|
Infrastructure
Committee
23 July 2014
|
|
Healthy Waterways and Water Sensitive Design
File No.:
CP2014/15514
Purpose
1. To report
progress and actions to support water sensitive urban design, freshwater
quality outcomes, and advise further action needed, including options for
improving water quality in Auckland to meet national bottom lines for
freshwater quality under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater
Management (NPSFM).
2. To respond to
the water sensitive city benchmark report prepared by the Cooperative Research
Centre (CRC) for Water Sensitive Cities in Melbourne.
3. To respond to the resolutions of the 13 May 2014 Regional
Strategy and Policy Committee REG/2014/64.
Executive summary
4. Healthy
waterways are an important component of the “Auckland - World’s Most Liveable
City” vision.
5. Since its
inception, Auckland Council has played a national leadership role in Water
Sensitive Urban Design. This is evidenced through strategy and policy (e.g.
Auckland Plan, Auckland Design Manual, and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
provisions); implementation of marque projects (e.g. Long Bay, Flat Bush and
Project Twin Streams); environmental awards won; operation of the region-wide
Sustainable Catchments Programme; and emphasis on generating high-quality
information through its regional monitoring and reporting programmes.
6. In this
context, the CRC report ‘Benchmarking Auckland’s Stormwater Management
Practices against the Water Sensitive Cities Framework’ was commissioned to
review progress and provide helpful benchmark comparisons. This report was
released early; it has now been independently peer reviewed by the University
of Auckland and subsequently this can be found in Attachment A.
7. It is important
to acknowledge the significance of the water quality challenges that Auckland
Council faces. Changes to the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management
(NPSFWM) in June 2014 introduced national bottom lines for freshwater quality.
Anticipated failures have arisen under the current resource management regime
and have occurred despite significant investment in freshwater and land-based
restoration initiatives. The expected trend under ‘business as usual’ will
generate further failures in urban, future urban and rural areas and will not
be sufficient to meet statutory responsibilities.
8. To deliver
improvements in freshwater Auckland Council is working to improve its evidence
base, further integrate actions across council and CCO teams, drive
multi-objective investment, and optimise the performance of existing assets.
9. Additional,
concerted action will be required over a long period to deliver the necessary
improvements to meet freshwater quality bottom lines. Council could facilitate
these actions by establishing a Healthy Waterways 'acceleration' fund to enable
catalytic investment that:
a) drives rapid
improvements in environmental outcomes in sensitive areas and degraded
environments and maintains water quality in new urban areas
b) creates ‘blue
and green corridors’ throughout the region that deliver multiple objectives
(eg. stormwater + amenity + habitat + cycle and walking connection)
c) removes barriers
to and creates incentives for private sector action.
10. A
transformational investment proposal has been prepared for consideration as
part of the draft 2015-25 Long-term Plan (LTP) process. Council will need to
consider provision for budget for this fund to achieve freshwater quality
improvements alongside other priorities as part of its LTP prioritisation and
rationalisation process.
|
Recommendations
That the Infrastructure Committee:
a) receive
the peer review on the water sensitive city benchmark report prepared by the
Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Sensitive Cities in Melbourne
b) recommend that the ‘Healthy Waterways’ acceleration fund as a
Transforming Auckland proposal be forwarded for
consideration through the 2015-25 Long-term Plan process
c) request
a report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee by November 2014 with
a template for regular reporting on freshwater quality and the effectiveness
of council programmes and progress towards meeting national bottom lines for
freshwater quality.
|
Comments
The current state of Auckland’s
freshwater quality
11. Clean and
healthy freshwater and marine environments are central to the Auckland
Council’s vision of Auckland becoming the world’s most liveable city. This,
combined with the game changing responsibilities created by June 2014 changes
to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFWM) makes
freshwater quality an important consideration for Auckland Council.
12. As reported to
the 13 May 2014 meeting of the Regional Strategy and Planning Committee,
Auckland Council will be required to lift freshwater quality to meet national
bottom lines over time, and prevent the growth in Auckland’s population from
increasing the number of freshwater bodies in the region that fail to meet
them.
13. Council’s State
of the Environment monitoring indicates that in many areas the region’s
freshwater environments systems are under threat, and that poor water quality
is degrading recreational, economic, aesthetic and cultural values. In
particular:
· Urban development has simplified habitat,
modified hydrology, increased temperature, lowered dissolved oxygen levels and
increased metal contaminant loads in freshwater bodies.
· In rural areas, elevated nutrient and
sediment loadings have degraded water quality and led to habitat
simplification.
· Freshwater contaminant loads (including
sediments, nutrients and also heavy metals) are being transported from urban
and rural catchments into marine environments.[1]
14. The following
figure shows sites that fail bottom lines for any attribute of the National
Objective Framework (NOF) using data from 2012, and those that pass all
attributes. Catchments on the map are those that contain one or more State of
the Environment (SOE) monitoring sites relevant to the NOF.
Figure 1: Application of National Objective Framework
(NOF) bands to Auckland state of the environment monitoring sites.
Challenges to freshwater quality
15. Legacy patterns
of urban development and rural land use perpetuate fresh water quality issues
and, without a significant commitment on behalf of council and developers,
(greenfield and brownfield development) to accommodate Auckland’s growth, we
will see a further reduction in water quality.
16. Auckland Council
and its predecessors have made longstanding commitments to investing in
environmental protection, environmental restoration, enhancement and community
engagement. Some historic and current catchment-based interventions have
focused on building community understanding of issues and commitment to
addressing them. These programmes build the platform necessary to address
freshwater quality issues, but have not in themselves delivered or sought to
deliver improvements in freshwater quality sufficient to meet statutory bottom
lines.
17. The advent of
national freshwater quality bottom lines[2]
introduces enhanced responsibilities that make Auckland Council
accountable for meeting prescribed quantitative biophysical targets over time.
In this new context Auckland Council will need to effectively integrate its
various actions with the delivery of national bottom lines in mind.
18. Early
indications are that current practices including the adoption of water sensitive
urban design alternatives is proving effective in an Auckland context. Coupled
with greater attention to establishing robust baseline data and benchmarking of
performance against measurable outcomes, our understanding of the effectiveness
of available tools is improving. We can also confidently say that preventing
water quality degradation is significantly easier and more cost-effective than
reversing it
19. At this stage,
however, the quality of freshwater in some Auckland water bodies is so degraded
– especially in urban catchments – that we cannot confidently state that we
will be able to meet national bottom lines with the tools we have available to
us, even over very long timeframes and with significant investment.
20. Tools for
improving water quality in rural areas are better understood and investment in
rural areas is likely to have a greater impact on water quality outcomes than
in urban areas. This is important because one of the council’s overriding
statutory responsibilities under the NPS FWM is to “maintain or improve overall
water quality within a region.”[3]
This potentially[4]
allows councils to focus investment on catchments and water bodies that
can benefit the most from investment and deliver net regional benefits.
Investment in the interventions needed to improve water quality in rural
catchments will, however, involve private landowners to a much greater extent
than interventions in predominantly urban catchments where the emphasis will be
on developing and maintaining publically owned stormwater infrastructure.
What we are currently doing
21. Auckland
Council’s history of environmental monitoring, community engagement and
plan-making provides us with a strong understanding of what Auckland’s
ecosystems need and what communities want in terms of freshwater quality. We
also have clear direction from the Auckland Plan in terms of the vision we are
seeking to bring about. With this in mind the council has:
· introduced
development controls through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that require
developers to implement high quality approaches to stormwater management
· made
significant investments in upgrading the region’s wastewater management system
(e.g. the ‘Central Interceptor’, and Mangere and Rosedale wastewater treatment
plant upgrades)
· established
the Wai Ora Wai Māori programme to coordinate its response to the
statutory collaborative limit-setting requirements of the NPS FWM.
22. Within the
parent organisation of the council the core responsibility for freshwater
quality resides with the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department
and the stormwater and environmental services units within it.
Stormwater Unit
23. The stormwater
unit is seeking to shift the focus of stormwater management in Auckland from
removing or disposing of stormwater as fast as possible via built
infrastructure, to recognising the value of stormwater as a resource, its close
interrelationship with natural freshwater systems, and how it can enhance the
liveability of our cities.
24. Built
infrastructure will always be a primary component of Auckland’s network and its
on-going efficient and effective operation and renewal is fundamental to
sustainable stormwater management.
25. The reality is
that, within budgets for the foreseeable future, the stormwater unit will not
be able to address all existing stormwater issues. Prioritisation of
expenditure is essential, and the priorities of the unit (in order) are:
i. effective operation,
maintenance and renewal of the assets we already have to ensure optimum performance
ii. supporting and
servicing the Auckland Plan’s regional growth strategy
iii. progressively reducing
flood risk across the region, and
iv. reducing negative effects on the environment,
particularly streams and coastal areas.
26. Under these priorities,
the freshwater quality-related areas of focus for the stormwater unit are:
· Working
across council to identify areas that are unsuitable for new growth or
intensification or which are subject to stormwater management constraints that
must be resolved before development can occur
· Aligning
work programmes with Auckland Plan growth priorities and timeframes, working
with other infrastructure providers to identify opportunities for collaboration
and sequencing of infrastructure, and developing a regional prioritisation
process to align our capital investment with strategic, community and
environmental priorities
· Working with
Engineering and Technical Services to develop and communicate guidelines,
including for urban design, that enable communities and developers to give
effect to water sensitive or low impact design principles and techniques
· Providing
technical advice to communities and mana whenua in stream restoration projects
· Preparing
Network Discharge Consents and Catchment Plans to identify priority areas for
contaminant load reduction, stream protection and enhancement
· Adopting
“green” stormwater solutions where appropriate and enhancing stream assets to
reduce adverse effects
· Investing in
stormwater quality treatment where it will provide significant receiving
environment benefit
· Designing, constructing and operating
public soakage systems to reduce stormwater contaminants discharged to
aquifers.
Environmental Services Unit
27. The
environmental services unit’s work programmes are tailored to achieve the
priority outcomes of:
i. healthy waterways and
harbours
ii. flourishing indigenous
biodiversity, and
iii. Aucklanders
connected with nature and adopting environmentally responsible lifestyles[5].
28. Under these
priorities, the freshwater quality-related areas of focus for the environmental
services unit are:
· Identifying
high priority species, ecosystems and catchments across the Auckland region for
protection and/or restoration [6]
· Working
collaboratively with stakeholders (including iwi, landowners, community groups,
business, council departments and Council Controlled Organisations) to
determine water quality objectives and actions to achieve them
· Actively
encouraging (through incentives such as grants and advice) private landowners
to either protect or enhance identified high priority native species and ecosystems
on their land
· Excluding
stock from natural areas and waterways to support high priority species,
ecosystems and catchments
· Undertaking
riparian planting and catchment revegetation programmes
· Providing
input to key Auckland Council processes (e.g. decisions on the location and
design of Special Housing Areas, Wai Ora Wai Maori, stormwater planning and
delivery) and documents (e.g. guidelines, codes of practice and bylaws) that
have the potential to effect native freshwater flora, fauna, ecosystems and
water quality
· Developing a
work programme to address regionally significant water quality issues (e.g.
sediment runoff to Kaipara, West Coast lagoon water quality)
· Developing guidance for the rest of
council on incorporating ecosystem services thinking into project, programme
and service design.
Stormwater Collaboration within the
Auckland Council Group
29. Delivery of
stormwater outcomes across the region is a complex process managed through a
number of interrelated processes, relationships and partnerships including
those with Watercare, Auckland Transport, Waterfront Auckland, council’s
Housing Project Office (HPO) and through close relationships with the
development and industry sectors.
30. Collaborative
projects currently in design or procurement include the Freemans Bay new
stormwater outfall, the Walmsley-Underwood Oakley Stream widening, the Ports of
Auckland Stormwater upgrade project, and the Artillery Drive stormwater upgrade
project in Takanini.
31. Future
collaborative work under planning review includes the Dominion Road upgrade
project, and AMETI with Auckland Transport. This work will incorporate
additional water sensitive design and associated water quality improvements.
Three localised separation projects are planned in collaboration with Watercare
including Three Kings, Okahu Bay and Waterview. These projects are not
economically viable for Watercare to include in the Central Interceptor
project. However the projects are viable from a stormwater perspective and have
been prioritised to deliver reduced combined sewer overflows in these areas.
Benchmarking Auckland’s stormwater
management practices against the water sensitive cities framework
32. Auckland Council
has played a national leadership role in Water Sensitive Urban Design since its
inception. This is evidenced through stated aspiration (Auckland Plan, World’s
most liveable city), strategy and policy (Auckland Design Manual (ADM), Water
Strategic Action Plan), implementation (keynote projects such as Long Bay, Flat
Bush, Project Twin Streams and their translation into regional programmes such
as the Sustainable Catchments Programme, and monitoring (regional monitoring
and reporting).
33. In discussions
with leading authorities in the UK (CIRIA), and the US (Washington State
Department of Ecology), there is anecdotal confirmation that Auckland is a
leader in implementing water sensitive stormwater design in a water-rich
environment.
34. The Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan delivers a planning and consenting framework that enables
best practice urban development. It seeks to better integrate the management of
land use and development and associated adverse effects, with a greater focus
on the generation and management of stormwater at or near source. The
experience of the last few months is that this is bringing a step change in
development practice and expected outcomes.
35. In parallel with
the development of the regulatory framework, projects are underway to deliver
both guidance on how to plan, design and implement excellent urban design (the
ADM), and specific design and implementation guidance for water sensitive urban
design for stormwater, plus reports to justify the implementation of water
sensitive design, including business case data. Documents produced or in draft
for use by industry include:
· Water
Sensitive Design for Stormwater - Guidance Document 04 (GD04)
· Auckland
Unitary Plan stormwater management provisions: Technical basis of contaminant
and volume management requirements – Technical Report
· Auckland
Unitary Plan stormwater management provisions: cost and benefit assessment –
Technical Report
· Permeable
Paving Design – Technical Report
· Swale Design
– Technical Report
· Living Roof
Review and Design Recommendations for Stormwater Management – Technical Report
· Wetlands
Design – Technical Report
· Raingardens
– Technical Report
· Performance
Estimator for Treatment Trains Development – Technical Report
· Rainwater Tank Design Guideline.
36. Documents in
draft will be published in August 2014 through the Engineering and Technical Services
Unit in Infrastructure & Environmental Services.
37. In the 2014/15
financial year work is planned to develop minimum construction standards for
water sensitive design of stormwater to include in council’s Code of Practice
for Development, which will assist both developers and council development
engineers. Auckland Council believes that delivering such guidance, and case
studies included in the Auckland Design Manual, will remove a lot of the
technical barriers to implementing water sensitive stormwater management in
Auckland.
38. The Water
Sensitive Design for Stormwater (GD04) report includes an internal discussion
tool for how council can best incentivise water sensitive design. Other reports
for predominantly council use consider how best to take account of the benefits
of green infrastructure in business cases, whole of lifecycle costings, how to
manage some of the risks associated with soakage to ground for many of the
lower impact solutions, and research reports produced in collaboration with the
University of Auckland.
39. This suite of
tools will support the implementation of broader council strategies, such as
the Water Strategic Action Plan and the Environmental Strategic Action Plan,
which also focus on wider engagement with stakeholders, and strategic
collaboration to achieve results. Auckland Council will be well placed to build
on its existing platform of capacity across strategy, guidance and tools to
deliver ongoing improvements in freshwater quality.
40. The
‘Benchmarking Auckland’s Stormwater Management Practices against the Water
Sensitive Cities Framework’ report prepared by the Cooperative Research Centre
(CRC) for Water Sensitive Cities in Melbourne has been independently peer
reviewed by the University of Auckland’s ‘Centre for Infrastructure Research’
and has been subjected to an internal audit by Auckland Council. This peer
review is attached to this report as Attachment A.
41. For Auckland
Council’s vision to be the world’s most liveable city to be realised, progress
needs to be made on a range of factors, and local context needs to be taken
into account in choosing between conflicting priorities. To this end the
independent peer review includes a number of observations relating to strengths
and weaknesses of the CRC work. In summary:
· there were helpful observations on
working with stakeholders to understand the linkages between liveability and
water sensitive management
· there was a weakness in actual
benchmarking given Auckland’s relative abundance of water, its track record to
date and the integrated approach taken, and the need to balance water sensitive
outcomes with other priorities.
42. In conclusion,
although there is further progress to be made, the Unitary Plan and supporting
strategies, tools and collaborative relationships will continue to deliver
improvements in water sensitive design practice in Auckland. And it does so
from a robust baseline of practice and achievement.
Further action needed
43. The NPS-FM
requires Auckland Council to work with communities to agree the values and uses
of fresh water resources in the Auckland Region. Once agreed these will be
translated into objectives and specified as numerical limits (on both water
quality and quantity) to be used for managing abstractions, diffuse runoff from
land use and point source discharges – through statutory and non-statutory
processes.
44. Council’s Wai
ora - Wai Māori project (currently under review) has been developed to
deliver on the statutory requirements established by the NPS FM. The first
phase of this project, which will run until mid-2015, is intended to prepare
the council to undertake formal community engagement and focuses on
understanding community values and aspirations. The second phase has two
elements – developing policy, guidelines and frameworks, and working with
stakeholders to seek win-win solutions.
45. To deliver
further improvements in freshwater quality and meet statutory bottom lines,
Auckland Council needs to improve its evidence base, fully integrate actions
and investments and optimise the performance of existing assets. Under Wai Ora
Wai Māori, council teams are currently running programmes designed to:
· generate
robust and reliable data on the effectiveness of different approaches to
improving water quality (or mixes of approaches) in Auckland-specific urban and
rural contexts
· integrate
planning processes, community engagement processes, infrastructure investment
and investment in Water Sensitive Urban Design, to generate economies of scale
and realise efficiencies
· enhance the
efficiency of existing services – e.g. using information and communications
technologies to support preventative and targeted maintenance
· adjust
existing infrastructure to meet present needs – e.g. upgrading and retrofitting
existing assets and taking advantage of the opportunity this provides to
combine centralised and decentralised management technologies, and to integrate
traditional with ‘green’ stormwater infrastructure
· pursue
non-technical interventions – e.g. tariffs, business models and strategies that
incentivise the delivery of multiple policy objectives from each investment and
the adoption of water sensitive urban design by private developers.
46. It is important
to note that existing ‘bottom line failures’ have arisen under the current
resource management regime and have occurred despite significant investment in
freshwater and land-based restoration initiatives. The expected trend under
‘business as usual’ will generate further failures in urban, future urban and
rural areas and will not be sufficient to meet statutory responsibilities.
Figure 2. Expected trends under ‘business
as usual’
47. Council teams
are investigating using GIS to overlay actions and investments that have a
direct or indirect effect on fresh water quality, including those scheduled in
the:
a. stormwater
asset maintenance, renewal and development programme
b. cycleway and
road construction programme
c. network
infrastructure development programme (e.g. broadband rollout)
d. sustainable
catchments programme
e. NPS FWM limit
setting schedule (under Wai Ora Wai Māori)
f. ecological
restoration and parks redevelopment/acquisition programme
g. Greenfield
structure planning and plan changes
h. Local area
spatial planning programme
i. Housing Project Office Special Housing Areas.
48. This information
will, in turn, be mapped on to freshwater physical and ecological attributes to
identify ecologically sensitive areas and priority areas for intervention to
maintain and achieve national bottom lines.
49. This process
will create a ‘heat map’ that identifies:
a) natural
synergies where scheduled council actions and investments overlap with
ecologically sensitive areas and ‘bottom line’ failures, and
b) opportunities
to create these synergies by ‘tweaking’ investment timeframes and the timing of
planning processes.
50. This process
will allow us to find or generate ‘hot spots’ around the region where planning
and investment can be concentrated. If expenditure from across multiple teams
and programmes is targeted and timed to coincide – most likely with a
‘backbone’ of stormwater and or roading investment – council will be able to
generate efficiencies, capitalise on synergies and generate economies of scale
that deliver – or promise to deliver – significantly better freshwater quality
outcomes for less cost.
51. Each ‘hot spot’
intervention would take place after establishing a baseline of water quality
information and a monitoring and evaluation programme would be integrated into
the project from the outset. This will allow the council to refine the design
of its interventions over time and make subsequent investment decisions based
on the demonstrated effectiveness or otherwise of particular tools or
programmes in achieve statutory and other objectives.
52. While this
integration holds the promise of significantly improved and more cost-effective
outcomes, it represents a first step. It is unlikely that this action alone
will be sufficient to meet statutory bottom lines for fresh water quality.
53. Maximising the
integration of council planning, programmes and investment will establish a
solid platform for addressing water quality issues, but in many instances
additional action will be required over long timeframes to deliver the
necessary improvements to meet statutory water quality bottom lines. Council
could facilitate these actions by establishing a Healthy Waterways
'acceleration' fund to enable catalytic investment that:
· Drives rapid
improvements in environmental outcomes in sensitive areas and degraded
environments and maintains water quality in new urban areas
· Creates
‘blue and green corridors’ throughout the region that deliver multiple
objectives (e.g. stormwater + amenity + habitat + cycle and walking connection)
· Removes
barriers to and creates incentives for private sector action.
54. The Healthy Waterways
fund would be focused on actions that have a clear and measurable impact on
freshwater quality and would include both capital and operational investment.
55. Capital
investments would be encouraged that generate demonstrable improvements in
water quality:
· Incentivising
the uptake of water sensitive urban design in private developments and targeted
investment to optimise private infrastructure during greenfield and brownfield
development
· Strategic
land purchases
· Targeted
investment to optimise AT/NZTA/Watercare infrastructure investment e.g.
Dominion Road transport upgrade
· Targeted
separation programme in collaboration with Watercare.
56. Operating
expenditure would leverage off existing community and industry based
interventions to improve water quality and will fund:
· Investment
in remediating and enhancing urban and rural streams in high priority
catchments – contestable grant funding
· Collaboration
with communities in high priority urban and rural catchments
· Development
of regulatory implementation guidance and technical support
· Monitoring
and Compliance
· Industry
pollution prevention and compliance programmes (using the existing Local Board
model)
· Targeted
contaminant load reduction projects for example, Zinc roof project (treatment
or retrofit)
· Targeted
catch pit maintenance programmes to address contaminated sediment
· Contestable grant funding in target
locations for urban and rural stream work.
57. Council will
need to consider provision for budget for this fund to achieve freshwater
quality improvements alongside other priorities as part of its LTP
prioritisation and rationalisation process.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
58. No specific
engagement regarding this report has been undertaken with local boards. However
since amalgamation local boards have demonstrated a clear commitment, including
funding, for improved freshwater outcomes.
59. This commitment
has carried through in the development and detail contained in the recently
released draft local board plans. All 21 draft local board plans have an
environmental outcome relating to valuing, enhancing, respecting, cherishing or
ensuring a healthy environment or natural heritage.
60. Freshwater
quality aspirations are also detailed in all 21 draft local board plans.
Specifically restoring and improving waterways, rivers and streams, ensuring
healthy waterways, preventing pollution and working with communities are key
ideas contained within these goals.
61. Five local
boards also detail their intent to work in partnership with mana whenua as
kaitiaki to achieve freshwater and environmental objectives in their draft
local board plans.
Maori impact statement
62. Stormwater,
environmental and freshwater management have integral links with the mauri of
the environment and concepts of kaitiakitanga. Council’s work in this
freshwater space has partnered with mana whenua, mata waaka and iwi on specific
projects.
63. Consultation and
collaboration with iwi to achieve shared stormwater and freshwater outcomes are
on-going through the regional Kaitiaki forum, hui, and with specific projects.
For example, some stormwater projects contribute to council’s commitment to
matauranga Maori (La Rosa, Tamaki, Portland Road, and Te Auaunga).
64. No specific
engagement regarding this report has been undertaken with Maori. Council staff
will identify and work with iwi and Maori organisations to deliver on the
initiatives identified within this paper as they are developed.
Implementation
65. The proposed
approach will identify natural synergies where scheduled actions and investment
overlap, and further opportunities to create these synergies by ‘tweaking’
investment timeframes, action plans and the timing of planning processes. This
project might have implications for the fine-grained detail of:
· Spatial
Priorities programme
· Land release
and structure planning
· Local area
planning
· Sustainable
Catchment Programme
· Infrastructure
investment schedules
· NZTA and AT
technical designs.
66. Given the
linkage between Auckland’s freshwater and marine environments, this is also
likely to have implications for the SeaChange programme and integrated
catchment management planning for Auckland’s harbours.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a
|
Independent Peer Review of Stormwater
Benchmarking Report (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
John Dragicevich - Manager
Infrastructure and Environmental Services
Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland
Strategy and Research
|
|
Authorisers
|
Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning
Officer
Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer
|
|
Infrastructure
Committee
23 July 2014
|
|
The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport
(GPS) 2015
File No.: CP2014/09455
Purpose
1. To discuss the contents of the
draft 2015 Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport and provide an
opportunity for the committee to input into the council’s submission.
Executive
summary
2. The GPS is developed by the
Ministry of Transport (MoT) and is reviewed every three years. It sets out the
government’s priorities for expenditure from the National Land Transport Fund
(NLTF) over the next 10 years. Submitters have until 11 August to forward
comments to the MoT.
3. The GPS is important to Auckland
Council as it sets the bands for funding for all transport activities. Levels
of funding will affect the ability of Auckland Council to facilitate the
transformational shifts contained in the Auckland Plan, particularly in
relation to public transport and improving the quality of urban living.
4. The draft GPS 2015 sets an
expenditure target of $3.4 billion for the 2015/16 financial year, rising to
$4.4 billion in the 2024/25 financial year. The draft GPS allocates $10.5
billion over the first 3 years (2015/16-2017/18) and a total of $38.7 billion
over the 10 year period (2015/16-2024/25).
5. The draft GPS includes funding
increases for road policing, road safety promotion, walking & cycling and
public transport. Other increases in funding are applied to State Highway
maintenance, local road improvements and maintenance.
6. The draft GPS 2015 proposes to continue
the three key priorities from GPS 2012, these being a strong and continuing
focus on economic growth and productivity, road safety and value-for-money.
7. Feedback from the Infrastructure
Committee is sought so that a proposed submission can be drafted and approval
sought from the Governing Body at the end of July. Key issues are highlighted
in this report to form the basis of that submission. The key submission points
are the need for a clearer identification of objectives for Auckland, an increase
in upper limits of funding for public transport and walking and cycling
programmes, support for some activity class changes, reduction in funding for
state highway programme in the later years of the GPS and clarification of
Auckland specific transport matters such as the timing of the City Rail Link.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Infrastructure
Committee:
a) agree that
the proposed key submission points outlined in this report form the basis of
the council’s submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land
Transport 2015
b) request that
the feedback from the committee is incorporated into a council submission and
is reported to the Governing Body for approval.
|
Background
8. The
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) 2015 will set out the
government’s priorities for expenditure from the National Land Transport Fund
(NLTF) over the next 10 years. It will set out how funding is allocated
between activities such as road safety policing, state highways, local roads
and public transport The GPS does not allocate funding directly to specific
projects. Decisions at the project level are made through the National Land
Transport Programme (NLTP) and Council Long-Term Plan (LTP) process.
9. The NLTP must give effect to the
GPS, while the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) is required to be consistent
with the GPS. This hierarchy – set through the Land Transport Management
Act 2003 –means the GPS has an important role for local, as well as central,
government.
10. The NLTF comes from road users
through fuel excise duty, road user charges and from motor vehicle licensing
and registration. The NLTF is a hypothecated fund, meaning revenue is
ring-fenced for investment in land transport.
11. The GPS is reviewed by the
Minister of Transport every three years and the next GPS must be released
before it officially comes into effect on 1 July 2015.
12. The GPS sets the funding bands
for all transport activity classes (not individual projects) from road safety
and research to investment in local roads, state highways, public transport and
active modes amongst others. Levels of funding granted to each class via the
NLTP can have a significant effect on the ability of any local authority to
fund their priority projects. For example, if funding is considered
insufficient for public transport in Auckland, it could affect the ability of
Council to succeed in its public transport transformational shift.
13. The GPS is important to Auckland
Council as it sets the bands for funding for all transport activities. Levels
of funding will affect the ability of Auckland Council to facilitate the
transformational shifts contained in the Auckland Plan, particularly in
relation to public transport and walking and cycling.
Key Aspects of GPS
2015 (draft)
14. The draft GPS 2015 outlines $3.4
billion of NLTF expenditure for the 2015/16 financial year, rising to $4.4
billion in the 2024/25 financial year. The draft GPS allocates $10.5 billion
over the first three years (2015/16-2017/18) and a total of $38.7 billion over the
10 year period (2015/16-2024/25).
15. The draft GPS 2015 proposes to
continue the three key priorities from GPS 2012, these being:
· A strong and continuing focus on
economic growth and productivity
· Road safety
· Value-for-money.
16. In addition to the key
priorities, the draft GPS 2015 outlines five land transport objectives that
provide further detail on the outcomes from transport investment form the NTLF
and are new in GPS 2015. The objectives are for a land transport system that:
· Addresses current and future demand
· Provides appropriate transport
choices
· Is reliable and resilient
· Is a safe system, increasingly free
of death and serious injury
· Appropriately
mitigates the effects of land transport on the environment.
17. The first three objectives
deal with the substantive transport task e.g. the movement of people and
freight. The others address the effects of transport, such as crashes and
emissions.
18. Other changes from GPS 2012
include the fewer activity classes, a clearer system for setting out and
measuring the results expected from transport, small funding band increases for
all the activity classes and a new “regional” funding class.
19. Auckland
has also been designated a “Multi-Class Focus Area”. This is in addition to
the activity classes stated above and have been created to relate investment
occurring across multiple activity classes. The definition of the Auckland
Multi-Class Focus Area being “investment relating to Auckland to maximize
throughput of people and freight as Auckland grows, enabling further economic
growth and productivity”.
20. The
draft GPS includes the $375 million loan to the NZ Transport Agency, which was
announced by the Government as part of Budget 2014. This loan will enable the
motorway projects in the Auckland Transport Package to be bought forward by up
to a decade from what was originally planned.
GPS 2012
21. The government
reports “good progress” has been made under GPS 2012. In summary, one Road of
National Significance (RoNS) has been completed with the remaining six due to
be completed over the next six years including the Waterview Connection and
Puhoi to Warkworth Motorway (the Victoria Park Tunnel being the completed
project). Nationally, public transport patronage has increased, particularly in
Auckland. Road safety nationally continues to improve and progress continues to
be made on the Canterbury earthquake recovery.
Auckland Council
Feedback – Key Submission Points
22. The MoT has
requested that submitters respond to the contents of the draft GPS by 11 August
2014. The submission will be developed in line with the discussion detailed
below and from feedback received at the committee meeting on 23 July.
Alignment with Auckland Plan
23. Analysis of
the draft GPS by officers has highlighted that the three priorities in the
draft GPS align with similar outcomes sought in the Auckland Plan. This
alignment is shown below:
|
GPS key
priority
|
Auckland
Plan outcome
|
|
A strong
and continuing focus on economic growth and productivity
|
An Auckland
of prosperity and opportunity
|
|
Road safety
|
A fair,
safe and healthy Auckland
|
|
Value for
money
|
Make the
best use of every dollar spent
|
24. The
identification of Auckland being identified as a “Multi-Class Focus Area is an
important inclusion in the draft GPS. Auckland’s size, the extent of future
growth and critical role it plays in the economy of New Zealand means that
Auckland has unique transport demands and faces particularly significant growth
and transport issues. The draft GPS recognises Auckland’s point of difference
with the provision of accelerated investment in Auckland and the Multi-Class
Focus Area. The description of the Auckland multi-class focus area can be
improved to align with the objectives of the Auckland Plan and to help develop
the definitions and associated results related to the Auckland Multi-Class
Focus Area.
25. Specifically the Auckland section
should reflect the wider outcomes sought in the Auckland Plan and the
particular characteristics of Auckland’s economy, which is more service-focused
than many other parts of the country and benefits significantly from
agglomeration in centres to produce innovation and boost productivity
Public Transport
26. Amalgamation
of the Public Transport Activity Classes into a single Activity Class is a positive
change made in the draft GPS. This change will allow investment to be directed
to service or infrastructure depending on where the best returns can be made
and will assist in our move to outstanding public transport within one network.
27. The draft GPS could be enhanced
by referring to the positives from past Public Transport investment, delivering
good returns. For example, investment in the rail network has led to patronage
growing from 2.5m in 2003 to over 11m now and on Fanshawe Street inbound peak
hour bus patronage have grown from 5,700 in 2006 to over 8,000 in 2013.
28. An increase in
the upper limit on Public Transport funding will enable a continuing focus on
improving public transport infrastructure and service provision. Implementation
of the new public transport network, which generates significant service
efficiencies by tripling the reach of the frequent network within existing
budgets requires a number of infrastructure investments over the next few
years, such as bus interchanges, bus lanes and improved passenger facilities.
There is a risk that an overly-constrained public transport activity class
could limit the provision of this infrastructure and make it difficult for the
new network to be successfully implemented.
Walking and Cycling
29. The draft GPS
proposes a welcome but modest (3.5%) increase in funding for walking and
cycling. There are strong links between investment in walking and cycling and
economic development and productivity (as well as other health, safety and
well-being benefits). The provision of a connected cycle network and support
for the uptake of active modes will also lead to safety and congestion relief
benefits.
30. Auckland
Council and other councils in New Zealand are considering increasing local
share funding of walking and cycling infrastructure programmes. It will be
important that there is an increase in the upper limit of the Walking and
Cycling funding band to allow for expected programmes. This reflects the
intention for Walking and Cycling budgets to meet transport, health and other
benefits.
Future State Highway Investment
31. With the
completion of the Auckland Motorway network (and RoNS programme) in the not too
distant future it may not be necessary for such a high funding allocation for
the State Highways improvements activity class in the later years of the GPS.
Because the State Highways improvement is such a large activity class, even a
fairly small reduction could enable significant increases to other activity
classes.
Other Wording Changes
32. A number of
other wording changes would improve the alignment between the draft GPS and
Auckland’s future transport programme. For example, it would be important to
note the Council’s consideration of either a reduced transport programme based
on a rates increase less than the 4.9% noted in the current Long-term Plan, or
an increased transport programme based on alternative transport funding being
considered. The draft GPS notes that the Government’s timeframes for the City
Rail Link (in the definition of Auckland Transport Package) apply: the council
should have the capability to determine its timeframes for work on the City
Rail Link and negotiate with the Government about the timing of its funding
contributions, rather than be restricted by a statutory document which Auckland
Transport’s Regional Land Transport Plan must be consistent with.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
33. There is interest from the Local
Boards to submit on the draft GPS. Timeframes for submissions make it
difficult for the Local Boards to meet and provide their feedback. Where
possible, local board feedback would be considered and incorporated into the
council’s submission. It is proposed that the key points of the Council
submission and feedback from this committee are shared with the local boards
post committee to enable their views to be incorporated into the council
submission.
Maori
impact statement
34. The Schedule of Issues of
Significance to Maori in Tamaki Makaurau, Issue 13 “Access to Infrastructure Services/Development”
outlines areas of importance to Maori related to planning for transport and
other infrastructure related facilities. There is the opportunity to include
in the council’s submission suggested wording about the Auckland context to include
transport’s contribution to these Maori outcomes in the Auckland section of the
GPS.
Implementation
35. Given the 11 August deadline to
provide feedback to the Ministry of Transport, it is proposed that a submission
is prepared based on the key points noted in this report and incorporating
feedback from the committee. Approval of the council’s submission would be
sought from the Governing Body.
36. The MoT have indicated that the
draft GPS would not be finalised until after the election. This would guide
councils’ decisions regarding their draft Long-term Plans and draft Regional
Land Transport Plans.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport -
2015/16-2024/25 Engagement Draft
|
37
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Phil Haizelden - Principal Transport Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and
Research
Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer
|
|
Infrastructure
Committee
23 July 2014
|
|
The Auckland Infrastructure Providers Forum
File No.: CP2014/10637
Purpose
1. To provide an
introduction and overview to the Auckland Infrastructure Providers Forum.
Executive
summary
2. During the
development of the Auckland Plan, it was recognised that an ongoing formal
relationship between Auckland Council and the infrastructure sector was
necessary. This was provided for by an action for Chapter 12 of the Plan,
which required the establishment of an infrastructure focused forum.
3. Since its
establishment under the Auckland Plan, the Infrastructure Providers Forum (the
“Forum”) has met three times to discuss sector specific issues and progress
possible joint projects.
4. Specific work
streams are currently underway by council staff that could address many of the
issues raised by the Forum. There is also the possibility of the Forum
undertaking work itself.
5. The Infrastructure Providers
Forum will report to the Auckland Procurement Forum to ensure collaboration on
shared issues.
6. Regular
reporting will be made to the Infrastructure Committee advising of progress of
the Forum.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Infrastructure
Committee:
a) note the
establishment and role of the Infrastructure Providers Forum
b) request
regular updates on the progress of the Infrastructure Providers Forum.
|
Discussion
7. The Auckland
Plan recognised the importance of aligning infrastructure investment with the
wider aspirations of the Plan. As part of the Auckland Plan’s development,
strong relationships with infrastructure providers were developed. The value of
maintaining these relationships is recognized in Action 4 to Chapter 12
(Auckland’s Physical and Social Infrastructure):
“Establish an Auckland Infrastructure
Forum, in order to address water and other infrastructure issues, and to
facilitate co-ordination of projects”[7]
8. In order to ascertain
sector-wide infrastructure support for such a forum, a discussion document was
released to sector leaders in late 2012, requesting feedback on the possible
terms of reference, membership, and resourcing. Feedback was reviewed and
confirmed by Forum members at the inaugural meeting in March 2013.
9. The following terms of reference
were agreed:
To provide a point of contact and collaboration for
Auckland Council and Auckland infrastructure providers in relation to:
· Infrastructure
planning, delivery, and operation affecting the implementation of the Auckland
Plan’s development strategy with a particular focus on providing adequate
development capacity for Auckland.
· Infrastructure
planning, delivery, and operation affecting the delivery of the wider targets
and aspirations of the Auckland Plan.
· To
provide a platform to discuss issues affecting infrastructure providers as they
relate to their activities or any matter considered by providers to be of
interest or concern to the infrastructure planning, delivery, and operation for
Auckland.
· To
develop and provide advice regarding the strategic infrastructure directions
for Auckland.
· To
assist in the promotion and management of infrastructure planning, delivery and
operational interests for Auckland.
10. Forum membership was confirmed as
being limited to infrastructure providers only from across all infrastructure
areas, as well as Auckland Council representation. Current membership includes
representatives from the following organisations:
|
Organisation/Company
|
Infrastructure
Sector
|
|
Vector
Limited
|
Energy
and Telecommunications
|
|
Counties
Power
|
Energy
and Telecommunications
|
|
Chorus
Limited
|
Telecommunications
|
|
Vodafone
New Zealand
|
Telecommunications
|
|
Telecom
New Zealand
|
Telecommunications
|
|
2
Degrees
|
Telecommunications
|
|
Refining
New Zealand
|
Energy
|
|
Transpower
New Zealand
|
Energy
|
|
Watercare
Services Limited
|
3
Waters
|
|
Auckland
Council Stormwater Unit
|
3
Waters
|
|
Ports
of Auckland
|
Transport
|
|
New
Zealand Transport Agency
|
Transport
|
|
Kiwirail
|
Transport
|
|
Auckland
Transport
|
Transport
|
|
Auckland
International Airport Limited
|
Transport
|
|
Ardmore
Airport Limited
|
Transport
|
|
Kordia
|
Telecommunications
|
|
Airways
New Zealand
|
Telecommunications
and Transport
|
|
New
Zealand Police
|
Emergency
Services
|
|
New
Zealand Fire Service
|
Emergency
Services
|
|
St
John Ambulance Service
|
Emergency
Services
|
|
Envirowaste
|
Waste
|
|
Living
Earth
|
Waste
|
|
Wind
Farm Group
|
Energy
|
|
Wiri
Oil Services Limited
|
Energy
|
|
Mighty
River Power
|
Energy
|
|
Meridian
Energy
|
Energy
|
|
Refining
New Zealand
|
Energy
|
|
Gull
New Zealand
|
Energy
|
|
Auckland
University of Technology
|
Education
|
|
Manukau
Institute of Technology
|
Education
|
|
Massey
University
|
Education
|
|
Northern
DHB Support Agency Ltd[8]
|
Health
|
11. While not all members have
attended all meetings, Forum attendance has generally been good.
12. Two meetings were held during
2013 prior to the 2013 Local Government elections. A further meeting was held
in March 2014.
13. Initial matters dealt with have
included:
· The
Long-term Plan’s 30 year infrastructure strategy
· Progress
on the development of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, including the Rural
Urban Boundary Project
· The
Auckland Housing Accord, Special Housing Areas and the Forward Land and
Infrastructure Programme (the “FLIP”); and
· The
proposed Digital Auckland Initiative.
14. Additional feedback was sought
from Forum members in early 2014 to refine issues of relevance for the Forum.
The key issues were identified as possible points for collaboration between
Auckland Council and infrastructure providers:
· Growth management and aligning investment - this includes
joint prioritisation of growth locations and infrastructure investment
· Housing affordability and supply - recognised
as an important aspect of infrastructure planning
· Funding - such as efficient use of funding
including prioritisation of projects
· Congestion and Transport Investment - raised due to
efficiency impacts on providers’ day-to-day operations
· Shortages in skilled labour - these shortages are affecting
the ability of providers to deliver on projects
· Resilience and climate change - this included comments on
energy diversification and planning for service disruptions
· Reverse sensitivity of land uses -
highlighting the negative impact of new land uses on existing infrastructure
assets and networks
· Complexity and conflict of planning controls - the mixture of national and local planning instruments can overly
complicate infrastructure planning
· Need to allow flexible response to changing conditions - recognising the long-term changes in technology and New Zealand
society.
15. In considering the feedback from
the Forum, Auckland Council planning staff have identified four areas of
possible work for the Forum:
· Improving methods for co-ordination in infrastructure planning and
delivery
- This can be
achieved in part through the spatial prioritisation work led by the Deputy
Mayor, the 30 year infrastructure strategy, and the FLIP
· Helping prioritise growth areas and associated infrastructure
investment
- The ongoing
development of spatial prioritisation will specifically address this matter
· Working together to improve supply of skilled labour
- Auckland Council
is currently working with industry and the education sector to determine
appropriate measures to resolve this issue
· Developing a shared approach to climate change mitigation and
adaptation
- Work is ongoing on Auckland’s responses
to climate change matters.
16. In addition to
these areas of work, discussions are progressing on the development of a
Digital Auckland GIS platform. This platform could provide a 3D virtual model
with accurate information on infrastructure services and demand across
Auckland, assisting both provide sector providers and Auckland Council in their
planning. This could enable better evidence-based decisions, reduced operating
costs and opportunities to generate economic growth.
17. Following
discussion at the March 2014 meeting of the Forum, it was confirmed that the
Infrastructure Providers Forum will now act as a sub-group of the Auckland
Procurement Forum. This reorganisation has been undertaken to:
“Connect
strategy with procurement and delivery of civil and social infrastructure for
Auckland, in a manner consistent with the Auckland Plan and affordable for the
people of Auckland.”
18. The Auckland
Infrastructure and Procurement Forum is affiliated with MBIE’s Productivity
Partnership. It is led by Auckland Council, other infrastructure owners in
Auckland, and MBIE, who together form a Steering Group for the Procurement
Forum. The Forum itself is open to all senior members of the infrastructure
industry. Together, the industry agrees important issues of the day to address
collaboratively, from which working groups are set up and tasked with
delivering outcomes to drive for more efficient procurement and project
delivery working practices. The structure of the Procurement Forum and its
linkage to the Providers Forum is highlighted in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – The Structure of the Auckland
Infrastructure and Procurement Forum
19. Two meetings of
the Auckland Infrastructure and Procurement Forum late last year identified
strong support for change in the infrastructure sector. The procurement
workstream considers the procurement lifecycle from concept to delivery. The
pipeline and capability workstream disseminates information on the next 3-5
years of likely work and identifies short term capability issues to be
addressed. The technology workstream looks at how we can utilize new technology
to improve project delivery. Integrating the Infrastructure Providers Forum as
a “strategy workstream” will link the three to five year view of the industry
with longer term planning. The overall structure will provide improved
integration across the infrastructure sector and assist in supporting the
delivery of the Auckland Plan
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
20. Local Board
Plans provide a local perspective on the infrastructure investment needed to
support the aspirations of Auckland’s communities. Ongoing review of these
Plans and their alignment with the Auckland Plan, as well as council-controlled
organization (CCO) alignment with these Plans, is an ongoing process.
21. Local boards
have not been consulted on this report. However, engagement with local boards
will be undertaken (where necessary) for individual infrastructure and
transport strategy projects.
Maori
impact statement
22. The Independent
Maori Strategy Board has not been consulted on this report. However,
engagement with the Board will be undertaken (where necessary) for individual
infrastructure and transport strategy projects.
General
23. Progress of the
Forum will be regularly reported to the Infrastructure Committee.
Implementation
24. Reprioritisation
or the introduction of new projects will require a review of available council
resources, as well as the co-operation and resourcing of infrastructure
providers (both internal and external to council).
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Tim Hegarty - Principal Infrastructure Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and
Research
Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer
|
