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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 15 October 2015

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

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	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

(Quorum 11 members)

Tam White

Democracy Advisor

9 October 2015

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156

Email: Tam.white@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.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 10 September 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 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

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

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

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

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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

Auckland Development Committee

15 October 2015

Port Future Study Update

File No.: CP2015/20822

Purpose

1. This report broadly outlines progress on the Port Future Study since its establishment by the Auckland Development Committee on 14 May 2015. It also provides Dr Rick Boven, the Independent Chair of the Study, the opportunity to report on the process thus far and answer questions Committee members may have.

Executive Summary

2. On 1 April 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to commence the Port Future Study (Resolution No. AUC/2015/61). Consistent with the Committee’s subsequent resolution on 14 May (Resolution number AUC/2015/95), a collaborative Māori and stakeholder process has been established to investigate the long term future of Auckland’s port.

3. On 28 May the Governing Body appointed Dr Rick Boven as Independent Chair of the Port Future Study.

4. As directed, two groups have been established from stakeholder organisations and mana whenua; a Reference Group and a Consensus Working Group.

5. The Reference Group currently consists of around 80 members. At its May meeting, the Committee endorsed an initial list of member organisations. This list has since been expanded to accommodate further interested parties. The Reference Group has met once since its plenary meeting in July, on 30 September.

6. On 14 July mana whenua iwi chairs met to discuss a method of representation for four mana whenua seats on the Consensus Working Group (CWG). It was decided that a model of representation similar to that developed for the Tāmaki Collective could be used for this project. A member from each of Ngāti Whātua, Marutūahu, Waiohua Tāmaki and Waikato-Tainui have been selected for the CWG.

7. The 16 members of the CWG have met fortnightly during August and September. As resolved by the Auckland Development Committee, the CWG has finalised the Study Scope after making some additions to the draft scope signed-off by the Committee.

8. The CWG largely agreed with the draft scope and have made changes broadly in-keeping with it. The CWG did however make material revisions to ‘environmental’ considerations to better represent the breadth and depth of the issues covering the natural and built environment.

9. The Study Scope agreed by the CWG is included as attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive a verbal update from Dr Rick Boven, Independent Chair for the Port Future Study.

b) receive the Port Future Study Scope finalised by the Consensus Working Group.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. The views of Local Boards have not specifically been taken into account for the purposes of this update report.

11. The project team gave a briefing about the Study at the Local Board Chairs Forum on 22 June 2015. Local Board Chairs have also been provided with the finalised Scope.

Māori impact statement

12. The views of neither Māori, nor the Independent Māori Statutory Board, have been specifically elicited for the purposes of this update report.

13. As noted, there are four mana whenua members of the CWG who provide mana whenua input to the Study. The chairs and commercial arms of Auckland’s mana whenua iwi have also been invited to be members of the Reference Group, which will enable their direct participation in the Study.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Port Future Study Scope	21

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard – Strategy Advisor, Strategic Scanning Unit

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

15 October 2015

Urban Location Analysis results for Panuku Development Auckland

File No.: CP2015/20078

Purpose

1. To outline the results of the Urban Location Analysis project.

2. To seek endorsement for the results of this project to be provided to Panuku Development Auckland for their consideration.

3. To outline the next steps for future engagement and decision making on ‘Type 1’ programmes for Panuku Development Auckland to lead on.

Executive Summary

4. As part of the Development Auckland transition work stream, the Urban Location Analysis project was set up to establish recommended locations to focus Panuku Development Auckland’s (Panuku) new ‘Type 1’ urban redevelopment programme. A Type 1 programme is one that will require a high custodial, long term approach to redevelopment (i.e. such as the redevelopment activities occurring at the Auckland Waterfront).

5. This project was facilitated by council’s Growth and Infrastructure Strategy Team, in collaboration with the wider council family. Progress was reported through various groups in the transition work stream, including the Steering Group, the Board Advisory Group, a Mana Whenua hui and the Auckland Development Committee.

6. The Auckland Development Committee has had three workshops in June, August and September 2015 to steer and guide the project – this included considering assessment criteria and weighting preferences of the criteria.

7. The work to date acknowledges and builds on the significant amount of strategic, statutory and non-statutory planning work that Auckland Council and CCOs have engaged in on a region-wide and area specific level (i.e. plans, policies, strategies and initiatives). The project focused on data collection and on delivering a clear set of criteria to allow for comparative analysis of potential redevelopment locations. This helped to create a transparent decision making framework to identify Type 1 locations options.

8. The work done through this project, and the focus of Panuku especially as it relates to Type 1 locations, is integral to council priorities (such as Spatial Priorities and Special Housing Areas). The results of this project helps Panuku focus within Spatial Priority Areas for example, and also assists our infrastructure providers with some of their own investment decisions.

9. The results of the detailed assessment and final set of priority locations are:

a) Manukau	d) Newmarket	g) Mt Eden Station
b) Otahuhu	e) Northcote	h) Avondale
c) Onehunga	f) Takapuna	i) Henderson

10. The location analysis information and results can now be passed over to the Panuku to complete the process – the Board can shortlist Type 1 locations from the results of this project and develop a Type 1 programme. In addition, Panuku will also consider and prioritise the existing portfolio carried over from Auckland Council Property Limited and the treatment of these projects into other less custodial programmes. Panuku will seek to develop a view on the full range of programmes (including the next order Type 2 and 3 locations) they will take forward across the Auckland region and will engage further with Councillors, local boards and communities on this before the end of the year.

11. At this point the recommendations in this report will allow the new Panuku Board to consider the potential Type 1 locations identified, so they can establish a recommended shortlist to bring back to this Committee for endorsement. This will occur firstly by way of a workshop in November and then to the scheduled December Committee meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) recommend the results of the Urban Location Analysis to Panuku Development Auckland for their consideration in its Type 1 programme.

b) request Panuku Development Auckland to report back to the 10 December 2015 Auckland Development Committee meeting with their recommendations, for the Committee’s endorsement, of its Type 1 programme shortlist specifically, but also Type 2 and 3 programmes generally.

Comments

Background

12. As part of the Development Auckland transition work stream, the Urban Location Analysis project was set up to establish a set of recommended locations to focus any new ‘Type 1’ urban redevelopment programmes led by Panuku Development Auckland (‘Panuku’).

13. A Type 1 location is one that will require a high custodial, long term approach to redevelopment, where a significant amount of housing and/or commercial redevelopment will take place (i.e. such as the activities occurring at the Auckland Waterfront). A Type 2 programme is about unlocking the redevelopment potential of specific large sites where there is market interest (i.e. through development partnerships), and a Type 3 programme is about enabling an active market (i.e. disposal of surplus land).

14. The project was facilitated by the council’s Growth and Infrastructure Strategy Team, in collaboration with representatives from Waterfront Auckland, Auckland Council Property Limited and across the council family. The project has also had specialist input from the Housing Project Office, Auckland Transport and Watercare.

15. The project has been reported through political workshops (one with the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee in May 2015 and three with the Auckland Development Committee in June 2015, August 2015 and September 2015), as well as the transition work stream Steering Group, the Development Auckland Board Advisory Group and the Project Integration Team on a regular basis. A Mana Whenua hui was held on this process and subsequent iwi engagement was undertaken on an individual basis.

16. It should be noted that the work done through this project is integral to council priorities, such as Spatial Priorities and Special Housing Areas, rather than additional to those. The focus for council, and Panuku, is on priorities already identified – both location and investment wise. Many of the priority locational identified through this project therefore fall within Spatial Priority Areas. However, due to aspects such as capital complexity, market potential and appeal, and scale, some development opportunities, and therefore locations, fall outside of Spatial Priority Areas. This was given due consideration during the assessment. The development potential of some locations outside of Spatial Priority Areas however warrant their consideration and inclusion.

17. The Implementation section below provides more detail around the proposed consultation and engagement prior to Panuku outlining its proposals for a shortlist of Type 1 locations, due to be reported to the Auckland Development Committee in December 2015.

Method

18. The Urban Location Analysis project was completed in four broad stages, as shown by Figure 1, and described below.

Figure 1: Location Analysis Method

method

19. Stage A of this project included an initial shortlisting of locations, and sought to establish where brownfield redevelopment opportunities exist in Auckland. This included various town centres, Spatial Priority Areas, Special Housing Areas, and areas of infrastructure investment across urban Auckland. An initial shortlist of around 70 locations was established, and these are outlined in Attachment A.

20. Stage B involved narrowing this shortlist down further to establish a set of ‘potential development locations’ for a more detailed assessment in Stage C. This was achieved through a high level criteria assessment that included five criteria and three key questions. The criteria included:

- land holdings (i.e. the number of sites and total hectares of Council family holdings)

- land fragmentation (i.e. the degree to which the locations had been subdivided)

- scale (i.e. redevelopment potential for new dwellings and business floorspace)

- proximity to the Rapid Transit Network (i.e. walking distance to mass transit options)

- infrastructure readiness (i.e. water, waste water and transport)

21. Three key questions where then considered in order to remove shortlisted locations that were already underway or where considered to be a more ‘longer term’ proposition. These questions included:

- what is the current state of play (i.e. planning/implementation work)?

- what is the proposed spend (i.e. projects/investments)?

- what are the opportunities (i.e. known sites/schemes)?

22. The current status of the locations, in terms of whether redevelopment was already underway or not, was an overriding consideration. If the redevelopment of a location was well underway (i.e. Hobsonville) it was downgraded in the analysis as the rationale for Panuku intervention would be limited.

23. Other considerations included the amount of planning already undertaken for the location and the level of investment (either proposed or committed). These factors will have significant influence on the redevelopment potential of a location in the short term. The existence of any significant new infrastructure projects affecting the locations were also considered given the growth enabling impacts and the potential to capture value from these.

24. Following a series of workshops the assessment resulted in a set of 17 potential development locations, which are outlined in Attachment B.

25. Stage C involved the development of a detailed assessment framework in order to determine a set of ‘high priority locations’. These locations would then form the basis of the Type 1 project recommendations to Panuku. The assessment framework was developed as a multi criteria analysis (MCA) and comprised thirty separate criteria grouped by six different objectives (see Attachment C for a summary outline).

26. The detailed assessment was a mix of both qualitative and quantitative information which was scored using single utility values for each criterion to provide an overall result for each location. In order to score the different criteria, a number of specific pieces of analysis were undertaken to input into the detailed assessment. This information provides the evidence base for this project, and informs the individual data profiles for each location assessed.

27. As part of Stage C, external consultancy advice was provided from the Strategic Intelligence Group (‘SIG’), who analysed the 17 potential development locations from a market perspective to input into the detailed assessment. Their scope included a market based assessment of the development outlook for the locations and a high level assessment of opportunities and actions for value creation potential in each location. The SIG market assessment forms part of the technical reporting of this project and is available separately.

Results

28. The detailed assessment of the potential development locations has revealed some key locations that score very strongly and others that are more sensitive to the criteria used. This has been shown through the use of different criteria weighting scenarios. There are also a set of locations that do not score as strongly relative to the others and would be less likely to be part of the final set of high priority locations.

29. Weighting preferences were expressed by the Auckland Development Committee through workshops. Whilst there were some slightly different weighting scenarios, the consensus settled around a preference for a largely equal weighting to be applied to the criteria used.

30. Based on the criteria, the analysis concluded the overall ranking of the potential development locations outlined in Figure 2 below. The size of the segments in each bar highlights the contribution to the location’s score for each of the six objective groups.

Figure 2: Location Assessment Results

31. When considering these results, the transition work stream Steering Group provided a direction that the locations within the Tamaki Redevelopment Company boundary and the City Centre should not be taken forward as options. This is because there are already delivery agents in these areas and it is implicit that Panuku will continue to work in these areas as part their Type 1 programme. Therefore Glen Innes, Panmure and the Aotea/Karangahape Road Precincts were excluded from the final set of high priority locations. All three of these locations score very well relative to the others, which underlines their importance as locations for Panuku involvement.

32. The ranking outlined in the location assessment also helped determine which locations would be prioritised and which will drop out given they failed to score well. A subset of locations consistently scored in the bottom third of the rankings using different weighting scenarios as a test of robustness. As a result, a cut off score of ‘40’ was used and the following locations were removed for further consideration at this stage: Royal Oak, Westgate, Albany, Point Chevalier and Morningside Station.

33. Therefore, the final set of high priority locations to be provided to Panuku are:

a) Manukau (within Spatial Priority Area)

b) Otahuhu (within Spatial Priority Area)

c) Onehunga

d) Newmarket

e) Northcote

f) Takapuna (within Spatial Priority Area)

g) Mt Eden Station

h) Avondale (within Spatial Priority Area)

i) Henderson

34. These results serve as an indicator of which locations score best against the multiple criteria used, and the data assessed will assist Panuku to understand the value and opportunities in each of these locations. Profiles of each location using key data and information that was considered in the location assessment will be outlined for Panuku to consider.

35. Stage D, the final stage of the project, will now move forward under the leadership of Panuku. Further analysis of these locations will be undertaken in order to arrive at a final shortlist of 2 to 3 locations that Panuku will recommend to the Auckland Development Committee through its Board, and which will constitute the ‘Type 1’ programme.

36. Panuku will also seek to develop a view on the full range of programmes (including Type 2 and 3 locations) they will take forward across the Auckland region and will engage further with Councillors, local boards and communities on this before the end of the year.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

37. Local Board chairs were invited to the July 2015 workshop on this project. During this workshop they were introduced to the project and were given the opportunity to provide feedback on criteria weighting. Points of clarification were raised by the chairs present and the workshop highlighted that Panuku will need to explain the implications of any redevelopment programme in their areas.

38. The Panuku Statement of Intent requires the development of a framework for working with individual local boards in redevelopment locations (Type 1 and 2) to determine respective roles and responsibilities. Staff from Local Board Services and Panuku are currently working towards this goal and to identify the implications of any shortlisted redevelopment programmes in their areas.

Māori impact statement

39. This project was reported to the steering group that oversaw the establishment of Panuku. The steering group included the CEOs of Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) and direction was sough on the proposed method and criteria used.

40. Specific iwi engagement was initiated with a Mana Whenua hui held by Panuku on 18 August 2015. This included representation from the Mana Whenua of Tamaki Manakau and was an opportunity to introduce the project and the development intentions of Panuku. Iwi were subsequently invited to further individual hui to allow for more specific discussions concerning their rohi and rangatiratanga. These are currently ongoing and have set a good platform for Panuku to continue to work with iwi and to include them in the decision making on future development activity.

41. This project seeks to contribute to Māori wellbeing by including high level considerations within the criteria used. In particular, the analysis undertaken has sought to identify where there are potential opportunities to partner with iwi in the locations identified and to rank which locations have the greatest opportunity to impact on Māori communities (i.e. the areas considered have a range of demographic characteristics, of which the percentage of Māori in each location ranged from 3% to 20% - Māori is currently 11% of Auckland’s ethnic diversity based on the 2013 Census).

42. As Panuku takes this project forward further engagement with iwi are being scheduled from October 2015. It is expected iwi will be key partners in all work going forward and as projects become identified have opportunities to shape project outcomes and advise on matters (i.e. the application of Te Aranga Design principles to concept plans). Iwi feedback has also highlighted that Cultural Values Assessment would be appropriate to undertake once a final shortlist of locations is established.

Implementation

43. The location analysis data and analysis will now be provided to Panuku. This includes a robust set of information to consider the options for future Type 1 locations. Panuku will also consider and prioritise what this means for the existing portfolio carried over from ACPL and the treatment of potential Type 2 and 3 locations. This will form the basis for future reporting to the Auckland Development Committee before the end of the year.

44. Panuku staff will engage widely over October and November 2015 to ensure that key stakeholders are involved in the process and have an opportunity to add further information to assist decision making.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Initial Shortlist of Development Locations	33
b View	Potential Development Locations	35
c View	Detailed Assessment Criteria	37

Signatories

Author

David Taylor - Principal Business Growth & Infrastructure Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

15 October 2015

Housing Supply, Choice and Affordability: Trends, Economic Drivers and Possible Policy Interventions

File No.: CP2015/21135

Purpose

1. To present the Chief Economist’s report “Housing supply, choice and affordability; Trends, economic drivers, and possible policy interventions”, which was publicly released on Wednesday 30 September 2015.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland's house prices have risen to very high levels relative to incomes and relative to rents. The median house price ($765,000 in metro Auckland in August 2015) is currently nearly ten times Auckland’s median household income (of about $80,000). That is — it would take nearly ten years of a representative household’s gross annual earnings to buy a representative house in Auckland.

3. High prices have raised the prosperity of many Auckland households. However, it raises major barriers to home ownership and worsens inequality that will provide long-term challenges to our social fabric. Such high prices also provide risks to the wider economy from a major price downturn.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) note the Chief Economist’s report “Housing supply, choice and affordability; Trends, economic drivers, and possible policy interventions”

b) thank the Chief Economist’s Unit for its work.

Comments

Background

What is the report and why it was commissioned

4. Auckland Council (in collaboration with government agencies as applicable) has been at the forefront of ways to address housing issues with our work on the Housing Strategic Action Plan, future urban land supply strategy, Special Housing Areas, the Unitary Plan, the Auckland Plan, and promoting quality urban design.

5. However, the context for housing policy is continually changing. Auckland house prices have continued to increase. The expiry date for the 3-year HAASHA Act 2013 is approaching, and the policy debate had been steering towards the impacts on national economic stability and demand-side measures.

6. In response to this evolving context and to queries from councillors, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor requested that a report be produced to identify the full spectrum of levers for the council, the government, and the industry to address the housing affordability problem. The scope of the report was to:

· analyse prices and affordability over time, and understand the problems;

· identify possible root causes of the problems, and;

· assess the tools and options available to both the council and the government.

7. Given time and resource constraints, the report was focused on ‘housing affordability’ generally (the overall price level), rather than ‘affordable housing’ in particular (i.e. low priced homes). The latter is being picked up in the “Fast Ideas for Affordable Homes Forum” work stream that was presented at the ADC workshop on 6 October.

8. The council’s various work areas on housing contribute to the ‘Affordable Housing Review’ that is on the Auckland Development Committee forward work programme adopted in July 2015.

9. The council’s Chief Economist Unit was asked to undertake this work and provided an independent economic think piece and advice. The report is not council policy, but the report will help inform the council's ongoing strategy for action and advocacy.

Drivers of demand

10. The report argues that it is high demand that has driven Auckland’s house prices to decouple from the rest of New Zealand since 2012, as follows:

a. this is a consequence of Auckland's growth outlook, and the employment opportunities, lifestyle and amenity that attracts people to Auckland;

b. current growth projections indicate that Auckland needs to accommodate up to nearly one million more people in the next 30 years;

c. the market is signalling the need for a large amount of new housing and redevelopment, and for land (particularly in the isthmus) to be used more economically. It is doing this by setting very high prices, for land in particular.

Supply issues

11. The other fundamental issue is supply. A number of factors make the creation of new homes relatively slow and expensive. These factors include:

a. planning rules and notification requirements

b. design requirements

c. the provision of infrastructure to support land supply; and

d. issues for the building sector relating to productivity, quality and capacity.

12. The role of urban planning policy is to ensure that people have choices about where they live and work, without compromising other urban priorities. These other factors include public space, amenities, heritage, infrastructure capacity (like stormwater systems and road space), and the environment. The challenge is to balance all of these factors whilst not worsening housing affordability.

Strategic target

13. The report found that there is a host of measures that the government and the council can do that combined have the potential to reduce the median house price to only five multiples of household income by 2030. These relate to opportunities to reduce cost, to reduce risk to developers, to improve building productivity, to use land more efficiently, to improve infrastructure to support more land for effective housing supply, and to increase the supply of cheaper attached dwellings.

14. The report proposed that the council and the government to work together to achieve a home buyer's price-to-household income ratio of five to one by 2030. The purpose of such a strategic housing affordability target is to motivate and to contextualise the package of measures needed. Some of the measures in isolation would be challenging to socialise and implement. It will also be critical to work closely with the wider construction and development sector.

15. The target is significant enough to challenge all parties to take meaningful steps. Such a target would help guide both the council and the government in the development of any policies, plans, regulations, legislation etc that may relate to housing supply, either directly or indirectly. This includes the council’s primary instrument on the matter of housing supply: the Unitary Plan, which is currently being considered by the Independent Hearings Panel.

16. A broader range of measures relating to housing affordability and other housing policy issues could complement such a target. For instance, measures that took account of interest rates (such as the Massey University housing affordability index), and measures relating to household crowding.

17. Why five multiples of household income, and why by 2030?

a) Fifteen years was chosen rather than ten, because it may take some two to five years for some policy changes to be made, especially relating to construction regulation and infrastructure provision. This would leave ten years subsequently to fully compound the gains required year on year, rather than only five.

b) Five multiples of household income was established by a combination of bottom-up analysis from the literature review (refer to conclusion of Chapter 3), and an overall intuitive judgement. The judgement was that Auckland could, over the space of 15 years, potentially close in on other world cities (in the USA in particular) that have kept house prices close to three multiples of household income. Indeed, New Zealand sustained a price to income ratio of 3:1 for many decades before 1990.

The levers assessed

18. The report reviewed a long-list of 34 tools and options (or levers) on how to address or mitigate Auckland's housing problem. These were both demand and supply, and both the government and the council.

19. Supply side measures included:

a. increasing land for development

b. improving the funding, financing, and planning of infrastructure and services

c. making design and construction easier

d. improving residential construction productivity and supply, and

e. supporting foreign investors that wish to build.

20. Overall most tools relate to supply, rather than to demand. The report found that the council can do a great deal to support supply. But there is also a significant scope for the government to assist with supply-side measures. Indeed only when working together could the 5.0 by 2030 target come close to being reached.

21. There are no silver bullets, and a host of measures would be required to achieve the 5.0 by 2030 target. Some levers are already a part of the land scape, whereas others are relatively novel.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

22. The report found that housing affordability issues were an Auckland-wide phenomena: the issues affect the economic and social well-being of people across the region. However, some of the social issues that arise from unaffordable housing may impact more heavily on outer suburbs and those areas that are less accessible to the labour market. Local board areas that have lower median income would be at greater risk of social problems arising from inequality if housing affordability cannot be addressed in the long-run.

Māori impact statement

23. The report focused on social and economic issues generally. However, the social inequality risks will likely be relatively greater for Maori (and Pacific Islanders too) given their lower median household incomes. The median house price is some 12 multiples of median income for Auckland Maori households. This report is an input to policy work being undertaken by the Community Social Policy department on Maori housing.

Implementation

24. Further work is required by staff (including in CCOs) to broadly identify and analyse the areas of the council’s activities that need to be maintained, improved, or commenced in order to achieve the proposed 5.0 by 2030 target. Given the reliance on the government contributing to achieving this target, council staff should consult with government agencies as appropriate.

25. Council staff will report back to the Auckland Development Committee on the results of the analysis, the implications, risks, and the outline of a high level implementation strategy as soon as practicable. This work can continue under the “Affordable Housing Review” item in the Committee’s forward work programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Housing supply, choice and affordability; Trends, economic drivers, and possible policy interventions report (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author	Chris Parker - Chief Economist
Authoriser	Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

15 October 2015

C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group - Auckland Council Membership

File No.: CP2015/20947

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for Auckland Council’s membership application to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.

Executive Summary

2. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) invited an application from Auckland Council at the World Cities Summit in Singapore in June 2014. C40 is a strategic global network of over 75 leading cities working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. Members share knowledge, best practice and research and commit to leading globally on climate change.

3. A report on this subject was originally submitted to this committee on 12 March 2015. Resolution number AUC/2015/41 stated:

4. “That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) agree that Item 11 – C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group – Auckland Council membership, be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Auckland Development Committee, until such time when further financial information can be provided.”

5. This report provides that financial information, along with the wider business case for membership of C40.

6. There is no membership fee to join C40 and membership obligations are outlined in a table within this report. Limited staff time will need to be dedicated to meeting member obligations, much of which is already part of existing work programmes. Limited expenditure from/with existing budgets will cover participation and meeting our obligations and no additional funding is sought or required.

7. Strategic international partnerships, beyond our traditional sister-cities partnerships, are an important tool for implementing the Auckland Plan and associated strategies like the Auckland Economic Development Strategy. C40 membership creates international profile and recognition for member cities, promotes the role of cities as leaders in climate change innovation and will provide benchmarking for Auckland among global peers for successful implementation of Low Carbon Auckland and council’s climate adaptation work. It should be noted that both of Auckland’s Tripartite partners, Guangzhou and Los Angeles, are C40 members. Engaging with them in this context would add value to those existing relationships and further enable delivery of the Tripartite work programme.

8. Given strong alignment with the relevant strategic direction and targets in the Auckland Plan, membership of C40 is expected to accelerate implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. A recent survey of C40 cities indicates that membership had been a positive factor in accelerating strategy and programme implementation.

9. In the context of Auckland Council, this is likely to mean easier identification of future emissions reductions and associated cost savings. For instance, over the past 4 years, Auckland Council has saved or avoided at least $1.5-$2M annually from reduced energy, waste and water use (Attachment A). While council will be continuously seeking savings and emissions reductions, they will become more challenging to identify and implement in the future. Sharing best practice and innovation ideas with C40 cities will assist in identifying and achieving such savings which, consequently, have corresponding emissions reductions benefits.

10. Auckland is currently a member of ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). ICLEI and C40 have similar aims and are well-coordinated; in fact, they combined resources to deliver the Compact of Mayors, of which Auckland is a recent signatory. ICLEI and C40, however, serve different purposes and different audiences and Auckland is well-positioned to attain value from membership of both networks. Most C40 cities are also ICLEI members.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse Auckland Council’s application for membership to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.

Comments

Strategic alignment

11. 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)

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Strategically aligned international partnerships like C40 can be useful tools to drive implementation of the Auckland Plan and Low Carbon Auckland.

Benefits of C40 membership and relationship to ICLEI and Compact of Mayors

15. Membership of C40 offers a number of benefits:

a. Accelerate implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan, helping to identify carbon and cost savings which will deliver on the targets and commitments in the Auckland Plan.

b. Access and collaborate with a global network of technical advisers with expertise to design and implement climate programmes and high-impact projects.

c. Access a vast array of research with potential for peer-to-peer exchanges.

d. Position and benchmark Auckland and Auckland Council alongside other leading global cities.

e. Connect Auckland to international best practice and in turn, provide a unique opportunity to profile the work Auckland is doing to an international audience.

16. C40 has an established set of seven “networks” that focus on particular challenges related to climate change. They include transportation, energy, sustainable communities (including urban development), solid waste management, finance and economic development, measurement and planning, and adaptation and water.

17. These networks mirror the five transformation areas in Low Carbon Auckland, albeit with a few additions (e.g., finance, adaptation). Thus, accessing these networks would have direct relevance and utility to implementing Low Carbon Auckland.

18. Auckland is currently a member of ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). ICLEI is an association of over 1,200 local governments that represents the interests of local authorities within the United Nations and at international policy forums. ICLEI and C40 have similar aims; in fact, they combined resources to deliver the Compact of Mayors, of which Auckland is a recent signatory. Most C40 cities are also ICLEI members.

19. ICLEI and C40, however, serve different purposes and different audiences. ICLEI is comprised primarily of numerous smaller towns and cities focused on wider environmental initiatives including climate change, whereas C40 is mainly composed of a select few leading mega-cities and innovator cities focused solely on climate change. ICLEI does not impose any climate-specific target, whereas C40 requires council to set a target and monitor progress.

20. Auckland, due to its size, unique position as an internationally-facing city and emergence as a leader in climate issues, is in a position to attain value from membership of both networks. Since council has already made commitments to a target and to monitoring, joining C40 would be an opportunity to demonstrate leadership to those existing commitments.

Resourcing and costs

21. C40 membership requirements include emissions reporting, participation in regional networks, attendance at biennial meetings and completion of case studies and a city profile for the C40 website. Work is already programmed and will meet membership requirements. Reporting requirements for the Compact of Mayors are similar for C40 and are already underway to be completed by December 2015. Resourcing and management of the relationship with the network and creation of case studies and the city profile would be led by the Chief Sustainability Office, with input from relevant teams across council.

22. There is no membership fee to join C40. Limited expenditure from existing budgets will cover participation and meeting our obligations and no additional funding is required. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true: membership is meant to unlock ideas, innovation and best practice that lead to emissions reductions and cost savings to council. A recent survey of C40 cities suggests that membership accelerates strategy and programme implementation.

23. This is likely to mean easier identification of future emissions reductions and associated cost savings. For instance, over the past 4 years, Auckland Council has saved or avoided at least $1.5-$2M annually from reduced energy, waste and water use (Attachment A). While council will be continuously seeking savings and emissions reductions, they will become more challenging to identify and implement in the future.

24. Gaining access to C40 cities would help us implement Low Carbon Auckland and identify such savings and emissions reductions. Council would be able to use the expertise, ideas and research of C40 member cities without having to duplicate work and findings ourselves.

Participation requirements for Auckland Council membership of C40 network

25. 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).

26. 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
Year 1 – Observer city status a) Disclose available data, where possible, to C40 annually via Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) or other identified platform	Already in progress for other obligations, to be completed by December 2015. No additional resource or budget requirements.
b) Prepare to publicly disclose, where possible, a complete greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory (including develop capacity to collect data not initially available)	Already in progress. Corporate GHG emissions are reported annually as part of sustainability reporting and in council’s annual report. A regional GHG inventory was completed for development of Low Carbon Auckland and is currently being updated as part of an annual inventory programme led by RIMU. No additional resource or budget requirements.
c) Complete City Profile via C40 website	Minor staff time implication. No additional budget requirements.
d) Attend biennial C40 Mayors Summit at senior level	To be funded from existing budgets if aligned with other business.
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	Already in progress. No additional resource or budget requirements.
f) Participate actively in at least two C40 initiatives/networks	Minor staff time implication, networks chosen based on alignment with and utility to existing work programme.
g) Participate in a regional network or collaboration	Staff time implication anticipated to be low level due to integration into existing work programme. No additional budget requirements.
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 Risk Management Action Plan (in draft). No additional budget requirements.
i) Update City profile on C40 website and post at least two case studies/ implementation examples to the website.	Minor staff time implication. No additional budget requirements.
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, already in progress and coordinated by Chief Sustainability Office through Low Carbon Auckland and through Natural Hazard Risk Management Action Plan as appropriate.
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	Staff time implication, co-lead or mentor city chosen based on alignment with and utility to existing work programme.
· Post at least five case studies/ implementation examples to C40 website.	Minor staff time implication, integrated into current work programme.

Risks of membership

27. The status of Innovator City demands a high performance threshold. It involves undertaking actions that are globally innovative and derive transferable learning from council’s 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). Work is underway to implement Low Carbon Auckland and a number of actions may rise to such an innovative level. One year of Observer membership status also allows time to consider the status of Innovator City and set any additional actions in train to meet the requirement. Additional background information on C40 Cities is provided in Attachment B.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

28. 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, the Waitematā Local Board is preparing a Localised Carbon Reduction Plan.

Māori impact statement

29. 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.

30. 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 the 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 the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan.

31. Some Māori organisations have already indicated a strong interest in being involved in the implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. Auckland Council staff (including Te Waka Angamua) are working with a Mana Whenua working group on Auckland Growing Greener, which will provide a basis for delivering on Auckland’s environmental sustainability 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 sustainability outcomes that are of particular interest and importance to Māori.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Further Financial Information	49
b View	Additional Background Information on C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group	51

Signatories

Authors

John Mauro - Chief Sustainability Officer

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

15 October 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 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.

C2 Special Housing Areas Tranche 8 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.

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.

No.	Title	Page
a	Spatial Priority Areas (SPA) presentation (Extra Attachments)
b	City Centre Integration update (Extra Attachments)
c	Downtown Carpark presentation (Extra Attachments)
d	Tamaki Regeneration Project presentation (Extra Attachments)

Author	Tam White - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy