I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Thursday, 12 March 2015 9.30am Reception
Lounge |
Auckland Development Committee
OPEN AGENDA |
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Cr Chris Darby |
|
Members |
Cr Anae Arthur Anae |
Cr Calum Penrose |
|
Cr Cameron Brewer |
Cr Dick Quax |
|
Mayor Len Brown, JP |
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM |
|
Cr Dr Cathy Casey |
IMSB Chair David Taipari |
|
Cr Bill Cashmore |
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE |
|
Cr Ross Clow |
Cr Wayne Walker |
|
Cr Linda Cooper, JP |
Cr John Watson |
|
Cr Alf Filipaina |
Cr Penny Webster |
|
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO |
Cr George Wood, CNZM |
|
Cr Denise Krum |
|
|
Cr Mike Lee |
|
|
IMSB Member Liane Ngamane |
|
(Quorum 11 members)
|
|
Rita Bento-Allpress Democracy Advisor
6 March 2015
Contact Telephone: 09 890 8149 Email: rita.bento-allpress@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It will guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities. Key responsibilities include:
· Unitary Plan
· Plan changes to operative plans
· Designation of Special Housing Areas
· Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing
· Spatial Plans including Area Plans
· City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects
· Tamaki regeneration projects
· Built Heritage
· Urban design
Powers
(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.
Except:
(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)
(b) where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only
(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body
(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.
(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING
Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.
Those who are not members of the public
General principles
· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.
· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.
· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.
· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).
· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.
· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.
Staff
· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.
· Only 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.
IMSB
· Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.
· Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.
CCOs
· Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.
Auckland Development Committee 12 March 2015 |
|
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 Approval of Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 9
10 Cost of Residential Servicing Study 37
11 C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group - Auckland Council membership 53
12 Exchange of reserve land proposal - Three Kings Quarry and PA372 61
13 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
14 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 77
C1 Additional New Special Housing Area Request - March 2015 Recommendation 77
C2 Special Housing Areas - March 2015 Recommendations 77
C3 Special Housing Area Programme for 2015 78
1 Apologies
Apologies from Cr AJ Anae and Cr CM Penrose 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 Auckland Development Committee: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 12 February 2015 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 26 February 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record. |
4 Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order 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.
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.
7 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
8 Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Auckland Development Committee 12 March 2015 |
|
Approval of Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011
File No.: CP2015/01571
Purpose
1. To recommend that Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 (District Plan) is approved and made operative by the Council.
Executive Summary
2. Plan Change 130 adds a scheduled activity to the District Plan to recognise and enable the existing Peter Snell Youth Village facility to operate and develop in future. The Plan Change adds provisions including:
· Scheduled activity status for the Peter Snell Youth Village as it currently stands, as a permitted activity;
· Providing for minor buildings (less than 10m2) as a permitted activity within certain areas;
· Providing for bush clearance if in accordance with an approved Bush Management Plan;
· Enabling expansion of the Youth Village and car parking as a restricted discretionary activity;
· Development controls, performance standards, conditions and assessment criteria associated with permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary and discretionary activities;
· A concept development plan defining sub areas within the site.
3. Plan Change 130 has progressed through public notification, submission and hearings stages with a decision being released in November 2014. The decision was not appealed.
4. Final approval of Plan Change 130 is now required by the council under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to enable the plan change to become operative in the District Plan.
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) approve Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011, as set out in Attachment A to this report, pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. b) authorise the Manager Planning North/West to complete the statutory processes under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make Plan Change 130 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 operative in the District Plan. |
Discussion
5. The Peter Snell Youth Village Trust first approached Rodney District Council (RDC) in 2008 seeking that their youth camp site at 1212 Whangaparaoa Road be given special consideration in the District Plan. The District Plan currently zones the land as Landscape Protection Residential (LPRZ). This zone does not provide for a camp facility meaning that it is a non-complying activity in the zone. The current facility has already maximised some of the development controls for the zone (e.g. site coverage) and there are objectives in the zone that deter activities “that attract more than only a few people or require more than small areas of buildings”. Therefore, the current District Plan provisions make it difficult to undertake any future alterations or expansions of the camp facility.
6. To retain the camp facility on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula long term, the former RDC worked with the PSYV Trust to develop a set of planning controls that would allow the ongoing use of the site to remain for youth camps while also recognising the ecological and landscape values of the site. Plan Change 130 is the outcome of this work.
7. The plan change adds provisions to the District Plan, including:
· Scheduled activity status for the Youth Village as it currently stands, as a permitted activity;
· Providing for minor buildings (less than 10m2) as a permitted activity within certain areas;
· Providing for bush clearance if in accordance with an approved Bush Management Plan;
· Enabling expansion of the Youth Village and car parking as a restricted discretionary activity;
· Development controls, performance standards, conditions and assessment criteria associated with permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary and discretionary activities;
· A concept development plan defining sub areas within the site.
8. A hearing was held in September 2014 and the independent commissioner panel released decisions on submissions in November 2014. The decision was not appealed by any party following the release of the Hearing Panels decision.
9. All that remains is for the Auckland Development Committee to approve Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of RMA, and authorise the Manager Planning North/West to complete the statutory processes under Clause 20 of the First Schedule to achieve operative status in the District Plan.
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
10. Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) submission point 6505-1 made by Peter Snell Youth Village requests that a new precinct is added to the PAUP which incorporates the provisions from Plan Change 130 into the PAUP.
Consideration
Local Board Views and Implications
11. The decisions requested on Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) to the District Plan are not a matter for the delegated authority of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. Consequently the views of the Local Board have not been sought.
Maori Impact Statement
12. The Plan Change was developed and initiated by resolution of the former Rodney District Council. Appropriate consultation with Iwi was undertaken at that time including discussions at the Taumata meeting with Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara and information sent to Ngati Wai. Subsequently, under Auckland Council, Iwi were notified during the notification process and no issues were raised relating to Iwi.
General
13. The recommendation to approve and make operative Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) is consistent with the Council’s policies and strategies, and does not trigger the significance policy.
Implementation Issues
14. There will be some administrative costs associated with making Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) operative and consequential updating of the District Plan. These costs are provided for in the Plans and Places departmental budget.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Hearings Panel approved Consent Order for Plan Change 130 (Peter Snell Youth Village) |
13 |
Signatories
Authors |
Austin Fox - Planner |
Authorisers |
Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer |
Auckland Development Committee 12 March 2015 |
|
Cost of Residential Servicing Study
File No.: CP2015/01960
Purpose
1. To receive the Cost of Residential Servicing Study prepared in response to Action 15 of the Housing Action Plan (adopted by Council in December 2012).
Executive Summary
2. This report was first circulated as Item 14 of the 12 February Auckland Development Committee agenda. The committee decided, at that meeting, to defer the item to the 12 March meeting (Resolution number AUC/2015/14).
3. The Housing Action Plan identifies the financing of infrastructure as a priority area for action. The Action Plan notes that “there is … a need to understand the real cost and impact of servicing different types of development in different locations in order to enhance our asset management planning and therefore our development contribution policy…” page 25. In response, Action 15 of the Housing Action Plan mandated “more thorough empirical research showing the true cost of servicing different types of development and assessing the impacts of location and typology” (page 25).
4. Auckland Council commissioned and MBIE co-sponsored CIE (Centre for International Economics) and Arup (Engineering Consultancy) to undertake the Cost of Residential Servicing Study (formerly called the Cost of Growth) in 2013. The purpose of the report was to undertake more thorough empirical research showing the true cost of servicing different types of development and assessing the impacts of location and typology.
5. The project involved collecting information on twelve case studies (a mix of residential developments completed and underway) drawn from different geographical regions and of varying scale and density of development.
6. Cost information was sought for the following infrastructure types: water, wastewater, stormwater, transport, schools, community services and parklands.
7. The findings of the study (See Attachment A for a copy of the Summary from the report) suggest that the cost of servicing in the case studies did vary based on the locality and density of development (a full version of the report will be available under separate cover).
8. On average - for the case studies investigated - the cost of providing infrastructure services to the greenfield residential developments was estimated to be more expensive than for infill residential developments. The study also confirmed considerable variation in costs between case studies of similar location/density.
9. The study has also shown how the lack of a consistent approach in entering infrastructure funding agreements with developers, or accepting infrastructure in lieu of development (financial) contributions, has not always resulted in cost effective outcomes for Council.
10. In addition, the study highlights the fact that legacy councils adopted different service delivery standards, particularly with regards to stormwater and parklands infrastructure, which also resulted in considerable variance in the per dwelling costs. The study reflects the need for standardised service delivery levels across the region reinforcing the approach now taken by Auckland Council.
11. A significant limitation of the case study approach was lack of data on operating costs. Given that infrastructure providers may elect for a trade-off between the amalgamated capital expenditure and operating expenditure costs over the life of an asset, it is well understood that the capital expenditure component alone may not adequately reflect the relative cost differences of infrastructure provision between sites.
12. Council has continued to improve its processes to estimate the cost of servicing individual developments and its understanding of how the costs of infrastructure provision should be allocated. More detailed estimates of the cost of servicing will only enhance Council’s ability to allocate true cost and thereby promote more efficient land use.
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) receive the Cost of Residential Servicing Study and note that the findings highlight the need for the following: consistency in whole of life cost reporting; consistency in the use of IFAs and infrastructure charge offsets; and a standardised approach to service levels; b) agree this report be circulated to local boards for their information. |
Background
13. In May 2013, council called for Expression of Interest (EOI) to undertake an “Auckland Cost of Growth Study”. The title for this EOI has contributed to confusion about the outcomes of the study. However the EOI did identify that the study was to “examine the respective costs of new development at inner and outer urban locations” with a view to:
· informing and improving plans for growth;
· enhancing asset management planning;
· promoting affordable housing outcomes;
· assisting with financial policy development (such as refining development contribution policy).
14. Following the EOI, a request for proposal was notified in July 2013 and CIE and Arup were commissioned to undertake the study. There has been a delay in completing the study owing to the need to obtain and interpret information from eight legacy councils, who captured information in different ways.
Study Approach
15. The project methodology involved collecting information on twelve residential development case studies drawn from different geographical regions and of varying scale and density of development. These are as follows:
Development Scenarios/sites (combination of type and location) |
|
Type of Development |
Location |
High density |
CBD |
Medium Density |
Isthmus |
Medium Density |
At Metropolitan Limit |
Low Density |
At Metropolitan Limit |
Medium Density |
Outer Metropolitan Limit |
Low Density |
Outer Metropolitan Limit |
The scenarios were to be populated with actual developments including but not limited to:
North – Long Bay, Takapuna, Millwater, Riverhead South
Central – CBD, Ockham, Ellerslie
West – New Lynn, Babich, Hobsonville Point
South – Hingaia, Papakura Town Centre
16. The study approach resulted in both issues and learnings on infrastructure provision, prior to the amalgamation of Auckland Council. Before Auckland Council, the responsibility for local infrastructure provision resided with legacy councils. There was not a standard procedure with respect to recording capital expenditure and as a result there were significant gaps in the study’s analysis of historical spending.
17. Legacy councils also adopted different service delivery standards, particularly with regards to stormwater and parklands. The different historical costs of infrastructure provision across the case studies may therefore in part reflect the different standards adopted by legacy councils rather than just locality/density factors.
18. Similarly, legacy councils differed in the types of infrastructure funding agreements negotiated with developers; so differences in the costs of historical infrastructure provision also reflected these commercial negotiations. Likewise, these new developments required additional capacity not factored into forward development programmes.
19. It was intended that operating expenditure would also be included in the estimates of servicing costs, but this was only possible for road maintenance and public transport operations, with data unavailable for the other infrastructure types from legacy data.
20. Where possible, assumptions were made to overcome these limitations; however, the resulting costs per dwelling at best provide indicative cost estimates of servicing the different case study developments.
Study Outcomes
21. The results suggest (see pages 6 & 7 of the summary report) that the cost to the public sector of servicing development sites varies, based on the locality and density of development, but that it has proved difficult to provide an accurate estimation of these differences using an historical case study approach.
22. Council’s current Contributions Policy distinguishes between type and location of development based on average demand. Council is continuing to improve its processes to enhance the estimation of the cost of servicing individual developments and of understanding whether the development, or a combination of the development and the wider community, should be charged for infrastructure provision.
23. The study findings highlighted the limitations of using legacy council historical data to provide robust estimates of the cost to the public sector of servicing individual developments. The study has also highlighted the considerable variance in the cost of servicing sites of similar locality/density. Nevertheless, the outcomes of the study point to the need for Council to enhance cost reporting to ensure informed decisions on the cost of servicing future development sites.
Consideration
Local Board Views and Implications
24. This study is to help inform city-wide policy taking account of any local variations. This report can be circulated to local boards for their information.
Maori Impact Statement
25. In undertaking the workstreams and actions within the Housing Action Plan the HPO has been working with Te Waka Angamua (TWA), the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), iwi, mana whenua, Urban Māori Trusts, mataawaka organisations, central government and others to identify opportunities for papakainga and other types of housing and social infrastructure for Māori. It was not relevant to consult further for this study.
Consultation
26. As this project is intended to assess the cost of residential servicing and inform other areas within council no specific public consultation is planned. Where other workstreams develop using the information provided by this study they will need to consult as appropriate.
Financial and Resourcing Implications
27. There are no significant financial or resourcing implications envisaged. Should further work be required as an outcome of this work it will be reported to the committee with any associated financial implications.
Legal and Legislative Implications
28. There are no legal or legislative implications arising from this report. The outcomes of this study help inform future development contribution policy
Implementation Issues
29. The Cost of Residential Servicing Study is an action identified within the Housing Action Plan. This study has supported the need for ongoing refinement of Council’s cost allocation methodology.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Extract from the CIE, Centre for International Economics, Cost of Residential Servicing report - January 2015 |
41 |
CIE, Centre for International Economics, Cost of Residential Servicing Report (Complete Version) - January 2015 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Rachael Logie – Senior Economist Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy |
Authorisers |
Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer |
Auckland Development Committee 12 March 2015 |
|
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group - Auckland Council membership
File No.: CP2015/02685
Purpose
1. To seek endorsement for Auckland Council’s application for membership of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group
Executive Summary
2. Strategic international partnerships, beyond our traditional sister-cities partnerships, are an important tool for implementing the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Economic Development Strategy.
3. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) is a strategic global network of cities taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. These activities relate directly to actions in the Auckland Plan and associated Auckland Council strategies, including the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. Membership of C40 creates international profile and recognition for member cities, and promotes the role of cities as leaders in climate change action.
4. C40 have invited Auckland Council to apply to become a member of the group following a meeting with the Mayor at the World Cities Summit in Singapore in June 2014. The offer to join C40 provides an excellent opportunity for positioning and profiling Auckland globally through a strategic global network - in line with council’s global engagement strategy. C40 membership spans, for example, the cities of Bangkok, Melbourne, Singapore, Beijing, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Johannesburg, Milan, London, Sao Paulo and Barcelona.
5. Through the C40 global forum, Auckland Council can drive action on climate change alongside other leading global cities. Benefits include opportunities to collaborate and share knowledge and research, and to participate in key regional and global forums, events and workshops, and biennial summits aligned to council’s priorities. C40 membership would also provide external profile and benchmarking for successful implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan and Council’s climate change adaptation programmes.
6. Successful membership of C40 will require ongoing political and institutional support for progressing climate mitigation and adaptation programmes in Auckland. To deliver on the membership requirements, council will need to commit to leadership in climate change work and to prioritise engagement with the network and ensure we are actively participating on a regular basis. The table within this report provides a detailed outline of participation and implementation requirements for both observer city and innovator city status.
7. There is no membership fee to join C40; however to be an effective participant membership will involve resource requirements which will incur staffing and financial costs. These costs will be met within existing budgets.
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) endorse Auckland Council’s application for membership of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
|
Discussion
Strategic alignment
8. The commitment to action on climate change is now at the top of the agenda for cities around the world. In Auckland, the strategic context for action is set out clearly in the Auckland Plan, particularly in Auckland’s Development Strategy, Contribute to tackling climate change and increasing energy resilience. Strategic Direction 8 of the Auckland Plan, Auckland’s response to climate change, outlines three priorities, each with a number of more specific directives:
· Mitigate climate change (including Directives 8.1 and 8.2)
· Improve energy efficiency, security and resilience (including Directives 8.3 and 8.4)
· Adapt to a changing climate (including Directives 8.5 and 8.6)
9. The Auckland Plan also sets out reduction targets (based on 1990 levels) for greenhouse gas emissions: 10-20% by 2020, 40% by 2040 and 50% by 2050.
10. A number of Auckland Plan Transformational Shifts relate directly to climate change action along with other relevant strategies and plans like the Economic Development Strategy and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. In particular, the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan - approved by Council in June 2014 and launched on 1 July 2014 by the Mayor, Councillors, businesses and community groups - is a roadmap for achieving the targets and strategic direction set out in the Auckland Plan.
11. C40 membership would align with council’s current work programmes and support international engagement to drive the Auckland Plan and Auckland Economic Development Strategy. Strategic international partnerships, beyond our traditional sister cities partnerships, are an important tool for implementing the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Economic Development Strategy.
Benefits and opportunities of C40 membership
12. Membership of C40 offers a number of benefits:
· Position Auckland Council and profile Auckland alongside other major global cities and global senior leaders in a strategic global forum.
· Connect Auckland to international best practice and in turn, provide a unique opportunity to showcase the work Auckland is doing to an international audience.
· Access and participation in a global network of highly skilled technical advisers with expertise to design and implement climate programmes and high-impact projects, and access to a vast array of research with potential for peer-to-peer exchanges.
· Participate in key regional and global forums, events and workshops, and biennial summits.
· External profile for implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan and Council’s climate change adaptation programmes. This could be a significant driver, helpful in the establishing a future governance group, and in providing benchmarks to evaluate Auckland’s current performance and capability against global leaders.
Resourcing and costs
13. C40 membership brings a number of commitments around reporting, participation in regional networks, and attendance at biennial global meetings. Resourcing and management of the relationship with the network would be led by the Chief Sustainability Office, with input from relevant teams across Council.
14. There is no membership fee to join C40; however to be an effective participant membership will involve resource requirements which will incur staffing and financial costs. These costs will need to be met within existing budgets. In time, and as our participation in C40 and other low carbon initiatives matures, we may need to review budget allocations, particularly in regard to Year 2 project/case study requirements (which may require additional funding). Approximate costs include:
Potential costs |
Approximate budget |
· Travel costs associated with Mayoral/staff attendance and presentations at the global C40 summits, events and workshops (biennially) |
Approx. $15k (biennially) |
· Travel costs associated with C40-relevant peer-to-peer exchanges. |
$5k (biennially i.e. alternate year from C40 Summit) |
· Research and information sharing, webinars |
Staff resourcing costs |
Participation requirements for Auckland Council membership of C40 network
15. Auckland would be an Observer city for its first year of membership. Following that, Auckland would seek to become an Innovator City. To become an Innovator City, Auckland would need to be internationally recognised for barrier-breaking climate work; be a leader in the field of environmental sustainability; and be a regionally recognised “anchor city” for the relevant geographical area (South East Asia and Oceania Regional network).
16. The following table outlines the implementation requirements that council would need to commit to in the longer term as part of being an effective participant:
C40 Membership requirements |
Preliminary assessment for Auckland Council |
Year 1 – Observer city status a) Disclose available data, where possible, to C40 annually (via CDP or other identified platform) |
Achievable, staff time implication |
b) Prepare to publicly disclose, where possible, a complete greenhouse gas inventory (including develop capacity to collect data not initially available) |
Achievable, subject to funding. Corporate GHG emissions are reported annually as part of sustainability reporting and in council’s annual report. CCOs maintain their own profiles, and some alignment of reporting may be needed. A regional GHG inventory was completed for development of the LCA. Currently, there is no funding allocated to repeat the inventory. |
c) Complete City Profile via C40 website |
Achievable, staff time implication |
d) Attend C40 Mayors Summit at senior level |
Achievable, to be funded from existing budgets |
Year 2 – In addition to Year 1 requirements – Innovator city status e) Participate in all C40 data collection and disclosure efforts, where possible, in particular efforts to baseline city emissions and opportunities |
Achievable, staff time implication |
f) Participate actively in at least two C40 initiatives/networks |
Achievable, staff time implication, to be funded from existing budgets. |
g) Participate in a regional network or collaboration |
Achievable, staff time implication anticipated to be low level due to integration into existing work programme |
h) Establish short and long term climate mitigation and adaptation goals & associated action plan |
High level goals/targets already established in the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan (for mitigation). Adaptation work to be included within the natural hazards work programme. |
i) Update City profile on C40 website and post at least two case studies/implementation examples to the website. |
Achievable, staff time implication. |
Year 3 – In addition to Year 1 and Year 2 requirements: j) Make measurable progress towards meeting goals, and report progress on an annual basis, where possible |
Achievable, subject to ongoing commitment to and successful implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. |
In addition to the above, Innovator Cities must commit to the following: · Participate as co-lead or mentor city in at least one C40 Initiative or Network |
Achievable, staff time implication |
· Post at least five case studies/ implementation examples to C40 website. |
Achievable, staff time implication. |
Risks of membership
17. The status of Innovator City demands a high performance threshold. It involves undertaking actions that are globally innovative and deriving transferable learning from our activities. By way of example, other Innovator Cities have posted case studies on District Energy Schemes (Vancouver), Sustainable Buildings (Melbourne), and the Electric Vehicle Capital of the World (Oslo). With one year’s Observer membership however, there would be time to consider the status of Innovator City and set relevant actions in train to meet the requirement.
18. There is a reputational risk should Auckland’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change waiver. Therefore, to deliver on the membership requirements, council will need to prioritise engagement with the network and ensure we are actively participating – including attending key global forums and summits - on a regular basis.
Consideration
Local Board Views and Implications
19. Local Boards have not been specifically consulted on the potential application for C40 membership, but it should be noted that some local boards are already taking action on climate change and membership of C40 may provide additional momentum for, and visibility of, their efforts. For instance, as a response to the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan (LCAAP), the Waitemata Local Board is preparing a Localised Carbon Reduction Plan.
Maori Impact Statement
20. Many of the issues and opportunities raised in this report are of interest to and may impact on Mana Whenua, who will be consulted as this information is considered and any subsequent work programmes developed.
21. A Māori Working Group was established to advise and work alongside Council to ensure the issues, actions and opportunities of importance to Māori were woven into Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. The Māori Working Group developed a stand-alone Māori Action Plan in response to these objectives. The standalone document will form the basis for on-going recommendations into Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan.
22. Some Māori organisations have already indicated a strong interest in being involved in the implementation of Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. Auckland Council staff (including Te Waka Angamua) are working with a Mana Whenua working group on the Environment Strategic Action Plan, which will provide a basis for delivering on Auckland’s environmental vision including measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. This engagement will provide an opportunity for broader active Māori involvement and leadership to improve environmental outcomes that are of particular interest and importance to Māori.
General
23. This report has been prepared collaboratively by the Chief Sustainability Office and the Global Partnerships and Strategy team.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Additional Background Information on C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, February 2015 |
59 |
Signatories
Authors |
John Mauro - Chief Sustainability Officer Claire Richardson - Senior Policy Advisor, Global Partnerships & Strategy |
Authorisers |
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer |
Auckland Development Committee 12 March 2015 |
|
Exchange of reserve land proposal - Three Kings Quarry and PA372
File No.: CP2015/03205
Purpose
1. To recommend a process to reach agreement on the basis of a proposed land exchange with Fletcher Residential Ltd in respect of Crown and Council land adjacent to the Three Kings Quarry.
Executive Summary
2. On 13 November 2014 the Auckland Development Committee confirmed the steps to develop the land exchange proposal from Fletcher Residential Ltd (FRL). A copy of the resolutions from that meeting is set out in this report.
3. Following that meeting, consultation has proceeded with a number of parties and negotiations have continued with FRL on the details of the basis on which a land exchange could be recommended by officers.
4. At its meeting on 26 February 2015 the Puketapapa Local Board received further delegations from local resident groups and individuals concerned with the land exchange proposal. It also had an update from officers as to how the various statutory and consultative processes can be best structured to provide a transparent process to enable sound decision making. A copy of the Board’s resolution (PKTPP/2015/22) is included in this report as Attachment C.
5. The proposed process that this report is seeking to ratify will involve continuing negotiations with FRL and the various other groups and bodies set out in the resolution of the ADC in November 2014. This process will enable a report to the Puketapapa Local Board in late March setting out officer recommendations for the basis on which a land exchange could proceed.
6. The report to the Local Board in March will specifically address open space and reserve assessments, and the Board’s desire to have the land exchange evaluated against the Three Kings Plan. The proposed basis for a land exchange will then be open for iwi, adjoining owner and public consultation and comment.
7. Following the public consultation, a comprehensive report will be presented to this committee in May so that a land exchange recommendation can be made that has been subject to local board input, as well as public and stakeholder comment.
8. Subject to ADC approval of the land exchange report, the Committee can then resolve to issue a notice of intention to request an exchange under s.15 (2) of the Reserves Act. This report recommends that any objections received to the land exchange agreement as part of this notification process under the Reserves Act will be summarised and passed to the Hearing Commissioners appointed to consider PA372. This would then allow the Plan Change and the Reserves Act submissions to be heard by the same hearings panel.
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) agree the following process to approve a land exchange proposal: i) that council officers report to the Puketapapa Local Board on 26 March 2015 to outline the land exchange proposal that will form the basis of the public consultation and how this proposed exchange aligns with the Three Kings Plan and is suitable for an exchange for the purposes of the Reserves Act. ii) that council officers undertake a one month public consultation in April 2015 to obtain comment on the proposed exchange. iii) that council officers complete engagement with adjoining owners and iwi interests. iv) that council officers report to the Auckland Development Committee in May 2015 to recommend the basis of a land exchange and to seek approval to issue a notice of intention under s.15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977. v) that objections under the Reserves Act notice of intention be considered by the Hearing Commissioners appointed to hear PA372.
|
Discussion
Background
9. At its meeting of November 2014 the ADC resolved as follows:
That the Auckland Development Committee endorse that Auckland Council Property Limited and council staff:
a) engage with the Puketapapa Local Board on the Fletcher residential Ltd land exchange proposal to achieve a land exchange agreement aligned to the adopted Three Kings Plan and in accordance with any relevant statutory obligations;
b) consult with Antipodean Properties Ltd and Housing New Zealand on the Fletcher Residential Ltd regarding the land exchange proposal;
c) confirm with Department of Conservation, the Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority, the Tamaki Collective an iwi their positions on the land exchange proposal;
d) following the engagement and consultation in a, b, c above, develop a land exchange proposal with Fletcher Limited for recommendation to council;
e) report back to the Auckland Development Committee in early 2015 on the proposed land exchange agreement in resolution d) above;
f) note that any proposed exchange agreement will be subject to public consultation under the Reserves Act prior to the approval of the proposed plan change;
g) note that any final land exchange will be subject to the approval of the plan change and will not take effect until after the plan change is adopted.
10. Officers have sought to implement all the engagement requirements set out in the above resolution. These are reported on in further detail below.
Plan change process
11. FRL has submitted applications for two distinct plan changes in respect of the Three Kings Quarry. One is based on a possible land exchange (PA372) and one simply is based on the land in FRL’s current ownership (PA373). In considerations of submissions on the plan change, the hearings panel is likely to ask for council’s position on the land exchange proposal.
12. The land exchange agreement will be conditional to the outcome of the plan change process and to the approval of the Minister of Conservation if the outcome of the decision on PA372 facilitates an exchange.
Reserves Act process
13. Under the Reserves Act, the suitability of the exchange for the purposes of the reserve is assessed, and the equality of the exchange is examined.
14. Following the report to the Local Board and the public consultation, a proposed exchange agreement will be reported to this Committee on 18 May 2015, and after consideration of the report, the Committee will resolve whether to issue a notice of intention under s.15 (2) of the Reserves Act.
15. A notice of intention is a public notice seeking objections to the exchange proposal. The notification period will be for one month, and we propose that any objections received will be referred to the planning commissioners appointed to consider PA372. We are reviewing this with the Department of Conservation as an appropriate mechanism to merge the Reserves Act process with the RMA plan change process as it has the benefit of one hearings panel dealing with both processes.
Status of negotiations with FRL
16. Officers are of the view that the exchange plan is close to being suitable for public consultation. The scheme plan under discussion with FRL is included as Attachment A to this report, and the related draft exchange plans showing the draft exchange areas and proposed roading are included as Attachment B. Both scheme plan and exchange plans are currently being revised and are provided with this report for information only at this time.
17. Negotiations on the exchange agreement are continuing with FRL. Legal advice is being provided to assist in formulating the terms that will be associated with any such exchange.
18. The plan change process for PA372 requires a reasonable degree of certainty in terms of land owner approval around the land exchange for the hearings stage.
19. The assessment, analysis and negotiation of the land exchange proposal is focused on the Reserve Act assessment and how this will benefit the recreational purpose of the Three Kings Reserve, how it aligns to the Three Kings Plan, and how it measures against the council’s open space acquisition and disposal policy. ACPL is also providing commercial advice on the relative value of the exchange between the parties. All these aspects will be reported to the Puketapapa Local Board on 26 March.
Progress with other stakeholder engagement
20. Following this Committee’s resolution on 13 November 2014, ACPL and council officers have been working to develop the exchange proposal following the steps set out in that resolution.
21. ACPL arranged a method of engagement with the Puketapapa Local Board to give it the opportunity to partake fully in the development of a land exchange plan to align with the Three Kings Plan including update meetings and a Board workshop.
22. Meetings have been held with Antipodean Properties Ltd and with Housing New Zealand Ltd. Consultations with those two adjoining owners are ongoing, as is contact with the Department of Conservation on land status investigations and the exchange process.
Iwi engagement
23. An initial invitation was extended in November 2014 to each of the listed mana whenua iwi requesting feedback. This invitation remains open. A further invitation will be extended shortly to discuss the revised plan.
24. An approach has been made to discuss the proposal with the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust. We are awaiting a meeting to discuss the proposal in more detail.
25. Separate from the council’s discussions, we understand that FRL have been in discussion with six iwi groups, coordinated by the Tamaki Collective, about the transfer of ownership of the western wall of the quarry to those iwi. As part of this FRL has offered to fund part of the costs of a new cultural centre, a Whare Manaaki, and provide a site for its location on FRL land. This will be subject to further reporting.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
26. The resolution of the Local Board from their meeting on the 26 February 2015 is set out in Attachment C.
27. The recommended process in this report seeks to address the engagement concerns of the Local Board, which relate in particular to the alignment of an exchange with the key moves and outcomes identified in the Three Kings Plan, the open space report by Community Policy and Planning, and the land valuation considerations of the proposed exchange.
Māori impact statement
28. Mana Whenua who have interests in the Puketapapa area are Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Orākei, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Tamaterā.
29. Te Tātua-a-Riukiuta / Big King Reserve has transferred to Mana Whenua (the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust), and is by administered by the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014. Hapū / Iwi have a strong interest in any proposals that have an impact on Big King Reserve, Te Tātua-a-Riukiuta and Crown land and other open space in the immediate vicinity.
30. The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act provides for a mana whenua Right of First Refusal (RFR) in relation to the disposal of surplus Crown land; s135 of the Act states that Crown ‘may’ dispose of RFR land in accordance with s.15 of the Reserve Act. Council staff are continuing to engage with Department of Conservation to ensure that the requisite Crown-mana whenua discussions have occurred to reach comfort in relation to the s.135 RFR exception.
31. FRL have held a number of hui with iwi and are in discussions with representatives of the Tamaki Collective around the land exchange and the master plan for the development with a view to seeking agreement of iwi related interests and the land adjoining Te Tātua-a-Riukiuta that is in FRL ownership.
Implementation
32. ACPL and council staff will report to the Puketapapa Local Board on 26 March, with particular regard to the alignment of the exchange plan with the key outcomes identified in the Three Kings Plan, and the assessment of the open space implications of the exchange proposal.
33. A public consultation process will take place in April on the land exchange proposal and consultation will continue with iwi and adjoining owners.
34. ACPL and council officers will report to this committee on 18 May 2015 on a recommended land exchange that takes account of the feedback received from the various strands of consultation.
35. The committee will consider recommendations at that time on the suitability of the exchange for consideration under PA372 and the appropriate statutory process to endorse that decision.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Three Kings Master Plan (FRL) |
67 |
bView |
Draft Exchange Plans |
69 |
cView |
Local Board Resolution PKTPP/2015/22 |
73 |
Signatories
Authors |
Nigel Hewitson, Team Leader Disposals, ACPL Clive Fuhr, Manager Acquisitions and Disposals, ACPL |
Authorisers |
Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer |
Auckland Development Committee 12 March 2015 |
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Auckland Development Committee:
a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:
C1 Additional New Special Housing Area Request - March 2015 Recommendation
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive informaiton in regards to the development proposals. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
C2 Special Housing Areas - March 2015 Recommendations
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive informaiton in regards to the development proposals. s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information in regards to the development proposals. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
C3 Special Housing Area Programme for 2015
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information and information that could potentially give certain parties a commercial advantage if released. s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information and information that could potentially give certain parties a commercial advantage if released. |
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 Downtown Shopping Centre and Queen Elizabeth Square
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)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). In particular, the report contains information that if disclosed could prejudice ongoing commercial negotiations. |
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. |