Agenda of Infrastructure Committee

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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

9.30am

Council Chamber
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Infrastructure Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Mike Lee
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
	Cr Bill Cashmore
	Cr Ross Clow
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Liane Ngamane
	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr John Watson
	Glenn Wilcox
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

(Quorum members)

Barbara Watson

Democracy Advisor

28 August 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7629

Email: barbara.watson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr Cathy Casey and Member G Wilcox have 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 Infrastructure Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 23 July 2014, 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 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days 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.

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

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 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 two (2) days 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 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

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

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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

Infrastructure Committee

03 September 2014

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

File No.: CP2014/16081

Purpose

1. This report seeks agreement on the principles to enable the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to be allocated outside the transport corridor where there is clear benefit in terms of supporting alternative means of transport including walking and cycling.

Executive summary

2. Within the Auckland Transport capital programme, $10 million per annum is ring fenced for local board transport priorities that are local in nature.

3. At the 7 March 2013 Strategy and Finance Committee, it was resolved that the use of the funds is limited to the transport corridor.

4. This limits the use of the funds in connecting walking and cycling transport routes through land outside the transport corridor such as parks and reserves.

5. By expanding the use of the funds outside of the transport corridor, it will support safety and attractiveness of walking and cycling alternatives, which will ultimately contribute to enhancing the character of Auckland, building healthy communities and enable more active lifestyle choices.

6. On 8 May 2014, the Budget Committee resolved to recommend that Auckland Transport be requested to enable the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to be allocated outside the transport corridor where there is clear benefit in terms of supporting alternative means of transport including walking and cycling and that this is presented back to the Infrastructure Committee.

7. Auckland Transport and Parks, Sports and Recreation (PSR) have outlined proposed principles to support the enablement of the use of the funds on public land controlled by Auckland Council or one of its related CCOs (“the controlling agency”) outside the transport corridor. The recommendations in this paper outline the proposed principles for agreement.

Recommendation/s

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) agree the following principles to enable the use of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to be allocated outside the transport corridor where there is clear benefit in terms of supporting alternative means of transport including walking and cycling.

Principles

i) The use of the fund outside of the transport corridor supports connectivity of cycleway and footpaths within the transport network

ii) The local board, Auckland Transport and the controlling agency will agree the deliverables to ensure that infrastructure (e.g. lighting) conforms to the controlling agency’s standards, and clarify the asset ownership and who will budget and manage the on-going maintenance and renewals. This will occur prior to the final approval to proceed with the project

iii) For cycling, the proposed routes should be identified on the Auckland Cycle Network or a local board’s Greenways Plan. The greenway routes provide for the feeder routes in the cycle network

iv) Proposed cycling projects may include facilities such as bike parking and these would conform to Auckland Transport standards for cycling facilities

v) For footpaths, the proposal would need to close a gap in the current walking network to residential, recreational, public transport or town or local economic centres

vi) Proposed footpath widths should accommodate both cycling and walking when no alternative cycling route is identified

vii) Where the investment is outside the transport corridor, both the controlling agency and Auckland Transport must formally approve the proposal with the local board prior to the project proceeding.

Comments

8. Auckland Transport’s prioritisation of capital budgets is focused on Auckland Plan transport priorities. Projects important to local communities but with no regional benefit are less likely to be funded without a specific provision due to the demand for transport infrastructure.

9. At the 3 April 2012 Strategy and Finance Committee meeting, the Mayor proposed that $10 million of the Auckland Transport capital budget be set aside for local board priorities on an annual basis for local board projects that are local in nature and not part of the funded programme, providing that the projects are deliverable, meet transport safety criteria and do not compromise the network.

10. Following the decision of the committee, council staff developed a discussion document that outlined the objectives of the funding, issues, options, and criteria. This discussion document was used as the basis for consultation with local boards, which occurred over May and June 2012.

11. Council staff subsequently reported the issues, options and a recommended approach to the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting of 2 August 2012. The report included feedback from the consultation with local boards.

12. The committee resolved the following:

a. That the $10 million per annum of Auckland Transport capital funding be allocated to local boards on the basis of the population of their respective board areas as follows, with the exception of the Great Barrier Local Board and Waiheke Local Board, whose allocation will be one percent and two percent of the annual fund respectively.

Local Board	Funding Allocation ($)
Albert-Eden	664,933
Devonport-Takapuna	385,030
Franklin	434,966
Great Barrier	100,000
Henderson-Massey	748,378
Hibiscus and Bays	599,885
Howick	871,903
Kaipatiki	579,516
Mangere-Otahuhu	517,754
Manurewa	593,314
Maungakiekie-Tamaki	494,757
Orakei	549,949
Otara-Papatoetoe	549,292
Papakura	306,184
Puketapapa	379,117
Rodney	369,261
Upper Harbour	337,066
Waiheke	200,000
Waitakere Ranges	331,152
Waitemata	469,789
Whau	517,754
Total	$10,000,000

b. That local boards can use the $10 million per annum of funding for any local transport capital works project as long as it is technically deliverable, meets transport safety criteria, does not compromise the transport network and is not part of an asset renewal programme.

c. That local boards can bundle capital works projects, by carrying budget over to later years, or by bringing budget forward from future years provided:

i. it can be managed by Auckland Transport within its annual budget

ii. it is within the same electoral term.

d. That it be noted that the $10 million per annum of funding does not replace the requirement for Auckland Transport to take account of local board plan priorities through the Regional Land Transport Plan process and annual work programming.

e. That it be noted that there is a risk that this process adds to the administration costs for Auckland Council and/or Auckland Transport, and that this impact be monitored, and formally considered when the funding is reviewed.

f. That the $10 million per annum of funding and the processes around it be reviewed before the development of the 2015-2025 Regional Land Transport Plan and Long-term Plan.

13. At the Strategy and Finance Committee of 7 March 2013, the Manurewa Local Board requested an adjustment to the criteria to allow the use of the fund outside of the transport corridor. This was not carried, with a resolution resolved to confirm that local boards can use the $10 million per annum of funding for any local transport capital works project within the road corridor as long as it is technically deliverable, meets transport safety criteria, does not compromise the transport network and is not part of an asset renewal programme.

14. This has limited the use of the funds in connecting transport routes through parks and reserves.

15. By allowing the use of the fund to be expanded outside of the transport corridor, it will complement a single transport system approach.

16. In addition, it will support safety and attractiveness of walking and cycling alternatives, which will ultimately contribute to enhancing the character of Auckland, building healthy communities and enable more active lifestyle choices.

17. On 8 May 2014, the Budget Committee resolved to recommend that Auckland Transport be requested to enable the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to be allocated outside the transport corridor where there is clear benefit in terms of supporting alternative means of transport including walking and cycling and that this is presented back to the Infrastructure Committee.

18. Auckland Transport and PSR have outlined the following proposed principles to support the enablement of the use of the funds outside the transport corridor.

Proposed principles

19. The use of the fund outside of the transport corridor supports connectivity of cycleway and footpaths within the transport network.

20. The local board, Auckland Transport and the controlling agency will agree the deliverables to ensure that infrastructure (e.g. lighting) conforms to the controlling agency’s standards, and clarify the asset ownership and who will budget and manage the on-going maintenance and renewals. This will occur prior to the final approval to proceed with the project.

21. For cycling, the proposed routes should be identified on the Auckland Cycle Network or a local board’s Greenways Plan. The greenway routes provide for the feeder routes in the cycle network.

22. Proposed cycling projects may include facilities such as bike parking and these would conform to Auckland Transport standards for cycling facilities.

23. For footpaths, the proposal would need to close a gap in the current walking network to residential, recreational, public transport or town or local economic centres.

24. Proposed footpath widths should accommodate both cycling and walking when no alternative cycling route is identified.

25. Where the investment is outside the transport corridor, both the controlling agency and Auckland Transport must formally approve the proposal with the local board prior to the project proceeding.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26. Local boards have not formally been asked for their view. However walkways and cycleways were a key area of advocacy for a number of local boards in their input into the Annual Plan 2014/2015. The implications of the recommendation should enable local boards in utilising the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to deliver on connected local walking and cycling to their communities.

Maori impact statement

27. Connected and well-resourced communities are as important to Mana Whenua and Mataawaka, as all other communities in Auckland. Public Transport, walkways and cycleways provide a critical network and means of accessing recreation areas, local centres and places like Marae and papakainga. As projects are yet to be determined, no particular issues for Mana Whenua or Mataawaka have been identified at this stage. However, moving forward, Iwi will be consulted with appropriately.

Implementation

28. There are no significant implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Robert Irvine - Financial Planning Manager CCOs

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Infrastructure Committee

03 September 2014

Feedback for Proposed Long-term Plan 2015-2025 Performance Measures

File No.: CP2014/16643

Purpose

1. To receive an overview of the performance information review process and outline the process to finalise the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-25 performance information and targets.

2. To provide feedback on the performance measures proposed by the council group in order to aid the development of the measures in the draft LTP 2015-25.

Executive summary

3. Following the process agreed at the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on
19 June 2014, the council group has developed a draft set of proposed Levels of Service statements and performance measures for the groups of activities that are relevant for this committee (Resolution no. FIN/2014/37).

4. This performance information is currently being reviewed by officers and internal stakeholders. The intention is to collate all feedback from this committee and our internal process and provide this to the council group.

Recommendation/s

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) receive the draft level of service statements and performance measures for the Stormwater, Flood Protection and Control, Roads and Footpaths, Public Transport and Travel, Demand Management, Parking and Enforcement, Water Supply and Wastewater groups of activities

b) provide feedback on the proposed statements and measures, either through this committee meeting or subsequently by emailing longtermplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Comments

5. The Performance Measure work-stream is conducting a council and council-controlled organisation (CCO) wide review of performance measures for the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025. This process was outlined and agreed at the Finance and Performance Committee on 19 June 2014 (Resolution no. FIN/2014/37).

6. The intended outcome of this in-depth review is that there will be a succinct set of community focused performance measures for each group of activities proposed for the draft LTP, which is aligned to the Auckland Plan.

7. This work needs to be substantially completed (including political engagement) by the end of October 2014 to support publication of the draft LTP for public consultation in early 2015.

8. The council group have completed an in-depth review of their level of service statements and measures and these have been provided in an attachment to this report. This performance information is currently under review by key internal stakeholders and officers, including the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB).

9. Feedback provided through this committee, our internal processes and IMSB, will be provided back to the business for them to finalise their proposed performance information.

10. These performance measures will have targets that will reflect the intended levels of service to be delivered by the council and CCOs and which will align with financial budgets. These targets will be discussed at the budget committee workshops in September 2014.

11. The Budget Committee will review the entire suite of measures and targets proposed for inclusion in the LTP 2015-25 between September and October 2014. The Budget Committee will adopt the measures and targets on 5 November 2014.

Consideration

12. Performance Information proposed for the following groups of activities is included in attachment A;

a) Flood Protection and Control

b) Stormwater Management

c) Roads and Footpaths

d) Public Transport & Travel

e) Demand Management

f) Parking & Enforcement

g) Water Supply

h) Wastewater.

13. The internal review is considering feedback to the council group to ensure that the council group:

a) reduce the number of measures that are reported at the LTP level where possible,

b) reduce an over-reliance of survey related measures, especially at a local level, where sampling errors are significant, and

c) include only those measures that have a robust reporting methodology in place and are important is describing the council’s performance.

Auckland Plan Alignment

14. In developing performance measures, we are ensuring alignment of levels of services with Auckland plan outcomes and targets which have been set.

15. The performance measures will be considered only for those levels of services that directly contribute to or enable an Auckland plan target to be met.

Local board views and implications

16. Local boards have provided feedback on performance measures at local board workshops and meetings held through August. This feedback will be used in finalising the performance information. Once the Budget Committee has endorsed the final proposed performance measures, we will engage with local boards to determine their targets. This is expected to take place in September 2014.

Maori impact statement

17. The draft and existing Maori outcome related performance measures that are being reviewed. Te Waka Angamua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) are part of the key stakeholders group for this work-stream and are providing feedback and support on that part of the review. The feedback received will be used to further develop the current draft performance information.

Implementation

18. No significant implementation issues are applicable.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Watercare, Stormwater & Flood Protection and Auckland Transport LoS & LTP Measures	15

Signatories

Authors

Tushar Shreyakar – Senior Advisor CCO

Taryn Crewe– Financial Planning Manager

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Infrastructure Committee

03 September 2014

The Auckland Infrastructure Providers Forum

File No.: CP2014/16667

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 Infrastructure 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 Auckland Infrastructure Procurement Forum and 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”^{^[1]}

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^{^[2]}	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

[1] Auckland Council, 2012, Auckland Plan Addendum

[2] The Northern DHB Support Agency Ltd undertakes asset planning for the Counties-Manukau, Auckland, Waitemata, and Northland District Health Boards.

Authors	Barbara Watson - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer