Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

Auckland Development Committee

14 May 2015

Private Plan Change 315 (1370-1378 Dominion Road) to be made Operative

File No.: CP2015/06055

Purpose

1. To make Private Plan Change 315 (PC315) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 (the District Plan) operative.

Executive Summary

2. PC315 is a privately initiated plan change by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) that seeks to rezone the land at 1370-1378 Dominion Road, Mt Roskill from a mix of Special Purpose 3 (transport corridor) and Residential 6b (medium intensity) zones, to Residential 6b in its entirety. PC315 was publicly notified on 26 June 2013 with two submissions received.

3. On 17 February 2015, a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners appointed to determine the plan change released its decision to approve the plan change. A copy of the approved plan change is provided in Attachment A. No appeals were received on that decision.

4. The Council is now required to amend the District Plan to give effect to the Hearing Panel’s decision and make PC315 operative.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve Private Plan Change 315 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b) authorise the Manager, Planning – Central and Islands to complete the necessary statutory processes required to make Plan Change 315 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 operative in accordance with Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Comments

5. PC315 relates to a request by NZTA for a private plan change to the District Plan. The purpose of the plan change is to change the zoning of an area of surplus motorway land fronting 1370-1378 Dominion Road, Mt Roskill which is no longer required for transport purposes. The land is to be rezoned from a mix of Special Purpose 3 and Residential 6b zones, to Residential 6b in its entirety (Refer Attachment A).

6. The plan change requires a change to Sheet 1 of Planning Map G06 of the District Plan. No other amendments or additions to the District Plan are required.

7. The plan change was publicly notified on 26 June 2013 with two submissions received raising matters on water infrastructure and cultural values. Council’s noise expert also identified a potential concern regarding noise and reverse sensitivity for future residential uses adjacent to State Highway 20. In response, NZTA undertook to place an encumbrance on the affected properties at 1370-1376 Dominion Road at the time of disposal requiring the construction of an acoustic fence and the use of appropriate construction techniques and mechanical ventilation.

8. A Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners was appointed to determine the plan change. At the request of NZTA, the panel agreed a hearing was not required as neither of the submitters had requested to be heard and all outstanding issues had been resolved. On 17 February 2015, the panel released its decision to approve the plan change. No appeals were received on that decision.

9. The Council is now required to amend the District Plan giving effect to the Hearing Panel’s decision and make PC315 operative.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC315 operative. This stage does not require input from the Puketapapa Local Board. Notwithstanding, the Puketapapa Local Board will be notified once the plan change becomes operative.

Māori impact statement

11. All relevant iwi were notified of the Plan Change including:

· Huakina Development Trust

· Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust

· Nga Puhi

· Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)

· Ngati Maru Runanga

· Nagti Paoa Trust

· Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board

· Ngati Wai Trust

· Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board

· Te Kawerau A Maki Trust

· Te Uri o Hau

· Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board

· Te Kawerau A Maki Trust

12. Ngati Whatua o Orakei was a submitter to PC315 and noted the proximity of the sites to Puketapapa/ Mt Roskill, a significant maunga for mana whenua and which has a history of Maori use and occupation. In response to the submission, NZTA engaged Rod Clough to prepare an archaeological assessment which indicated little likelihood of archaeological evidence being present. NZTA also engaged Ngati Whatua o Orakei to provide a cultural values assessment which recommended consideration of reduced height controls to maintain views to the maunga. The Hearing Panel determined the matters raised in the submission had been satisfactorily addressed and noted the existing District Plan volcanic viewshaft provisions, which seek to protect views to the volcanic cone, would apply to the subject sites. No appeal was received from Ngati Whatua o Orakei and they will be advised when PC315 is made operative. No other iwi group has expressed an interest in PC315.

Implementation

13. Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, the Auckland Development Committee can now approve PC315 and once approved, notify the plan change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

14. As this is a private plan change, any administrative costs associated in making PC315 operative and consequential updating of the District Plan will be met by the plan change requester, NZTA.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Decision on Private Plan Change 315	17

Signatories

Authors

Kate McKessar - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

14 May 2015

Private Plan Change 209 (178 Balmoral Road and 16 Rocklands Avenue, Balmoral) to be made operative

File No.: CP2015/07407

Purpose

1. To make Private Plan Change 209 (PC209) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section 1999) (The District Plan) operative.

Executive Summary

2. PC209 is a privately initiated plan change by Eldamos Investments Limited and The Warehouse Limited that seeks to rezone land at 16 Rocklands Avenue and part of 178 Balmoral Road, Balmoral from Residential 6a and Residential 6b to Business 2 under the District Plan.

3. On 24 February 2015, a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioner appointed to determine the plan change released their decision to approve the plan change, with amendments. A copy of PC 209 as amended by the Independent Commissioners is included as Attachment A.

4. No appeals were received on this decision.

5. The Council is now required to amend the District Plan and make the plan change operative.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve Private Plan Change 209 in the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section 1999), in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b) authorise the Manager, Planning – Central and Islands to complete the necessary statutory processes required to make Private Plan Change 209 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section 1999) operative in accordance with Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Comments

6. PC209 is a private plan change requested by Eldamos Investments Limited and The Warehouse Limited. The purpose of the plan change is to rezone 16 Rocklands Avenue and part of 178 Balmoral Road, Balmoral from Residential 6a and Residential 6b to Business 2 zone.

7. Council’s consultant planner recommended that the plan change be approved in part (as it relates to 178 Balmoral Road) and declined in part (as it relates to 16 Rocklands Avenue).

8. During the hearing, the independent commissioners requested the Council’s consultant planner and the applicant’s consultant planner to draft additional controls on 16 Rocklands Avenue. The purpose of these controls is to restrict uses and future developments that can occur on the site, should the commissioners decide to approve the plan change in its entirety. While the planners from both sides agreed on the wording of the additional controls in their joint statement, Council’s consultant planner retained her opposition to the rezoning of 16 Rocklands Avenue.

9. On 24 February 2015, the Hearing Panel released their decision to approve PC209, subject to the imposition of additional controls that restrict the activities and future developments that can occur on 16 Rocklands Avenue.

10. This decision requires amendment to: Sheet 1 and 2 of Planning Map E07; Appendix A to the Planning Maps, and Appendix B – Additional Limitations controls and diagrams (Planning Maps) of the District Plan.

11. No appeals were received on the decision.

12. The Council is now required to amend the District Plan, giving effect to the Hearing Panel’s decision and make PC209 operative.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

13. This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC209 operative. This stage does not require input from the Albert-Eden Local Board. Notwithstanding, the Local Board will be notified once the plan change becomes operative.

Māori impact statement

14. All relevant iwi were notified of the Plan Change including:

· Huakina Development Trust

· Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust

· Nga Puhi

· Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)

· Ngati Maru Runanga

· Nagti Paoa Trust

· Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board

· Ngati Wai Trust

· Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board

· Te Kawerau A Maki Trust

· Te Uri o Hau

· Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board

· Te Kawerau A Maki Trust

15. No submissions were received from any iwi groups.

Implementation

16. Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Auckland Development Committee can now approve PC209 and once approved, notify the plan change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

17. As this is a private plan change, any administrative costs associated in making PC209 operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 will be met by the plan change requester, The Warehouse Limited.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Decision on Private Plan Change 209	23

Signatories

Authors

Mel Chow - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

14 May 2015

Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan

File No.: CP2015/05883

Purpose

1. To receive an update on the Puhinui structure plan.

2. To note the need to urgently address planning for major capital investments to upgrade State Highway 20 (Puhinui Road), which is a key part of the strategic roading network in the Puhinui area and a strategic route to Auckland International Airport.

3. To confirm that the council will present an integrated response to address matters raised in submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan regarding the Rural Urban Boundary and land use provisions in the Puhinui area to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

Executive Summary

4. The Puhinui structure plan area comprises approximately 1100 hectares of land located in close proximity to the Auckland International Airport to the north-west, between the Manukau Harbour in the west and the South Western Motorway in the east (refer Attachment A).

5. The area currently lies outside the Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) identified in the operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS), and the proposed Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) identified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). There are submissions to the PAUP seeking an extension of the RUB to include some or all of the Puhinui structure plan area. Submissions also seek a Future Urban Zone (FUZ) or “live” urban zones to parts of the Puhinui structure plan area.

6. Part of the area is also subject to a notified private plan change request to the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) from the Southern Gateway Consortium (SGC) to rezone 150 hectares of land from rural zoning to business zoning. Council staff have requested further information from SGC on cultural, ecology and stormwater matters arising from the plan change. A hearing date for the plan change has not yet been set down.

7. Since reporting to this Committee in October 2014 (refer to Attachment B for resolutions from this meeting), Council staff have been working closely with Auckland Transport (AT) to progress transport modelling to inform the planning for the strategic and local roading network, in order to support staged future development in the Puhinui area.

8. Auckland International Airport Ltd (AIAL) and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) have participated in discussions to advance this work. The existing limitations of the strategic roading capacity, challenges to provide additional connections to the South Western Motorway system, and the timing of NZTA’s business case investigation for capital works improvements to Puhinui Road remain a concern.

9. The Puhinui structure plan area has significant cultural, historic heritage and landscape values. One of the core components of the Puhinui structure plan work is the interpretation and integration of these values into plan provisions to manage future development. Council staff have worked in partnership with Te Atikai Waiohua to progress this work stream.

10. Further consultation with Mana Whenua and stakeholders is planned for June 2015 to begin initial discussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisions on a without prejudice, and without commitment basis prior to completing the work for the PAUP hearing process.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse the following principles and approach to advance planning for future development in the Puhinui structure plan area:

i) work with New Zealand Transport Agency to urgently address planning for major capital investments to upgrade State Highway 20 (Puhinui Road) which is a key part of the strategic roading network in the Puhinui area and a strategic route to Auckland International Airport.

ii) continue to work in partnership with Te Akitai Waihoua to complete the Puhinui Structure Plan provisions.

iii) undertake further consultation with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June 2015 to commence discussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisions on a without prejudice and without commitment basis prior to completing the work for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearing process.

iv) present an integrated response to address matters raised in submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan regarding the Rural Urban Boundary and land use provisions in the Puhinui area to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

Comments

Background

11. The committee resolved in February 2014 to approve the development of the Puhinui structure plan to guide the council’s position on the future land use and development of the wider Puhinui area in response to a private plan change initiated by the Southern Gateway Consortium. This change proposes rezoning approximately 150 hectares of land from rural to business within the structure plan area.

12. The committee also directed that any decision to initiate a change to the MUL in response to the private plan change request should not occur until the Puhinui structure plan was completed.

13. Progress on the Puhinui structure plan was reported back to the committee on 16 October 2014, where a number of resolutions were adopted, including the resolution that any proposal to shift the RUB boundary to include parts of the Puhinui structure plan area be considered through the PAUP hearings process.

14. This approach will enable the planning provisions for the Puhinui structure plan, and the submissions to the PAUP on Puhinui to be considered and heard together by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

Transport modelling

15. In partnership with Auckland Transport, transport modelling is underway to determine which sections of the State Highways and regional road networks will need to be improved to cater for the future development of the Puhinui structure plan area. AIAL, NZTA and the Southern Gateway Consortium have been involved in discussions to advance the modelling work.

16. Initial modelling work focussed on agreeing modelling parameters, including the refinement of the extent of the possible development area (i.e. development area net of constraints, local roads, esplanade reserves and with application of airport height restrictions) to arrive at a more robust and feasible trip generation to test the network capacity.

17. Possible transport links to be investigated as part of the modelling include:

· a new road link connecting McLaughlins Road with Kiwi Tamaki Road

· a new road bridge over State Highway 20, connecting to Noel Burnside Road.

18. There are physical constraints to the feasibility of these new links which will require further investigation, and has reinforced the need to model staged development of the Puhinui structure plan area.

19. Auckland Transport has advised that NZTA will need to complete a strategic case identifying options to improve Puhinui Road, in order for the modelling to be completed. However, work to investigate the strategic long term future of State Highway 20 (Puhinui Road) is currently not in NZTA’s work programme or a funding priority.

20. In the interim, Auckland Transport are modelling roading solutions to support the first stage of development of the Puhinui structure plan area.

21. The results from the modelling will inform the development of triggers for the implementation of improvements and/or upgrades to the roading network needed to support the staging of the future development within the structure plan area. An example of this approach is the servicing and development sequencing provisions of the operative Drury South Plan Change to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura and Franklin sections).

Consultation

22. Council staff intend to meet with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June 2015 to begin discussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisions on a without prejudice and without commitment basis prior to completing the work for the PAUP hearing process. This process provides opportunity for these parties to provide feedback on council’s initial response to matters raised in submissions to the PAUP.

23. It is envisaged, that the planning provisions will show new urban zones from the PAUP for those parts of the structure plan area that may be urbanised, and include special provisions to recognise, maintain and where possible, enhance cultural and natural landscape values, and controls around servicing and sequencing of development.

24. Council staff have sent a letter to the submitters to the private plan change by the SGC and the key stakeholders within the Puhinui structure plan area, updating them on the plan change and structure plan process.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

25. The Puhinui structure plan area is within the boundaries of the Otara-Papatoetoe and the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Boards. To date, council staff have informed both local boards on progress on the structure plan work, and intend meeting with the Chairs of both these two local boards to provide them an update on the matters outlined in this report. The Local Boards will be invited to provide feedback on the draft structure plan provisions after the meeting with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June 2015.

Māori impact statement

26. The rohe of Puhinui is a place of deep cultural and spiritual significance to Mana Whenua and in particular to Te Akitai Waiohua. The policy framework of the PAUP seeks to enable Mana Whenua to identify, articulate and integrate their values in the resource management processes affecting ancestral lands.

27. A cultural heritage assessment for the Puhinui peninsula has been prepared by Te Akitai Waiohua, which identifies a series of key sites of significance that connect the people of Te Akitai Waiohua to the Puhinui peninsula.

28. Council staff have worked with Te Akitai Waiohua to better recognise and provide for Puhinui’s unique identity and cultural landscape values within the draft structure plan provisions for the PAUP. Council staff will continue to work with Te Akitai Waiohua to achieve the best outcomes.

Implementation

29. Adopting the planning provisions for the Puhinui structure plan will be by way of the PAUP hearings process. Significant investment in new and upgrades to existing infrastructure, especially the transport network will be required for future development of the structure plan area to occur.

30. An infrastructure funding agreement will be required to ensure that development is co-ordinated with the provision of infrastructure in progressive stages. The agreement will need to be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders and land owners to determine a fair and equitable contribution for the upgrading of infrastructure, and investment in new infrastructure.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Map of Puhinui Structure Plan Area	33
b View	Minutes from the Auckland Development Committee 16 October 2014	35

Signatories

Authors

David Wong - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

14 May 2015

Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy

File No.: CP2015/08056

Purpose

1. To receive an outline of the feedback on the Draft Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy (the ‘strategy’) as part of consultation on the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-25, including the subsequent changes that are recommended to the strategy.

2. To recommend the strategy to the Governing Body for approval as part of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Executive Summary

3. The strategy forms part of the LTP, setting out how the council intends to manage its infrastructure assets, what significant decisions it expects to make about infrastructure, and outlines a 30 year summary of infrastructure investment.

4. Councils are required to address water supply, wastewater, stormwater drainage, flood protection and control works, and road and footpath infrastructure assets in their strategies. Auckland Council has also included open space and community facilities to recognise their important roles. While privately owned infrastructure is not covered in the strategy, the signalling of council’s long-term intentions does provide direction for other infrastructure providers and the wider community.

5. The strategy illustrates the importance of infrastructure as a foundation of society and its potential role in transforming Auckland as it grows, to help reach the Auckland Plan vision of being the world’s most liveable city. The strategy highlights the significant pressures on infrastructure demand in Auckland over the next three decades, council’s funding constraints and a package of coordinated mechanisms that the council will deploy in response.

6. Proposed changes to the strategy as a result of feedback from the LTP 2015-25 consultation introduce an additional mechanism to recognise the application of sustainability and resilience principles to infrastructure planning, delivery and operations, and strengthening the framework around future infrastructure needs in greenfield areas.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) recommend the Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy, with changes incorporated as proposed in this report, to the Governing Body for approval as part of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Comments

7. The completion of an infrastructure strategy as part of the LTP is a new requirement introduced by the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014. Councils are required to identify the significant infrastructure issues over the next 30 years, the significant decisions it expects to make to respond to those issues, and the principal options for the decisions.

8. Water supply, wastewater, stormwater drainage, flood protection and control works, and road and footpath infrastructure assets are required to be included in the strategy. Councils have the discretion to include other infrastructure groups and Auckland Council has also incorporated public transport, community facilities and public open space assets within its strategy.

9. In developing the strategy council took into account the matters outlined in section 101B(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. These are the need to:

i) renew or replace existing assets

ii) respond to growth or decline in the demand for services reliant on those assets

iii) allow for planned increases or decreases in levels of service provided through those assets

iv) maintain or improve public health and environmental outcomes or mitigate adverse effects on them

v) provide for the resilience of infrastructure assets by identifying and managing risks relating to natural hazards and by making appropriate financial provision for those risks.

10. The draft strategy identified the significant pressures on infrastructure led by the demand from Auckland’s future growth, demographic change, service level expectations, sustainability, resilience and the condition of existing assets.

11. There is a gap between the demand for infrastructure and the funding sources currently available to the council. The draft strategy set out council’s approach to planning, delivering and managing infrastructure, ensuring investment in projects that have the potential to be transformative and which allow for the significant trade-offs between costs, risk and service levels to be considered and safely managed.

12. In response to the infrastructure demands and funding constraints that Auckland faces the draft strategy provided a package of seven mechanisms which comprised:

i) The Auckland Plan Development Strategy Implementation and Spatial Prioritisation

ii) Management of the demand for infrastructure

iii) Smart investment / transformative infrastructure investment

iv) Strategic long-term network and systems planning

v) Efficient and innovative asset management

vi) New funding and delivery mechanisms

vii) Monitoring programme for growth.

13. The strategy also lists the significant decisions council expects to make in the next 30 years.

Feedback on Draft Infrastructure Strategy

14. Material to be incorporated into the council’s draft strategy was presented to the Auckland Development Committee at its December 2014 meeting.

15. The strategy was included as section 1.2 within the Draft LTP 2015-2025 and elements of the strategy were also incorporated in the LTP consultation document.

16. There were relatively few submission points directly on the draft strategy received as part of the consultation on the Draft LTP 2015-25. However, there was a high level of feedback on infrastructure generally - in total, over 939 feedback points were received in relation to council’s proposed infrastructure investments. This included feedback on the lack of infrastructure in areas of growth and the issue of timing between new development being built and infrastructure being completed. Lack of transport infrastructure (both public transport and roading) across Auckland was a key matter raised in submissions.

17. Investment in infrastructure was supported with feedback that investment is required to renew ageing infrastructure, improve services and provide for growth. The role of infrastructure in achieving improved environmental outcomes was also recognised, with support by mana whenua and other submitters for increased investment in stormwater assets. Submissions highlighted the inherent tensions between the investment levels in different types of infrastructure over the same timeframe, with investment in transport, stormwater, water and wastewater most strongly supported.

18. Feedback on the strategy itself endorsed the proposed approach as a suitable foundation for driving infrastructure investment in Auckland. The issues identified in the strategy were noted as also relevant for services delivered by other organisations, including in the telecommunications and health sectors. This is in line with the intention to use the strategy in council’s engagement with other infrastructure providers about Auckland’s future infrastructure needs.

19. The New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development called for clearer pathways within the strategy that demonstrate how Auckland Council is responding to issues, the inclusion of an infrastructure gap analysis targeted by investment, and objective monitoring that holds the council accountable for delivering on the strategy.

20. Respondents generally supported increased funding contribution by government for core infrastructure in Auckland, disposal of non-strategic surplus assets and pursuit of alternative funding sources, including private sector capital. Ngati Paoa proposed that specific infrastructure investment be allocated toward sites owned by mana whenua.

21. Submissions from individuals and partner agencies, such as the New Zealand Transport Agency and Waikato Regional Council, supported the need to align planning for growth and the need to target investment. There was clear support to focus resources in areas prioritised for development and sequence delivery of infrastructure with staged release of greenfield land. Where an area is zoned for development it was considered important that infrastructure providers lead and meet the demands of growth.

22. Feedback highlighted the need for investment in renewals and to address gaps in provision, particularly within the existing open space and community facilities networks. The strategy to maximise the ensuing benefits and utilisation of existing assets was endorsed. There was also consistent support for the demand management measures within the strategy that have the potential to defer investment in new infrastructure, such as harvesting, storing and use of rainwater to reduce demand for water.

Changes to the final version of the Infrastructure Strategy

23. The following key changes to the strategy are proposed arising from the feedback.

Smart /transformative infrastructure investment (section 5.3)

24. This section has been broadened to include reference to using robust methodologies for better decision making and to guide planning, investment and project development. This aligns with a collaborative, cross-agency approach to decision making.

Monitoring and review programme (section 5.7)

25. The draft strategy focused on monitoring growth. The updated strategy recognises that there is a need to have wider monitoring of the strategy, of which growth will be an important component, and for the results of monitoring to inform future strategy review processes.

Application of sustainability and resilience principles (section 5.8)

26. An eighth mechanism to respond to infrastructure demand and funding constraints has been added, recognising that sustainability and resilience principles are woven throughout the strategy, these include consideration of water sensitive design and achieving resilience by managing risks and building adaptive capacity within communities, businesses and infrastructure.

Future infrastructure needs in greenfield areas (section 6.8)

27. Providing infrastructure for greenfield areas will be a major challenge in Auckland over the next 30 years. As part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development, a number of greenfield areas have been identified in the south, north-west and north of Auckland. This land, within the Rural Urban Boundary, is currently in rural use and lacks infrastructure to enable an urban scale of development. Tables have been added to the strategy that provide a snapshot of the possible future infrastructure needs in these greenfield areas, principal options for managing the issues and the associated collaborative processes and decision making requirements around what infrastructure the council will need to deliver, where and when.

Assumptions (Appendix 1)

28. Appendix 1 of the strategy document will contain additional information about the levels of service, demand and asset lifecycle assumptions which underpin the strategy.

Capital works programmes (Sections 6.2 – 6.7)

29. These sections are now being amended by separating out projects that are at the planning stage from those being implemented for each infrastructure type in the most likely scenario of infrastructure investment. More information has also been provided about the options and associated implications for stopping, delaying or scaling back projects in the most likely scenario of infrastructure investment.

Alignment with the financial strategy

30. The strategy is being aligned to the financial strategy in the LTP. Transport infrastructure investment in the draft strategy was based on the Basic Transport Network included in the Draft LTP 2015-2025. The final strategy will be updated to reflect the council’s decisions though the LTP regarding transport and other investment over the next 10 years.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

31. Presentations on the strategy were made to the local board cluster meetings during September and October 2014. The comments received at these meetings were used to inform the development of the draft strategy.

Māori impact statement

32. The Auckland Plan outcome, a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world, and the Māori responsiveness framework provide the lenses through which to recognise and understand the importance of infrastructure management and investment for Māori. Infrastructure planning, investment, delivery and maintenance impacts can enable Māori outcomes. Preservation of the mauri or life essence of the flora and fauna, land, water and waterways is a matter of great importance to Māori and is an issue that is central to many infrastructure projects.

33. In developing the strategy mana whenua submissions to the Unitary Plan were analysed to understand mana whenua interests, needs and aspirations. The Independent Māori Statutory Board secretariat also provided comment. Their views were taken into account in the development of the strategy.

34. There was no specific feedback on the strategy from Māori through the LTP consultation process. However, the council did receive strong feedback on marae and papakāinga development and the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki in partnering with and influencing council processes. Both of these are acknowledged and can be enabled through the infrastructure strategy. Further, the strategy acknowledges Māori rights and interests, needs and aspirations and the council’s role in leading and influencing better outcomes with Māori. Further work is required through implementation to ensure that these are woven through planning and management.

Implementation

35. The strategy is part of the LTP 2015-25 and will be reported to the Governing Body on 25 June 2015 for approval.

36. This is the first time Auckland Council will have a 30-year infrastructure strategy. It provides a basis for infrastructure providers across the council group to coordinate future planning, including their response to the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, currently under development, that will set out the sequencing and timing of future urban areas.

37. The strategy will also provide an opportunity to signal council’s longer-term view and direction to the wider community, including other infrastructure providers, which will inform and support their long-term planning. It is anticipated that this will enable dialogue with others involved in infrastructure provision and skills and labour market development on an ongoing basis.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Dawne Mackay – Team leader Growth and Infrastructure Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

14 May 2015

Review of the Resource Consent Processes for development of sites at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi

File No.: CP2015/08220

Purpose

1. To report back to the Auckland Development Committee on the review led by the Chief Planning Officer on the process by which resource consents were granted for the development of residential sites at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi.

Executive Summary

2. A review has been completed of the processes followed to grant resource consents at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road on a non-notified basis for land use for residential dwellings, garaging and vegetation clearance including the removal of a 22 metre Kauri tree. A copy of the review’s Terms of Reference is included as Schedule 1 in the attached report. The focus of the report has been on reviewing the process followed rather than commenting on the decision itself.

3. The review sets out the Resource Management Act decision making context which takes into account the Operative District Plan and the relevant provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. It also includes consideration of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, biosecurity matters raised by the presence of Kauri dieback, and Council resource consent procedures. Engagement with the Waitakere Ranges Local Board and with relevant iwi groups together with their responses are also assessed.

4. The report finds that the procedures followed by resource consent staff to process and, Independent Commissioners to grant, the resource consents on a non-notified basis was in line with the provisions of relevant Council plans and procedures. It concludes with a number of recommendations for improving resource consent processing practice.

5. The review has not raised any specific recommendations for submissions to central government on its current review of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) agree to the implementation the following recommendations of the report:

Resource Consents Team

i) review how resource consent applications are summarised and provided to Local Boards and iwi – clearer language that better describes the nature of the proposal, include activity status, aerial photograph of site, ensure that all relevant information (such as ecologist and arborist reports) are provided, and establish a process to provide feedback to Local Boards and iwi on applications that they have made comment on.

ii) for the West Resource Consents team, provide regular training and refreshers on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA), its Act, and how activities in the WRHA are managed, and the iwi statements within the operative District Plan.

iii) the relevant conditions to Auckland Council Resource Consent Conditions Manual which will apply standard controls on developments relating to PTA (Kauri dieback disease) e.g. involving earthworks or vegetation / tree clearance.

iv) continue relationship building and develop a service level agreement with Biodiversity Operations and Biosecurity Teams in relation to the management of PTA, including consideration of whether testing for PTA as part of resource consent applications is appropriate.

Local Board Services

v) offer training to Local Board members about the resource consents process, legal issues associated with resource consent applications and the Local Boards’ role and how the delegations to commissioners from the Hearings Committee operates (possibly at the time of their induction).

vi) work with Local Boards, after each election, to review the triggers that each Local Board has established to confirm that those triggers identify the matters the Local Board has an interest in.

Cultural Impact Assessment Project Working Group

vii) refer this report on the process of these resource consents to the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) project working group for their information.

Comments

6. At its meeting of 12 March 2015, the Auckland Development Committee resolved as follows (Resolution no. AUC/2015/34):

a) request that officers undertake a review of the process involved in assessing and granting the consent applications to undertake development on sites at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, with the specific and sole purpose of identifying matters that could be improved in future council processes and to be included in Auckland Council’s submissions to central government on its current review of the Resource Management Act 1991, and report back to the Auckland Development Committee on Thursday 16 April 2015.

b) direct the Chief Planning Officer of Auckland Council, being independent of the operational part of Council, to lead the review to be undertaken of the process.

c) edorse Council to continue to work with the landowners of 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, and the community, to seek a resolution to current concerns.

7. An additional month giving time to complete the review and engage with iwi and local board was agreed with the Deputy Mayor.

8. The resource consent applications for each site requested approval for a residential dwelling, associated garaging, vegetation clearance, work within the drip-line of trees, installation of services and stormwater management. A particular issue of concern was the proposal to remove a 22 metre Kauri tree at 40 Paturoa Road. The area is within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and has specific district planning provisions as set out in the attached report to manage both residential living and ecological considerations. None of these provisions preclude the granting of a resource consent to remove a Kauri tree.

9. These applications have highlighted the inherent conflict between a landowner’s reasonable right to construct a home on a vacant lot in a Bush Living zone and the protection of significant indigenous vegetation. It is clear that such a right is provided for in the operative District Plan, provided that the selected location of the house site has the least adverse effects.

10. The review outlines the process taken to decide whether or not to publicly notify the applications and the use of independent Planning Commissioners to make the decisions. For both applications, ecological reports were prepared to assess alternative locations for the houses within the sites. It was concluded that the house sites proposed by the landowner, reasonably close to the road would cause less damage than a site at other locations, for example at the rear of the properties. The applications were therefore approved with conditions; (refer to attachment).

11. Issues were also raised through the process in regard to the presence of Kauri dieback which is widely prevalent through the Waitakere Ranges. Hundreds of trees in the Titirangi area have been lost to Kauri dieback in the last five years. Appropriate conditions were therefore included in the consents to avoid the spread of the disease.

12. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has suggested that within this area where Kauri dieback is prevalent, non-infected trees are more important, and the absence of the disease would be a relevant consideration in protecting the tree. It is known that tests are available to assess whether a specific tree is infected with Kauri dieback. However there is no test to confirm that a living tree is resistant to Kauri dieback and the fact that a tree does not show external signs of Kauri dieback does not mean that it is resistant or uninfected. In addition, a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) is not defined simply by the presence of Kauri, rather relating to the high ecological quality of the bush as a whole which includes a range of species and habitats.

13. Further work will therefore need to be carried out on the value of requiring such a test as part of the resource consent process.

14. The role of the Local Board in the resource consent processes was also considered as part of the review. The Council’s Governing Body has not delegated any of its decision-making powers under the RMA to local boards. However the Council has developed a process by which local boards can provide comments on individual applications and these comments will be included in the planner’s report. The decision-maker will then consider these comments when making the decision. In both cases, summaries of the applications were provided to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board. However the descriptions did not clearly identify the effects of the proposals (for example, the removal of a Kauri tree) and the time for raising queries and providing responses is short in order to comply with legislative time frames.

15. Similar concerns about the lack of detail and clarity of the resource consent summaries sent to iwi groups were also raised. While letters were sent by the applicant to seven iwi groups (in relation to the proposal which included the removal of a 22 metre Kauri tree), of which five responses were received, the description of the development work proposed and its effects was too vague to raise concerns.

16. The report recommends that clearer and more meaningful summaries be sent to both local boards and iwi.

17. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has further requested an additional planner resource to review the resource consent applications received. Instead it is considered that the provision of clearer summaries from the Resource Consents Department and a regular review of the types of consent applications sent to each local board should reduce the amount of time that local boards need to spend on reviewing applications.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

18. During the course of this review, local boards have had several opportunities to provide their views.

19. A meeting was held with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board at the beginning of the review process to ascertain their views on the scope of the review; and a further meeting later in the process to discuss the interim conclusions reached. Both meetings were valuable in understanding concerns and receiving comments to improve the report.

20. In addition a workshop was held to which all Local Board chairs were invited, specifically to discuss the role of local boards in the resource consent process and to suggest possible improvements.

Māori impact statement

21. The matter of iwi involvement in these resource consent applications has been outlined in the attached review report, together with recommendations for improving the process of providing resource consent summaries to iwi so they can more easily respond in a timely way.

22. During the course of this review, a meeting was held with a representative of Te Kawerau a Maki. The results of the review will be shared with Te Kawerau a Maki and the report will also be referred to the CIA project working group.

Implementation

23. In large part, the recommendations of this review will be implemented by staff of the Resource Consents Department who have reviewed the report and concur with the recommendations. It will also be important to work with local boards and iwi to ensure that their ability to respond to the steady flow of resource consent applications is improved.

Attachments

No.	Title
a	Review of the Process for Resource Consents for 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi (Under Separate Cover)
b	Schedule 8 - Ecologist Reports (1) (Under Separate Cover)
c	Schedule 8 - Ecologist Reports (2) (Under Separate Cover)
d	Schedule 9 - Resource Consent Conditions (1) (Under Separate Cover)
e	Schedule 9 - Resource Consent Conditions (2) (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Katherine Anderson - General Counsel

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Katherine Anderson - General Counsel

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

14 May 2015

Port Future Study: Design Proposals

File No.: CP2015/07793

Purpose

1. This report outlines the proposed stakeholder engagement process and draft scope of the Port Future Study as directed by the Auckland Development Committee on 3 April 2015.

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse the collaborative Māori and stakeholder process, the establishment of the Stakeholder Reference Group and Consensus Working group, the role and tasks allocated to these groups, and the resources required to support them, as set out in the agenda report.

b) endorse the list (Attachment A of the agenda report) of identified stakeholders to be invited to participate in the collaborative process, and delegate to the Chief Executive of Auckland Council the authority to extend this list as additional stakeholders are identified.

c) endorse the draft study scope as set out in the agenda report, for referral to the Consensus Working Group.

d) note that the project will be funded from the Mayoral Office budget, over the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years.

Comments

2. On 1 April 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to commence the Port Future Study (Resolution No. AUC/2015/61), and directed the Chief Executive to report back on the study design as soon as possible. The committee noted that the study should include collaborative stakeholder input at each critical stage, including the study’s scope.

3. This report gives effect to the committee’s resolutions by proposing the following:

i) a collaborative stakeholder process and groups to be established as part of this process;

ii) a draft study scope and process by which it is finalised and procured. Note that, once finalised, the study scope will be formatted into an appropriate Request for Proposal (RFP) for procurement purposes;

iii) the resources required to support the project and its processes;

iv) a broad expected timeline for the project.

Collaborative Stakeholder Process

4. The 1 April 2015 Auckland Development Committee resolution states that the project must be based on collaborative stakeholder input. It is helpful to reflect on the following principles of collaboration when considering collaborative processes for this project.

· Participation – participation of stakeholders from all perspectives need to be included. This will require developing strategies to work with individuals who don’t act collaboratively.

· Collective – collaboration may require broadening participant’s perspectives so that they are able to understand and respect the range of views within the group. The group needs to reach a consensus and then take action collectively on the decisions they make.

· Transparency – feedback and trust are essential elements of collaboration. Being transparent with information is crucial if that is to be achieved.

· Independence – collaboration requires independent thought, not group-thinking. An environment where people can think for themselves needs to be maintained.

· Emergence – the point of collaboration is to achieve great results. Focus must be on the end goal rather than worrying about how that is achieved. The collaborative group needs to set their own goals and objectives.

· Persistence – these principles need to be applied persistently throughout the process.

5. Given these principles, the proposal is that the project essentially be ‘handed-over’ to stakeholders; that they work through and understand the study findings; and that they make recommendations to the council on the best way forward from their consensus viewpoint. Council will then make decisions on matters arising from the Port Future Study with these recommendations in mind.

6. It is proposed that two groups be established – a larger Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) and a smaller Consensus Working Group (CWG). There are essentially two drivers for this:

i) there is wide interest in the study and many stakeholders that need to be accommodated – hence the larger SRG,

ii) it is generally accepted that a collaborative group, or any working group for that matter, becomes dysfunctional once it is larger than around 12 to 15 people – hence the smaller CWG. The CWG is to be self-selected from the SRG.

Stakeholder Reference Group

7. The SRG is made up of a number of ‘sectors’ under which stakeholders are grouped. The proposed sectors are:

i) Māori

ii) Business associated with the port – both direct and indirect

iii) community groups e.g. residents, heritage

iv) environmental groups

v) recreational marine users

vi) specialist interest groups

vii) specialist professional groups

viii) specialist commercial groups.

8. Attachment A contains a list of organisations under each sector that will be invited to participate. It is noted that many of the specialist groups also represent general community views. This list needs to be as inclusive as possible and is not exhaustive at this stage. Delegation is sought for the Chief Executive to expand this list over the next two weeks.

9. Each sector would have a number of representatives, who together constitute the SRG. The representatives are identified through a facilitated self-selection process. The SRG would ideally have between around 40 to 50 representatives (feasibly around 5 per sector). POAL would be represented on the SRG, though with fewer representatives than the various sectors.

10. The role of the SRG is to:

i) represent stakeholders and communicate back to organisations within the sector

ii) engage with and provide feedback / input to the CWG as needed

iii) undertake work requested by CWG as needed

iv) receive updates and report-backs from the CWG.

Consensus Working Group

11. The CWG will be a smaller group of around 15 people. This group will not be sector based, but selected through a facilitated self-selection process from within the SRG. The two exceptions are Maori and POAL (one representative) who have automatic representation on the group. The CWG will be chaired by an Independent Chair.

12. The role of the CWG is to:

i) finalise and agree the study scope

ii) receive progress updates during the study

iii) provide direction / decisions as required

iv) identify and request additional critical information / work to be undertaken

v) receive the final study report

vi) make recommendations to the Auckland Council on the way forward

vii) engage with the SRG during the process.

13. The CWG is where the bulk of the work will be done. It is considered appropriate that members be remunerated.

Independent Chair

14. The CWG needs to be expertly chaired to ensure the principles of collaboration are applied and the group works towards consensus building and recommendations to the council. The role of the Independent Chair is to:

i) chair the CWG

ii) engage with the SRG

iii) engage with consultants and technical experts\

iv) liaise with the project manager

v) stakeholder management and communication

vi) be a spokesperson for the project.

15. There are three feasible options by which the Independent Chair can be selected:

i) selected and appointed by the council

ii) selected by the SRG

iii) selected by the CWG – either from within or outside the CWG.

16. It is recommended that the council selects and appoints an appropriate chair. Proposals in this regard are captured in a report, titled “Port Future Study: Appointment of Independent Chair”, under separate cover.

17. Chairing the CWG would be time demanding. It is therefore appropriate that the chair be remunerated.

18. Figure 1 illustrates the broad proposed process for establishing the SRG and CWG.

19. The proposal does not include any general community consultation during the study. This is because:

i) it would be unreasonable to expect the community to keep up to date and informed on what is likely to be a highly technical study

ii) it would be more reasonable to engage the community on specific proposals that the council may wish to put forward once the study is completed.

20. Based on this, there is no immediate need for a decision on general community consultation. This is something the council can consider once it has a better understanding of potential proposals itself.

21. The SRG does not include a central government sector, and there is thus no central government representation on the CWG either. It is considered more appropriate that central government be involved at an officer level. This will include agencies such as the MoT, NZTA, MBIE, Treasury, NZ Navy and Kiwirail.

22. The same approach applies to council CCOs. Involvement of Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Ltd (or Development Auckland should it be established) and Auckland Transport will be at an officer level. This also applies to other relevant council groups, such as CCI, and affected partners, such as UNISA partners.

23. Lastly, neither group includes political representation. This governance function will be expressed through decisions made by the council at the conclusion of the study.

Study Scope

24. The objective of the Port Future Study is to provide Auckland Council, as the port company’s owner, with recommendations about a long-term strategy for the provision of facilities to accommodate sea-based imports and exports (and the cruise industry) flowing to and from Auckland. In doing this, the study will consider the economic, social, environmental and cultural costs and benefits, and the feasibility, of a range of options that will include:

i) relocating part or all of the port, or the port’s functions, within the Auckland region

ii) closing Auckland’s ports, thus requiring imports and exports to and from Auckland to arrive by sea at other ports and be freighted to Auckland by land

iii) constraining the port to its current footprint, while planning for future development of additional facilities at another location(s)

iv) enabling limited growth within the existing port precinct, while planning for future development of additional facilities at another location(s).

25. For clarity purposes, all options need to consider how port activities could be reconfigured (both current and future), and therefore also consider the wider impacts on and requirements of the waterfront and its surrounds, for example the central wharfs and cruise ship requirements. The study is therefore not restricted to the current ‘port precinct’.

26. In considering the costs and benefits of the various options, consideration will be given to the full spectrum of costs and benefits, such as:

Economic	· Investment needed for option:	§ for POAL § for others e.g. government, other local authorities, other port companies § cost of supporting infrastructure § cost of reconfiguration options
	· Opportunity costs:	§ of land with the port in its current location § of rail-line utilisation § of other transport infrastructure
	· Market impacts on road / rail / motorways / waterways	§ investment choices § value of travel time
	· Cost impacts:	§ to supply chain § to customers
	· Economic benefits & impacts for Auckland:	§ GDP § import / export sector § cruise industry § tourism industry
	· Economic benefits & impacts for NZ:	§ GDP § import / export sector § capacity of other Upper North Island ports § freight distribution and movements
	· POAL	§ business profitability § size of dividend § POAL ownership (in context of North Island port operations and freight distribution)
	· Maori:	§ impact of Te Ao Maori
Environmental	· Marine ecology:	§ marine mammals § fish and benthic organisms
	· Hydrodynamic:	§ tidal flows § channel depths / dredging § sediment loads § sea level rise § harbour capacity
	· Natural values:	§ water § coastal access
	· Carbon footprint:	§ land based § sea based
	· Pollution:	§ air quality § land based § sea based
	· Impacts other:	§ visual § noise § light
Social	· Employment:	§ port core - job gains, losses and relocation § wider e.g. supply chain - job gains, losses and relocation § access to employment (equity) § employment opportunities for future generations § including employment opportunities for Maori
	· Public access:	§ to and from the harbour and the gulf
	· Recreational use:	§ of the harbour and gulf § of the waterfront
Cultural	· Maori:	§ historical grievances § cultural values
	· Heritage:	§ port or maritime history related § city related
	· Urban form & amenity:	§ waterfront as gateway to the city § how the port and city integrates § how a growing & denser city and port relate / exist side-by-side § transport impacts

27. In addition, the study will also assess the opportunities that the range of options affords Māori.

28. As the study looks at both current and future freight projections and requirements, the term ‘future’ is defined as follows:

i) for the purposes of future locational options, it must project forward 50 years or more

ii) for the purposes of freight estimations, it must project forward no less than 30 years .

29. It is proposed that, once options are developed, a high-level assessment of all options is undertaken. Viable options then proceed to a more detailed analysis. This is to maintain momentum and ensure resources are not spent on non-viable options or scenarios.

30. It should be noted that the study, and recommendations made by the CWG are likely to result in direction on the future footprint of the port (if it finds that the some, or all, of the port should remain in its current location). It is, however, unlikely to provide absolute answers on detailed matters within that footprint such as the extension, or not, of a specific wharf. This would be more appropriately addressed through the resource consenting process. The findings may, however, lead to recommendations for Unitary Plan changes.

31. The draft scope endorsed by committee will be considered by the CWG and amended as necessary. The group will be made aware of funding limitations. Final approval of the scope will be the responsibility of the CWG.

32. Lastly, it is proposed that matters such as organisational arrangements and culture of POAL be excluded from the study. The council can at any time use other processes to consider such matters.

Study Procurement

33. The Committee is requested to endorse the draft study scope as set out in the previous section. This section sets out the process for finalising the scope. Once finalised, the scope will be formatted into an appropriate Request for Proposal (RFP) for formal procurement purposes.

34. Given the complexity of the study and the need for the successful tendered to engage extensively with the CWG, it is suggested that the RFP requires a detailed study methodology to be proposed, rather than prescribing it in the RFP. That is, it should be left to tender parties to develop a tailored methodology that is both cost efficient and best serves the needs of the CWG. However, all parties will be required to adhere to:

i) the framework of economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts, and opportunities for Maori,

ii) a methodology that targets viable options for further detailed analysis as soon as is feasible.

35. Various pieces of legislation are relevant to the study scope. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 is one example. All such legislation will be required to be accounted for in the study.

36. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed process for finalising and commissioning the study. It is noted that figure 2 shows a simplified process and that in reality the tendering and selection process may consist of two stages, rather than a single stage as shown.

Project Resourcing

37. This section identifies the resources required to support the project. There is currently no specific funding allocated for the Port Future Study.

38. Until the study scope is finalised, any accurate cost estimate is problematic. The draft scope is wide and far reaching and it is unlikely that the CWG would narrow it down significantly. It has not been possible to ‘test the market’ on the draft scope in the time available. However, based on past experience, this work could cost between $500,000 and $600,000.

39. The Chair, CWG and SRG will require the following supporting resources:

Project Management	· project plan development · preparation of reports and information · consultant management and support · budget, timeline and deliverables management · stakeholder relationships · general support to Chair and CWG as needed · general SRG support as needed
Administrative Support	· meetings, agendas and minutes as needed · general CWG support as needed · general SRG support as needed
Communication support	· as needed
Independent technical advice	· peer review of technical information & study findings · independent resource to CWG as may be required

40. The estimated cost of all of the above, including remuneration of the chair and CWG members, is $543,000.

41. In addition to the above there would also be other costs not directly attributed to the scope, CWG or SRG work, which can be funded internally and is not included in the project costs indicated.

42. The total cost estimate for the project is between $1,043 million and $1,143 million, which needs to be funded over two years – 2014/15 and 2015/16. The project will be funded from the Mayoral Office budget.

Project Timeline

43. It is estimated that the project will take 52 weeks to complete, as indicated in figure 3. Subject to the committee’s resolutions on the proposals in this report, the project will effectively start in early June this year, with completion at the end of June 2016.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

44. The views of Local Boards have not specifically been taken into account for the purposes of this report, other than the extent they were accounted for in previous committee resolutions.

45. The proposals in this report suggest that, given the governance role Local Boards have, they not be directly involved in the collaborative process. Rather, that Local Boards exercise their governance responsibility at the time when recommendations and/or concrete proposals are to be considered.

Māori impact statement

46. The views of neither Māori nor the Independent Māori Statutory Board have specifically been elicited for the purposes of this report, other than the extent they were accounted for in previous committee resolutions.

47. The port sits within a cultural, economic, environmental and social context for Maori, due to its relationship to the Waitemata Harbour which is a taonga and source of identity for Maori, as well as a source of economic and social well-being. The Waitemata is also seen as a key gateway into Auckland by the Ngati Whatua, Waiohua -Tamaki and Marutuahu tribes. Also, the ports have provided a source of employment for Maori over many generations.

48. Council has made key commitments to Maori through the Auckland Plan, PAUP, LTP and the Maori Responsiveness Framework. These need to be taken into account and provided for in Council's consideration of:

· how to recognise and protect Maori rights and interests and how to address and contribute to Maori needs and aspirations

· incorporating Treaty Settlements in the thinking, including the pending Waitemata Harbour Settlements.

49. The advice of the IMSB is to be taken into account, especially in the design of the project’s processes. Previous input has been taken into account in the design and further input is now sought on the proposed processes. The IMSB’s input is also sought on the appointment of the Independent Chair (through a report under separate cover), including the person’s appropriate experience and competence in understanding and working with Maori through a collaborative process.

50. With regard to mana whenua, Ngati Whatua, Waiohua-Tamaki and Marutuahu are the primary mana whenua groupings associated with the Waitemata and the ports. These groupings are made up of 13 individual mana whenua iwi. Given the strategic impact of the ports on broader economic, social, and environmental well-being, the views of mataawaka also need to be sought through this process.

51. The Transport Funding Consensus Working Group and Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari present existing models of practice for partnering with Maori in collaborative processes. These approaches centre on a collaborative partnering approach and the fundamental view that mana whenua, in particular, are not a stakeholder, but a Treaty partner. Given the broader issues at play, the opportunity exists to include mataawaka subject matter experts to be involved as well.

52. Mana whenua will be invited to appoint representatives to both the SRG and CWG. The composition and representation on these groups will be worked through with mana whenua. Work will similarly be done to identify mataawaka representation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Stakeholder Reference Group sectors and organisations	59

Signatories

Authors

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

14 May 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 Port Future Study: Appointment of Independent Chair

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)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, information will be provided on candidates for the role of Independent Chair in the Port Future Study Consensus Working Group. This information needs to be withheld to protect the privacy of those individuals.

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: Deferred Request

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 regarding 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 regarding 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 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - Zoning Principles

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. In particular, the report contains legal advice.	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 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent Hearings Panel

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. In particular, the report contains legal advice.	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.

C5 Confidential Reports Pending Status Update

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 regarding 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 regarding 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.

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	Member 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
	Member Liane Ngamane

No.	Title
a View	17 April 2015 Workshop PowerPoint presentation - Tamaki Regeneration Project (Under Separate Cover)
b View	17 April 2015 Workshop PowerPoint presentation - Housing for Older Persons (Under Separate Cover)
c View	22 April 2015 Memo: Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari (Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) - Project Outline and Update (Under Separate Cover)
d View	5 May 2015 Memo: Update on Auckland Development Committee decisions on Special Housing Areas Programme (Under Separate Cover)
e View	7 May 2015 Memo: Auckland Transport's Parking Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

Authors	Rita Bento-Allpress - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer