 Auckland mana whenua entities.

25.     These discussions have established the position that Panuku will continue to work with mana whenua through a collaborative partnership approach on land development opportunities, including where fragmentation of land parcels is creating a barrier to progressing comprehensive development within priority locations. Panuku confirmed that it does not intend to compulsory acquire Māori Land or land transferred as part of a treaty settlement process.

Planning Committee Workshop

26.    A workshop was held on the content of this paper on the 13 April 2017. No in principle opposition to the use of Urban Renewal tools was raised at this workshop.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Waitematā Local Board Feedback

8

      

Signatories

Author

John  Carter - Senior Project planning Leader

Authorisers

David Rankin - Director Strategy & Engagement

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

Consideration of passenger rail service from Hamilton to Auckland

 

File No.: CP2017/10158

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To present the findings of the Waikato Regional Council assessment of a Hamilton-Auckland passenger rail service (provided in Attachment A) and recommend a response that will be communicated back to the other partner organisations of Hamilton City Council, Waikato District Council, Waikato Regional Council, New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport.

Executive summary

2.       A joint Auckland-Waikato political meeting was held on 19 July 2016 to bring together elected representatives and senior staff from Auckland Council, Waikato District Council, Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council and the key stakeholder organisations of WaterCare, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency to discuss and confirm key cross-boundary issues and to agree on shared objectives and investment opportunities.

3.       One of the actions coming from this meeting was for Waikato Regional Council staff to provide a position paper on passenger rail between Auckland and the Waikato.  This report is provided at Attachment A.

4.       The key conclusions of the report are as follows:

·    There has been no real change in the transport policy context since 2011;

·    Network access at the Auckland end is a very real constraint;

·    There is no suitable rolling stock immediately available for a Hamilton to Auckland commuter service;

·    There are no funding sources and the current estimate of costs would need to be updated to reflect current conditions;

·    Overall, the 2011 proposal is no longer practically feasible for today’s conditions.

5.       Three options have been presented for next steps:

·    Do nothing;

·    Develop a detailed rail feasibility study to explore options for a Hamilton to Auckland passenger rail service;

·    Undertake a high-level review to identify the opportunities and constraints of a Hamilton to Auckland passenger rail service (a prior step to a feasibility study).

6.       It is recommended that the Committee support option 3 – a high-level review.  Staff from both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport will provide data and information and ensure that Auckland Council’s needs and preferences are represented.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      support the preparation of a high-level review to identify the key constraints, benefits and options of a passenger rail service between Auckland/Hamilton, including an updated assessment of customer demand, with a recommendation as to whether or not to proceed towards a detailed feasibility study.

 

b)      recognise the current network access and rolling stock constraints which cannot be resolved without significant capital expenditure.

c)      acknowledge the importance of working together with the partner organisations, but considers a passenger rail service between Hamilton and Auckland to be a low priority for Auckland Council at this point in time.

d)      request that the high-level review be reported back to the Planning Committee.

 

 

Comments

7.       In July 2016, a meeting was held with political representatives of Auckland Council, Waikato District Council, Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council and senior staff of WaterCare, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency.  The purpose was to consider cross-boundary issues and ways of working together toward shared outcomes.  Since then, Mayor Goff has also met with his Waikato political counterparts.

8.       As a result of this meeting, staff have produced an assessment of the 2011 Rail Working Party Final Recommendation Report.  This assessment and summary of the 2011 Rail Working Party Final Recommendation Report is attached at Attachment A.  The Waikato Regional Council has requested that all partner councils and the New Zealand Transport Agency consider the assessment and provide a recommendation on next steps.

9.       Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff have been working with our partner organisations to support the North Waikato Integrated Growth Programme Business Case.  The programme aims to complete the transport investment picture by addressing the North Waikato growth issues at a comparable level to the assessment completed for the Transport for Future Urban Growth programme.  Neither Auckland Council’s Auckland Transport Alignment Project or Transport for Future Urban Growth addressed growth pressures outside of the Auckland Council boundary.

10.     Consideration of land use is part of this programme as both Auckland Council and Waikato District Council grapple with growth pressures and future infrastructure investment.  On the Waikato side, towns like Pokeno, Tuakau and Te Kauwhata are coming under pressure from Auckland’s growth and engagement is beginning with the communities about what the future of these towns might look like.

11.     A passenger rail service from Hamilton to Auckland is not a high priority for Auckland Council at this time given the other pressures facing our region and communities.  There are some significant challenges to realise this service, including:

·    There has been no real change in the transport policy context since 2011.  The operative 2015-2018 Government Policy Statement continues in a similar direction as the previous statements.  However, there is now a very clear expectation that a business case assessment with a benefit/cost analysis is a basic requirement for investigations such as a passenger rail service from Hamilton to Auckland;

·    Network access at the Auckland end is a very real constraint and cannot be resolved without significant capital expenditure.  There are many difficulties to resolve in running a passenger service on the current infrastructure, some of which include:

After the City Rail Link is completed, diesel services can no longer operate into and out of Britomart and network capacity is limited.  It is likely that services would need to terminate in south Auckland with the inconvenience of a change of train;

The Auckland network is very congested in peak periods, which would make timetabling a regular and convenient service problematic;

There is no suitable rolling stock immediately available for a Hamilton to Auckland commuter service;

One trip each way at peak is inconvenient and inflexible.

·    There are no funding sources and the current estimate of costs would need to be updated to reflect current conditions;

·    There has been no assessment of demand for the service, but whatever service is provided will almost certainly require heavy subsidisation.  Similarly, there has been no discussion about cost share for any investigations or implementation between organisations.

12.     Overall, it is considered that the 2011 proposal is no longer practically feasible for today’s conditions. 

13.     The attached paper recommends three options as next steps:

·    Do nothing

·    Develop a detailed rail feasibility study to explore options for a Hamilton to Auckland passenger rail service;

·    Undertake a high-level review to identify the opportunities and challenges of a Hamilton to Auckland passenger rail service (a prior step to a feasibility study).

14.     It is recommended that option three, a high-level review, be supported.  Staff can provide data and information and other technical assistance as needed.  This can be done without the council needing to expressly support any future outcome.  It also recognises the fact that, given the significant challenges facing our region and communities associated with unprecedented growth, the proposed service is currently a greater priority for the Waikato councils than for Auckland Council. 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15.     The Franklin Local Board have been engaged in this cross-boundary work and the Waikato council staff are meeting with them on 06 June 2017.  The Chair of the Board has been informed of this paper and has been given the opportunity to provide feedback in writing or at the committee meeting.

Māori impact statement

16.     A passenger rail service between Hamilton and Auckland will not affect Māori in any greater way than the population generally.  There has been no specific engagement with iwi or mana whenua as part of the attached report.

Implementation

17.     There will be a financial contribution to the cost of a high-level review but the amount is not yet known.  The contribution will need to be found from existing budgets.


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Waikato Regional Council report on Hamilton to Auckland passenger rail service April 2017

8

     

Signatories

Authors

Gavin Smith, Principal Transport Planner, Auckland Transport

Megan Tyler - Executive Officer CPO

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2016/2017 Allocation

 

File No.: CP2017/09337

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the grant recommendations for the 2016/2017 Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme funding round.

Executive summary

2.       The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme aims to incentivise best practice, increase understanding and encourage community involvement in the care of regionally significant heritage sites and places.  It is dedicated to funding projects that benefit regionally significant historic heritage places and outcomes that are relevant to all of Auckland.

3.       The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme was established through the Community Grants Policy adopted in December 2014. In March 2016, the Auckland Development Committee adopted the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme framework which outlined the regional significance criteria, and assessment criteria for the grant applications. This framework has been included as Attachment A.

4.       The Regional Historic Heritage Grants fund has a total of $80,744 available for allocation in the 2016/2017 financial year, as approved through the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. In total, 42 applications were received for the 2016/2017 funding round, requesting a total of $573,559. Two applications did not meet grant programme eligibility criteria. Following the assessment of applications, it is recommended that seven applications are supported with grants totalling $80,744, ranging in value from $2,248 to $20,000 with an average grant of $11,535. It is also recommended that a further 33 applications are declined for the reasons outlined in Attachment B of this report.

5.       Applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practical following confirmed allocation and successful grant recipients will have 12 months to complete the project work.  At the end of this grant term recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements detailing how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the grant allocations for the 2016/2017 Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme funding round, as listed below and in Attachment B of the agenda report:

 

Organisation/Individual

Amount recommended

Term

St. Patrick's Cathedral Heritage Foundation

$20,000

One Year

Rawinia Iraihi Rangi Henderson

$2,248

One Year

Helensville District Health Trust

$12,420

One Year

Friends of Waikumete Inc

$3,450

One Year

Friends of Onehunga Community House

$20,000

One Year

Pitt St Methodist Trust

$6,337

One Year

Antony Waterhouse

$16,289

One Year

 


 

Comments

6.       The Community Grants Policy, adopted by Auckland Council in December 2014, recognises regional grant funding programmes as a key tool by which council can support communities to implement the regional visions and aspirations, as set out in the Auckland Plan and other regional strategic documents. 

7.       The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme, established through the Community Grants Policy, supports the following outcomes:

·    Regulations in the Auckland Unitary Plan are supported by incentives to protect and conserve significant historic heritage places

·    Auckland Council, mana whenua, community organisations, and property owners work together to support kaitiakitanga and stewardship of historic heritage

·    Aucklanders see council investment in historic heritage

·    Historic heritage grants unlock private and community investment in heritage conservation.

8.       To be eligible for funding through the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme, projects need to meet one of the following eligibility criteria for regional significance:

·    Historic heritage places that are included in one of the schedules of the Auckland Unitary Plan, including the Historic Heritage Schedule, Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua, and contributing buildings within a Historic Heritage Area or Historic Character Area.

·    Historic heritage places that are unscheduled but have been demonstrated to be of regional significance, subject to evidence that the site has interim protection through heritage covenants as well as a letter from the applicant confirming support for scheduling the site under the relevant heritage overlay.

·    Movable heritage items subject to evidence that the object would be stored and exhibited within the Auckland region in a manner that will ensure its long-term protection.

9.       For the 2016/2017 funding round, the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme welcomed grant applications that aligned with the following programme priorities:

·    Conservation of regionally significant historic heritage places

·    Repairing and maintaining at risk historic heritage places

·    Supporting kaitiakitanga of Māori cultural heritage

·    Preserving heritage and character in town centres.

10.     Applications for the 2016/2017 funding round were assessed by staff with subject matter expertise using the weighted assessment criteria as set out in Table One below.

Table One – Regional Historic Heritage Grant Assessment Criteria

Criteria

Weighting

Alignment with strategic priorities for 2016

40%

Project significance

30%

Funding necessity

15%

Public access and education

15%

 


 

 

11.     Each application had an assessment score out of 100 which was used to rank applications from highest to lowest. Grant recommendations were developed and moderated by environmental grants and incentives staff considering the application assessment score, project budget, items that the funding was requested for, and the level of funding that would maximise outcomes and value for money.

12.     The Regional Historic Heritage Grant Programme provides for grants of up to $20,000 per annum, and there is provision to award smaller grants for projects that meet the criteria for regional significance but only require moderate support.

13.     As a funding principle, grants through the Regional Historic Heritage Grant Programme are provided to leverage the community’s ‘match’ of an equal value in volunteer labour, cash, or donated goods and services. While there is no set match requirement for this fund, council will generally consider a 50 per cent match desirable.

14.     Most applicants for the 2016/2017 funding round will make contributions towards their total project costs. Eight applications were received requesting 100 per cent funding support. Twenty eight applications were received where the applicant contribution was 50 per cent or greater.

15.     It is recommended that seven applications are supported with grants totalling $80,744, ranging from $2,248 to $20,000 in value, with an average grant of $11,535. It is also recommended that a further 33 applications are declined. A brief project summary of all applications, assessment score, funding recommendations and rationale has been provided in Attachment B.

16.     Grant recommendation amounts are only less than the requested amount in cases where applicants have stated that a smaller Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme contribution would still be helpful for their project. The recommended amount is based on the amount the applicant has specified in their application as being a helpful contribution.

17.     This is the second annual funding round of the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme. Funding round metrics from both the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 rounds are provided in Table two below. Compared with the 2015/2016 round, the 2016/2017 funding round has had an increase in both the number of applications received and amount of funding requested. The number of grants allocated and grant sizes are similar.

 

Table Two – Regional Historic Heritage Grant Programme metrics

 

2015/2016 funding round

2016/2017 funding round

Budget

$80,743

$80,744

Number of applications

27

42

Total value of grants requested

$336,914

$573,559

Number of applications recommended for funding

Seven applications supported, 19 declined and one ineligible

Seven applications supported, 33 declined and two ineligible

Value of grant allocations

Range: $3,375 to $20,000

Average: $11,998

Range: $2,248 to $20,000

Average: $11,534

 


 

 

 

 

18.     The applications that are recommended for funding in the 2016/2017 financial year align strongly with the outcomes established for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme. The majority of the applications recommended for funding are for maintenance and repair projects to scheduled historic heritage places. Two projects are for restoration works to graves in scheduled cemeteries.

19.     In most instances applications that are recommended for decline have merit. However the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is oversubscribed and lower scoring applications were not recommended for funding.  Some applications are recommended for decline due to consent requirements and issues with best practice identified during the assessment process.

20.     Applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practical following confirmed allocation and will have 12 months to complete the project work. At the end of this grant term recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements detailing how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project. Should these projects either not proceed or not fully utilise allocated funding all unspent funds will be returned to Council.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21.     The Community Grants Policy provides for local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. Local boards may choose to fund local heritage projects and activities, some of which may complement the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa. Information on the successful grant applicants will be provided to all relevant local boards, following the approval of the Planning Committee.

Māori impact statement

22.     All grant programmes aim to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations who deliver positive outcomes for Māori.  Auckland Council’s Te Waka Angamua department provided input and practical support towards the development of the Regional Historic Heritage Grant Programme.

23.     Promotion of the 2016/2017 funding round included provision of information to heritage stakeholders which included mana whenua, Māori community groups and individuals.

24.     Supporting kaitiakitanga of Māori cultural heritage is an identified priority for this grant programme and all applications were assessed as to their alignment with this priority.

25.     Of the 42 applications received, 11 applications were submitted in which the applicant identified the project as contributing to Māori outcomes.

Implementation

26.     The funding recommendations presented in this report full allocate the Regional Historic Heritage grant programme budget for the 2016/2017 financial year, as approved through the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

 


 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Regional Historic Heritage Grants programme

8

b

Regional Historic Heritage Grants programme grant recommendations

8

     

Signatories

Authors

Fran Hayton - Environmental Funding Advisor

Mary Kienholz, Senior Specialist: Community Heritage

Authorisers

Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 6 June 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/09971

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that may have been distributed to committee members. 

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo/briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following information items are attached:

·    Planning Committee Forward Work Programme (Attachment A)

4.       The following memos were circulated to members:

·    03/05/2017 – Email – to Planning Committee from Noelene Buckland, Chair of the Auckland City Centre Residents’ Group (Attachment B)

·    16/05/2017 – Memo – Update on the Auckland Plan Refresh (Attachment C)

·    16/05/2017 – Attachment to Update on the Auckland Plan Refresh memo – Theme Summary (Attachment D)

·    22/05/2017 – Memo – Roads and Street Framework and Transport Design Manual Workshop (Attachment E)

5.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

·    24 May 2017 -  Confidential Unlock Old Papatoetoe High Level Project Plan (No attachment)

·    24 May 2017 - Auckland Transport Design Manual and the Roads & Streets Framework (Attachment F)

6.       This document can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top of the page, select meeting “Planning Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

o under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments”.

7.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings – 6 June 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Planning Committee Forward Work Programme (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

03/05/2017 - Email to Planning Committee from Noelene Buckland, Chair of the Auckland City Centre Residents' Group (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

16/05/2017 - Update on Auckland Plan Refresh memo (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

16/05/2017 - Attachment to Update on Auckland Plan Refresh memo - Theme Summary (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

22/05/2017 - Roads and Street Framework & Transport Design Manual Workshop memo (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

24/05/2017 Auckland Transport Design Manual and Roads & Streets Framework workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Elaine Stephenson - Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

      

 


Planning Committee

06 June 2017

 

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

b)                                           

 

That the Planning 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       Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Self Family Trust Environment Court Appeal (ENV-2016-AKL-000199) - Ngā Kapua Kohuora (Crater Hill) and Pūkaki

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)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains discussion of matters that are subject of an appeal to the Environment Court and any public disclosure could compromise the council's case.

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.

 

 

 

C2       Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - North/West Appeals - Okura

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)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains a discussion of matters that are the subject of appeals to the Environment Court and any public disclosure could compromise the council's case.

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.

 


 

 

C3       Auckland Council Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Waitakere Ranges Protection Society Appeal (CIV-2016-404-002290)

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)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains legal advice that relates to a High Court appeal.

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.

 

 

C4       Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Record of Urgent Decisions Made Under Delegated Authority

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)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains discussion of matters that are subject of appeals to the High Court and Environment Court and any public disclosure could comprismise the council's case.

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.