Agenda of Planning Committee

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

This committee guides 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:

· Relevant regional strategy and policy

· Infrastructure strategy and policy

· Unitary Plan

· Spatial plans

· Plan changes to operative plans

· Housing policy and projects

· Special Housing Areas

· City centre development

· Tamaki regeneration

· Built heritage

· Urban design

· Environmental matters relating to the committee’s responsibilities

· Acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and within approved annual budgets

· Initiatives of the following CCOs that have a significant impact upon the implementation of the Auckland Plan and other relevant plans, policies and strategies:

o Panuku Development Auckland

o Auckland Transport

o Watercare Services Limited

o Regional Facilities Auckland (stadia)

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii) The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii) The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

(b) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

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 Planning Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 6 March 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

4.1 David Roos - Petition requesting safer pedestrian access in Victoria Quarter

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To receive a petition from David Roos.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. David Roos will present a petition to the Planning Committee.

3. The petition is addressed to the Mayor, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, the Waitematā Local Board, Auckland City Centre Advisory Board, New Zealand Transport Association and the Ministers for Transport and Urban Development.

4. The petition asks for “the delivery of safer walking facilities for Auckland City Centre’s nearly 20,000 residents living in and around the Victoria Quarter (the area bounded by Victoria, Hobson and Union Streets).”

5. Further information about the petition can be found at: https://www.change.org/p/safer-pedestrian-access-around-the-cook-street-nelson-street-and-union-street-area

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) thank David Roos for his attendance.

b) note the content of the petition submitted by David Roos requesting safer pedestrian access in Victoria Quarter.

c) refer the petition to council’s Development Programmes Office and Auckland Transport for consideration.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Governance 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.

5.1 Public Input - Public Transport Users Association - Trains to Huapai campaign

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Christine Rose, representing the Public Transport Users Association will speak to the committee regarding the Trains to Huapai Campaign.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Christine Rose on behalf of the Public Transport Users Association regarding trains to Huapai and thank her for attending.

5.2 Public Input - Changda International Limited - Vesting of Land on a Closed Landfill at West Hoe Heights, Orewa

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Olric Thomas, Senior Project Manager - Changda International Limited, will speak to the committee regarding the vesting of land on a closed landfill at West Hoe Heights, Orewa.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from Olric Thomas on behalf of Changda International Limited regarding the vesting of land at West Hoe Heights, Orewa and thank them for attending.

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

There were no notices of motion.

Planning Committee

03 April 2018

Vesting of Land on a Closed Landfill at West Hoe Heights, Orewa

File No.: CP2018/02857

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To decline the vesting of three lots of land on a closed landfill at 207 West Hoe Heights, Orewa within the West Hoe Heights Special Housing Area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Changda International New Zealand Ltd (Changda) is developing the West Hoe Heights Special Housing Area in Orewa. As part of this development, Changda is seeking to vest three lots of land (Lots 701, 704 and 611) with Auckland Council (see scheme plan and map of lots in Attachment A). These lots are on a closed landfill (see map of landfill in Attachment B).

3. Subdivision consent was granted to Changda in November 2016. Condition 98 of the consent allows for the vesting of Lots 701 and 704 as open space (local purpose reserves), and Lot 611 as a public road, if landowner approval is obtained from Auckland Council.

4. If landowner approval is not obtained, then the consent requires Lot 701 and 704 to be established as a private park and Lot 611 as a pedestrian walkway with easements in favour of Auckland Council. These would be managed through an incorporated society.

5. In considering this decision, the Planning Committee has two options:

· Option one: to accept vesting of the lots of land on a closed landfill.

· Option two: to decline vesting the lots of land on a closed landfill (the preferred option).

6. Option one, vesting the lots of land on a closed landfill, would expose the council to significant technical, environmental, financial, and legal risks. The closed landfill has never been in the council’s ownership and by accepting it the council would be taking full responsibility for managing any risks and costs associated with the land.

7. There is little benefit to the council in accepting these lots. There is already sufficient open space provision at Western Hoe Heights, as assessed under the Open Space Provision Policy (2016), meaning Lots 701 and 704 are not required for this purpose.

8. Auckland Transport considers that a public road on Lot 611 is not required for the efficient operation of the road network. A walkway, as provided for by the consent conditions, will provide sufficient connectivity for residents. A road constructed over a closed landfill could incur considerable technical and financial risks to Auckland Transport as the asset owner and they would not accept this asset.

9. While short-term risks are covered by consent conditions (management plan and bond) Changda has suggested that the council could mitigate the long-term risks and costs of taking ownership of a privately owned closed landfill through a targeted rate on West Hoe Heights residents. However, the council does not typically raise targeted rates to cover maintenance costs. Creating such a rate would expose residents to financial risk if the costs of managing the landfill rose. It would also be conditional on consultation (and public support) through a long-term plan or annual plan process.

10. In contrast, option two, not vesting the lots of land on a closed landfill, does not expose either the council or Auckland Transport to any further technical, environmental or financial risks. Instead an incorporated society will be liable for managing the lots of land as a private park with easements across it to enable a pedestrian walkway.

11. For these reasons it is recommended that the Planning Committee select option two and decline the vesting of the lots of land located on a closed landfill.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Planning Committee:

a) decline the vesting in council of Lots 701, 704 and 611 located on a closed landfill at 207 West Hoe Heights on subdivision scheme plan No. 3124770-GS-007 Rev H.

b) note that vesting Lots 701, 704 and 611 would expose Auckland Council to significant technical, environmental, financial, and legal risks through taking responsibility for managing the closed landfill on this land.

c) note that Lots 701, 704 and 611 are not required for either open space or transport connectivity at West Hoe Heights.

d) note that the Development Programme Office will advise Changda International New Zealand Limited of the Planning Committee’s decision to decline vesting of the land.

Horopaki / Context

West Hoe Development

12. Changda International New Zealand Limited (Changda), the developer of West Hoe Heights Special Housing Area, is undertaking a staged residential development for 570 dwellings, as shown on the scheme plan (No. 3124770-GS-007 Rev H) in Attachment A.

13. A Special Housing Area was established in 2014 and extended in May 2016 to include the 207 West Hoe Heights site which is located over part of a closed landfill (see map in Attachment B) The purpose of the extension was to enhance access to the main development areas and achieve a slight increase in the number of dwellings provided.

Consent Conditions

14. Changda was granted subdivision resource consent (SLC-67956 - now referenced as SUB60036453-C) in November 2016 under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013. The application was assessed under the Auckland Unitary Plan Decision Version 2016. The consent included provision for creation of new roads, public open space and walkways. Some of this land has already been accepted by council.

15. Condition 98 of the consent (see Attachment C) sets out two options for the ownership of the closed landfill; with the land to be either vested at no capital cost to council, or not vested and retained in private ownership and managed through an incorporated society.

16. In the event that the land is vested in council, the land would be developed as follows:

· Land for local purposes of 13,933m² (Lot 701) adjoining a separate open space that the Environment and Community Committee has already decided to acquire.

· Land for local purposes of 7,184m² (Lot 704) to provide pedestrian access from West Hoe Heights road to Lot 701 and onto the main southern park and wider park network.

· Public road of 90 metres long, 1,983m²(Lot 611) to form a road connection within the development area between the eastern and western roads of the development.

17. Condition 98 of the consent requires landowner approval from the council to take over the three lots before these can be developed as open space and a public road.

18. In the event that approval from the council is not obtained, condition 98 provides for Lots 701 and 704 to be established as a private park and for Lot 611 to be established as a pedestrian walkway with easements in favour of Auckland Council.

19. Subsequent consent conditions provide for the ongoing development, monitoring and maintenance of these lots under both scenarios.

Closed Landfill

20. Rodney County Council, leased land at West Hoe Heights between 1967 and 1977 to operate a municipal solid waste landfill. At the end of the lease period, the landfill was capped with clay and reinstated with topsoil and grass and has been farmed by its private landowners. The landfill has never been owned by council.

21. Since 1977, the land has been sold a number of times and, more recently, was subdivided. Currently Changda own two thirds of the landfill site and the remaining one third remains in separate private ownership. The three lots of land that Changda is now proposing to vest to council contain its part of the closed landfill.

22. Changda has its own long-term discharge consents for the landfill, which they obtained as part of their development (REG68097 NRSI 46681). Historical discharge consents held by Auckland Council expired in December 2017.

23. Changda proposes that the transfer of responsibility for the land containing the closed landfill will also include the long-term discharge consent obtained by Changda. This means that the council would be responsible for compliance with that consent, and the operation and management of the closed landfill, including untested leachate and gas management systems.

24. In addition to a settlement monitoring plan and a bond required by the consent conditions for the future management of the road and landfill, Changda has also suggested that Auckland Council should set a targeted rate for West Hoe Height residents. Changda considers such a rate would mitigate the short-term and long-term risk of taking ownership of a privately owned closed landfill. This would pay for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the landfill including the road.

Previous Decisions by Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

25. Condition 98 of the consent incorrectly delegated decision making to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board rather than Auckland Council, and contained several typographical errors. In response to this, the local board sought clarification on their decision making responsibilities and a technical assessment of the risks of accepting the closed landfill by council officers.

26. The delegation and typographical errors have now been corrected under s13 of the Interpretations Act as an error in a previous exercise of power to grant the consent.

27. The technical assessment of the risks of managing the closed landfill are discussed further in the next section ‘Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice’. The full assessment provided to the local board is also shown in Attachment D.

28. After receiving this technical assessment on 20 September 2017 the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board noted the significant risks presented to council of vesting the landfill (Resolution number HB/2017/1). The board then resolved to provide feedback to the relevant committee ‘that the closed landfill should not be acquired by the council (see full board resolutions in Attachment E).

Decision-Making Authority of Planning Committee

29. The decision to acquire or dispose of land is allocated to the Governing Body pursuant to section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

30. The Parks, Recreation and Sports and the Environment and Community committees in 2015 and 2017 previously accepted the vesting of 93,551m²of public open space land, as part of this development at no capital cost to council (resolution numbers PAR/2015/87 and ENV/2017/80). This land provides sufficient public open space as assessed under the Open Space Provision Policy (2016).

31. The Environment and Community Committee could also make a decision in relation to the vesting of Lots 701 and 704 for open space. However, it is not appropriate for that committee to consider the vesting of Lot 611 given that it does not have the delegated responsibility to accept new public roads.

32. The Planning Committee has the delegated responsibility for Special Housing Areas, urban design and acquisition of property relating to its responsibilities. Therefore, this matter has been referred to the Planning Committee to enable an integrated decision over the acceptance of all three lots of land containing the closed landfill.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options Assessment

33. The council has two options available to it under condition 98 of the resource consent:

· Option one: to accept vesting of the lots of land on a closed landfill.

· Option two: to decline vesting of the lots of land on a closed landfill (the preferred option).

34. Maintaining the status quo (or making no decisions with regards to vesting the land) has not been considered as an option because only two options are provided for by condition 98 of the resource consent. To not make a decision would be unreasonable given that managing the use and development of land (including subdivision) is a core regulatory function of the council.

35. Both options have been fully assessed against a range of criteria including the likely technical, environmental, legal and financial risks. Effects on connectivity through the development and the open space requirements of residents have also been considered.

36. Such an assessment considers both known and unknown risks. A critical component of each risk is whether it can be avoided, mitigated or managed to acceptable levels. Table One below sets out the options assessment.

Table One: Options Analysis for Accepting or Declining Vesting of Land

Criteria

Option One: Accept Vesting of Land

Option Two: Decline Vesting of Land

Environmental Risks

· The potential for failure of controls resulting in discharges to the environment, nuisance or property damage.

· The extent to which the landfill extends under Changda land and neighbour’s land, complicating future management of the closed landfill.

· Change in risk profile due to likely development of the neighbouring land which the landfill extends.

The council would be liable for achieving compliance with consents which rely on new and largely untested systems to manage landfill emissions.

Two thirds of the landfill would be owned by Auckland Council and one third by another private landowner.

Any development on the neighbour’s land would not be under the control of the council, but the council would be liable for environmental impacts arising.

No risk to the council.

An Incorporated Society will be responsible for achieving compliance with consents

Two thirds of the landfill would be owned collectively through an incorporated society and one third by another private landowner

Criteria

Option One: Accept Vesting of Land

Option Two: Decline Vesting of Land

Technical risks (landfill)

· Uncertainty about the performance of new, untested, leachate treatment wetland system to meet environmental discharge conditions.

· Constraints on ability to rectify any future issues with the landfill and the landfill management systems because of limited scope of ownership.

The council would be liable for all long-term technical risks.

Short-term risks are managed by consent conditions.

No landfill gas controls were required while the site remained undeveloped. Changda now proposes to place up to 5 metres of fill over the closed landfill as part of the development. This additional cover material has the potential to contain residual landfill gas within the site.

The weight of additional fill material will significantly increase the amount and composition of the leachate generated.

Changda are required by their consents to install new control measures to manage leachate, which include service trenches, methane stripping prior to trade waste disposal and wetland leachate treatment systems. Council officers are not satisfied that the proposed treatment systems have demonstrated they will operate effectively in New Zealand. Thus additional ongoing monitoring and maintenance is required to ensure that they operate effectively.

Poor performance in new systems could be difficult to rectify as much of the infrastructure will be buried.

An Incorporated Society will be responsible for managing long-term risks.

Short-term risks are managed through consent conditions. Risks to the council will be minimal.

Criteria

Option One: Accept Vesting of Land

Option Two: Decline Vesting of Land

Technical risks (road or carriageway)

· The extent to which road or carriageway subsidence likely to occur.

· The extent to which not accepting the vesting of the road (carriageway) will adversely affect other utility providers sharing the proposed road or walkway corridor.

Only construction of a walkway would be accepted by Auckland Transport, due to the risk of subsidence associated with a carriageway. Utility providers could share a walkway corridor.

Auckland Transport do not consider the proposed public road is fundamental to the wider requirements for traffic connectivity in the West Hoe development because of the predicted low traffic volumes.

Only a walkway would be accepted by Auckland Transport for the reasons outlined under Option One.

Creation of a private road would not be supported by Auckland Transport as they may be asked by the community to take over managing the road in the future.

Financial risks and costs

· Costs to the council associated with operating (including RMA consenting and compliance costs), inspecting and maintaining the closed landfill and its control systems, depreciation and renewals.

· Costs to the council relative to historical management costs and whole-of-life costings.

· Costs to Auckland Transport of expenditure associated with operating, inspecting and maintaining the carriageway, depreciation and renewals.

The council would be responsible for all costs beyond the agreed short-term parameters in the consent conditions.

Annual operating costs are estimated to be between $150,000 and $300,000 per annum for the leachate and landfill gas management.

Financial risk as the costs of managing the closed landfill may change in the future. These costs cannot be accurately estimated due to the use of unproven technologies in the landfill.

Costs for maintaining the road and open space have not been calculated.

No operational or capital expenditure budgets have been allocated so additional funding would be needed.

An incorporated society will be responsible for all financial risks and costs.

Minimal costs to council in terms of its standard regulatory function.

Criteria

Option One: Accept Vesting of Land

Option Two: Decline Vesting of Land

Legal risks

· Enduring liability on council.

· Extent of consent non-compliance.

· Potential for the owners of the remainder of the landfill or road to seek that council take responsibility for their portion and any upgrades.

· Precedent for council to take on private closed landfill.

· Precedent for Auckland Transport to take on new roads over a closed landfill.

Auckland Council has no legal obligation to assume ongoing responsibility for the management of discharges from the site.

The council does not currently manage any private landfills.

Land development across Auckland is occurring on increasingly marginal land (e.g. contaminated or unstable land). The council should not be regarded as the depository of marginal land, as part of a subdivision plan.

Accepting this land creates a precedent for the council to assume ownership of marginal land.

Incorporated society will be required by the consent to assume legal responsibility.

Changda accepted the consent conditions which set out two clear alternative pathways for the future ownership and development of the closed landfill.

· Community and urban design risks

· Assessment against the Open Space Provision Policy (2016) to ensure community needs are meet within the development.

· Assessment against the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (June 2013).

· Extent to which appropriate connectivity is provided across the site.

Open space requirements have been met and the additional land is not considered necessary by council officers.

Sites subject to hazards, such as closed landfills, are not considered suitable for public open space.

Auckland Transport advice that a walkway provides appropriate connectivity.

A private park can be provided and maintained by an Incorporated Society, as set out in the consent conditions.

However, access could be restricted to only those areas where easements have been created in favour of Auckland Council.

Auckland Transport advice that a public road is not required for connectivity.

Preferred Option and Reasons

37. As Table One shows, under option one, all risks and responsibilities will be transferred to the council. This means option one exposes council to unacceptable technical, environmental, legal and financial risks.

38. Furthermore, the land is not needed to meet the residents’ community and urban design needs. Auckland Transport advise the public road is not necessary and its preference is for a walkway as provided for by the consent conditions.

39. Auckland Council has not been formally asked to strike a targeted rate by Changda under option one at this stage. However, this has been suggested to mitigate financial risks. The council does not typically raise targeted rates to cover maintenance costs. Creating such a rate would expose local residents to financial risk if the costs of maintaining the landfill rose. Levying a targeted rate would also be conditional on consultation (and public support) through a long-term plan or annual plan process.

40. In contrast, option two retains the risk and responsibilities with the landowner through creation of an Incorporated Society as provided for by the consent conditions. This minimises the environmental, legal and financial risks to council while meeting the open space and transport connectivity needs of residents.

41. For these reasons, option two is recommended: that the Planning Committee does not accept vesting of the three lots of land on a closed landfill at 207 West Hoe Heights, Orewa.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

42. As described above, feedback was sought from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on the recommended decision at their business meeting on 20 September 2017.

43. As shown in Attachment E, the local board noted the significant risks to the council of acquiring the landfill and provided feedback to the relevant committee that the closed landfill ‘should not be acquired by the council’ (HB/2017/167).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

44. No consultation with mana whenua was undertaken in writing this report. The land use resource consent was processed on a non-notified basis under the provisions of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013, which restricted consultation.

45. Mana whenua have previously provided feedback to Auckland Council that the reduction of discharge of leachates from closed landfills is a desired outcome for them, as kaitiakitanga of Auckland’s lands and waterways.

46. Through monitoring and enforcement of Changda’s consent for the closed landfill, Auckland Council will seek to minimise the environmental impact of leachate discharges to the local environment.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

47. The financial implications associated with the vesting of the closed landfill are outlined above in Table One and are not repeated here in detail.

48. In summary, under option one, the council will become liable for the operating costs of the landfill, estimated to be between $150,000 and $300,000 per annum. The council and Auckland Transport will also become liable for significant financial risks, as the costs of managing the landfill and associated public road may rise in future.

49. In contrast, if the recommended option two: not to vest the lots, is adopted the council will not be liable for any costs associated with operating the closed landfill or financial risks.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

50. The risks associated with the vesting of the closed landfill are outlined above in Table One and not repeated here in detail.

51. In summary, under option one, the council will become liable for significant technical, environmental, financial and legal risks and liabilities associated with assuming responsibility for the closed landfill.

52. If the recommended option two: not to vest the lots is adopted, the incorporated society will become liable for these risks rather than the council.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

53. The Development Programme Office has been communicating technical advice from council to Changda and will inform them of any decision made by the Planning Committee. Conditions of the subdivision resource consent held by Changda then set out the processes to be followed under either option.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Scheme Plan of West Hoe Heights subdivision (No. 3124770-GS-007 Rev H) and Zoom-in Map of Lots	21
b ⇩	Location Map Showing Closed Landfill	25
c ⇩	Condition 98 of the Consent	27
d ⇩	Technical Assessment of Acquisition of West Hoe Heights Closed Landfill	29
e ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Resolutions Relating to Closed Landfill	33

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Michele Perwick - Principal Planner, Planning North-West

Simon Court - Closed Landfills and Contaminated Land Response Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 April 2018

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Hobsonville Corridor Plan Change

File No.: CP2018/01484

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to publicly notify a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (the Auckland Unitary Plan) to amend the operative Hobsonville Corridor Precinct.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The proposed plan change amends the Auckland Unitary Plan’s Hobsonville Corridor Precinct text and diagrams, inserts new sub-precinct text and a new diagram for the sub-precinct. Within the new sub-precinct, standards and assessment criteria for buildings and development located along Hobsonville Road and adjacent to Hobsonville Primary School are introduced. It also identifies preferred future road alignments and a future arterial within the new sub-precinct. Additional precinct-wide storm water controls are introduced and changes are made to the operative text to ensure the provisions are consistent with other precincts.

3. Together these amendments seek to improve the transport network, stormwater and built form outcomes within Hobsonville Corridor. Development within the proposed plan change area will also rely on Auckland Unitary Plan zones, Auckland-wide and overlay provisions where applicable.

4. The proposed plan change area consists of the existing Hobsonville Corridor precinct (the precinct) in the Auckland Unitary Plan in addition to a new proposed sub-precinct southwest of Brigham Creek Road (called Sub-Precinct C). The proposed plan change amends the planning maps to add Sub-Precinct C, insert a new precinct plan and new provisions for Sub-Precinct C, and amends the operative Auckland Unitary Plan provisions for the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct.

5. The land within the new proposed Sub-precinct C was originally part of the precinct in the proposed version of the Auckland Unitary Plan (at that time it was known as Sub-precinct A). These provisions were recommended to be deleted by the Independent Hearings Panel. The effects of this deletion were not fully understood at the time the council made its decisions in 2016.

6. The preparation of the proposed plan change has included input from Auckland Transport, Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters unit and the Auckland Design Office. These teams support the proposed plan change. This collaboration has ensured that the proposed plan change provisions will enable improved delivery of transport, storm water and urban design outcomes for the Hobsonville Corridor area.

7. The proposed plan change has also been informed by feedback. Mana whenua representatives were sent the draft proposed plan change in January 2018 and two meetings have been held with iwi to discuss the proposed plan change. In addition, there was a two-week public engagement period in November 2017.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the public notification of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) for the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct (included as Attachment B to the agenda report).

b) endorse the section 32 evaluation report that supports the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct proposed plan change (included as Attachment D to the agenda report).

c) delegate to the Manager Planning North West and Islands the authority to approve minor editorial amendments to the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) for the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct, if required, in advance of public notification.

Horopaki / Context

8. The existing Hobsonville Corridor Precinct is located between Hobsonville Road and the Upper Harbour Highway (State Highway 18) and extends from Brigham Creek Road eastwards to Memorial Park Lane alongside the Hobsonville Domain. The proposed plan change adds a new Sub-precinct C to the existing Hobsonville Corridor precinct. This new Sub-precinct C would extend the precinct southwest from Brigham Creek Road to the Rawiri Stream. The wider context of the proposed plan change area is shown in Attachment A.

9. The area within Sub-Precinct C was originally included as Sub-precinct A within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) agreed with submissions that sought deletion of Sub-precinct A on the grounds that the underlying Light Industry Zone and associated plan provisions rendered a sub-precinct unnecessary. The council accepted the recommendations of the IHP. This decision did not address transport, urban design and stormwater matters which have since arisen.

10. While the proposed plan change considers the interface of the Light Industry Zone and residential properties in Hobsonville Corridor, in the future this issue will also be investigated in other parts of the city. This is likely to include the monitoring of existing interfaces as well as addressing this issue during the urban zoning of future urban zoned land following structure planning.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. The Hobsonville Corridor Precinct’s purpose is to provide a comprehensive and integrated approach to development and transport outcomes within Hobsonville Corridor. The operative Hobsonville Corridor Precinct provisions apply to the local centre and require high standards of design and landscaping to provide active, pedestrian-orientated frontages along roads within the Hobsonville retail area. This area is referred to as Hobsonville Corridor Sub-Precincts A and B, which are zoned Mixed Use and Local Centre respectively.

12. These provisions do not, however, apply along Hobsonville Road southwest of Brigham Creek Road where buildings face residential zoned properties on the other side of the road, or along the boundaries of Hobsonville Primary School.

13. The proposed Sub-precinct C would apply to the land bordered by State Highway 18, Brigham Creek Road, Hobsonville Road and Rawiri Stream. This land is zoned for light industry.

14. The proposed plan change includes inserting an additional diagram, Precinct Plan 3, relating specifically to this proposed sub-precinct. Specific provisions proposed for Sub-precinct C are shown in Attachment B and include:

· a Restricted Discretionary activity resource consent status for new buildings along Hobsonville Road and adjacent to Hobsonville Primary School

· standards requiring new buildings and subdivision to provide for roads to connect to Strategic Access Points, as indicated on Precinct Plan 3

· standards for buildings adjacent to Hobsonville Primary School, including a more restrictive height in relation to boundary control, building setbacks and landscaping requirements

· standards for buildings that have frontage to Hobsonville Road, including more restrictive building height, height in relation to boundary, front yard and landscaping requirements

· assessment criteria relating to the design of buildings along Hobsonville Road and adjacent to Hobsonville Primary School.

15. The indicative roading provisions in the new Sub-precinct C seek to ensure the delivery of a connected transport network throughout the Sub-Precinct and to achieve an appropriate level of amenity along Hobsonville Road. These reasons align with the purposes of the existing Hobsonville Corridor Precinct. Proposed Precinct Plan 3 is included in Attachment B and shows:

· indicative future arterial road from Whenuapai

· preferred future road alignments

· indicative strategic access points

· existing road alignments.

16. The proposed plan change also introduces controls to address storm water issues in the precinct. The Stormwater Management Area 1 control is proposed to be applied to the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct to address hydrology mitigation (Attachment C). An additional standard is also proposed to require at-source storm water treatment (Attachment B). The proposed standard for at-source stormwater treatment seeks to achieve improved water quality outcomes and reflects the current Network Discharge Consent for the precinct.

17. The proposed plan change also proposes amendments to the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct provisions. These include new areas of land zoned open space acquired by the council, and corrections to zone boundaries based on updated property boundaries (Attachment C). The proposed amendments also include editorial and formatting changes to clarify existing operative precinct provisions and provide consistency with other precincts in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Attachment B).

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

18. The Hobsonville Corridor Precinct is located within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. A workshop seeking the Local Board’s views on the draft plan change was held on 2 November 2017. The Local Board’s view on the draft plan change were taken into consideration during the preparation of the proposed version of the plan change.

19. The Local Board supported the draft plan change and also requested that the provisions include standards for buildings along Hobsonville Road, as opposed to relying on assessment criteria. The proposed plan change now includes both standards and assessment criteria for these buildings.

20. Public feedback on the draft plan change was sought from 6 - 20 November 2017. This included on the internet and two local drop-in sessions. These sessions were well-attended and more than 30 separate pieces of feedback were received.

21. The themes from the public feedback included concerns about the scale of recent development along Hobsonville Road, and the need for transport improvements. In addition, more detailed feedback about the text of the provisions was received from a number of planning consultants and landowners. This feedback has informed the development of the proposed version of the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

22. Iwi groups with mana whenua interest in the proposed plan change area were contacted during the previously approved consultation on the draft plan change. Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau ā Maki have met with council staff to help to inform the preparation of the proposed plan change.

23. On 3 November 2017 all iwi groups with an interest in the area were emailed information about the draft plan change and asked for their comment. A meeting was held on 27 November 2017 to discuss the draft plan change and was attended by Te Kawerau ā Maki.

24. Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 made changes to Māori participation within the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Schedule 1 of the RMA was amended to insert a new clause 4a which requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change prior to notification, and to have particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying the proposed plan change.

25. Council staff contacted the relevant iwi authorities on 26 January 2018 with a copy of the draft proposed plan change and asked for comments. A meeting was held with a representative from Te Tari Taiao o Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust on 8 February 2018, where the draft proposed plan change was further explained and discussed.

26. Te Tari Taiao o Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust provided comments seeking additional requirements within the provisions relating to tree selection when re-vegetating sites. A new assessment criterion reflecting the preference for native, eco-sourced and non-deciduous trees has been added to the proposed plan change in response.

27. The importance of the relationship between the precinct and projects in the area, including the Rawiri Stream restoration project was raised by Te Tari Taiao o Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust and Te Kawerau a Maki. The proposed provisions include objectives and policies relating to this stream environment.

28. Staff will contact the iwi authorities to confirm their position in response to the question of a having a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi and hapū being on the hearings panel, under Section 34A(1A) of the RMA.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

29. There are administrative costs associated with the statutory processes required to update the Auckland Unitary Plan. These costs are provided for within the existing Plans and Places department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

30. Not proceeding with the proposed plan change presents risks around poor transport outcomes if land developers do not follow council and Auckland Transport’s preferred road alignment. There may also be poor urban design outcomes along Hobsonville Road and adverse effects of stormwater on the receiving environment.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

31. Following approval by the Planning Committee, council staff will publicly notify the proposed plan change by the end of April 2018. The council’s website will be updated as the process proceeds. A four-week submission period will be followed by a two-week further submission period. A hearing of submitters will be held by independent commissioners, and this is likely to occur in July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Plan Change Location	41
b ⇩	Proposed Plan Change	43
c ⇩	Proposed SMAF 1 Control Area and Rezoning	75
d ⇩	Section 32 Evaluation Report	77

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 April 2018

Request to Make operative Plan Changes 1 and 2 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

File No.: CP2018/03354

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Plan Changes 1 and 2 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Plan Change 1 involved the rezoning of eleven land parcels from either Open Space and road to typically residential which were surplus to requirements. Plan Change 2 involved the rezoning of a portion of Aotea Square to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Civic Administration Building. The plan changes were requested by Panuku Development Auckland. Both plan changes have been resolved with no appeals against the decisions of the respective commissioners.

3. Under Section 86F of the Resource Management Act 1991, a rule in a proposed plan must be treated as operative (and any previous rule as inoperative) if the time for making submissions or lodging appeals on the rule has expired and, in relation to the rule –

(a) no submissions in opposition have been made or appeals have been lodged.

4. Clause 17(1) of Schedule 1, states that a local authority shall approve a proposed policy statement or plan (other than a regional plan coastal).

5. Clause 20(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 states that an approved policy statement or plan shall become an operative policy statement or plan on a date which is to be publicly notified.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree to make operative Plan Changes 1 and 2 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

b) request that the General Manager – Plans and Places, carries out the necessary steps required under First Schedule to the Resource Management Act, to make Plan Changes 1 and 2 to the Auckland Unitary Plan operative.

Horopaki / Context

6. Plan Changes 1 and 2 were the first notified changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan. Submissions received on the plan changes have been heard and the council has released its decisions. The period for lodging any appeals in the Environment Court has closed and no appeals have been lodged. The plan changes can now be made operative.

7. The relevant provisions in the Resource Management Act for finalising plan changes are as follows.

8. Section 86F - When rules in proposed plans must be treated as operative

(1) A rule in a proposed plan must be treated as operative (and any previous rule as inoperative) if the time for making submissions or lodging appeals on the rule has expired and, in relation to the rule,—

(a) no submissions in opposition have been made or appeals have been lodged; or

(b) all submissions in opposition and appeals have been determined; or

9. Clause 17(1) of Schedule 1, states that a local authority shall approve a proposed policy statement or plan (other than a regional plan coastal) once it has made amendments under clause 16 or variations under clause 16A (if any).

10. Clause 20(1) of Schedule 1, states that an approved policy statement or plan shall become an operative policy statement or plan on a date which is to be publicly notified. Clause 20(2) requires the local authority to publicly notify the date on which the policy statement or plan becomes operative at least five working days before the date on which it becomes operative.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Plan Change 1

11. Proposed Plan Change 1- “Rezoning of Auckland Council Owned Properties That Have Been Cleared for Sale” involved rezoning eleven Council owned parcels of land currently zoned either open space or shown as road (roads are not zoned under the Auckland Unitary Plan) which were surplus to requirements and have been cleared for disposal.

Plan Change 2

12. Proposed Plan Change 2- “Aotea Square Partial Zone Change” involved rezoning a 334 square metre portion of Aotea Square from Open Space – Civic Spaces Zone to Business – City Centre Zone to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Civic Administration Building at 1 Greys Ave, Auckland Central.

Timeline

13. Key dates associated with the plan changes were:

· The plan changes were publicly notified on 3 August 2017.

· The hearings took place on 4 December 2017.

· The decisions were publicly notified and sent to submitters on 18 January 2018.

· The appeal period closed 30 working days from the 18 January 2018 (2 March 2018) or the date the submitter received the letter, whichever was the later, to lodge any appeal with the Environment Court.

Finalising the Plan Changes

14. No appeals were received to either plan change and therefore they can be made operative.

15. The Auckland Unitary Plan (text and maps) Schedule of Modifications identifies which parts of the plan are subject to a plan change. As plan changes are finalised the annotation can be removed. A resolution of the Planning Committee is required to formalise this process as this is not a matter that has been delegated to council staff.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

16. The relevant local boards were involved in both plan changes prior to notification but local board views were not sought for this report as making plan changes operative is a procedural matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17. Mana Whenua were consulted on both plan changes.

18. Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporated were a submitter to Plan Change 1. They sought that a section of the properties at 8R Gee Place and 70R Tidal Road, Mangere not be subject to the plan change and retain their open space zoning to enable appropriate signage or some other physical acknowledgement of the northernmost section of Pūkaki portage.

19. The commissioners were of the view that the position and outlook of these two land parcels did not add value to the acknowledgement of the historic significance of this portage route. They believed that the issue raised in the submission was better dealt with through a research project outside of Plan Change 1.

20. For Plan Change 2, there were no submissions by iwi. The Mana Whenua Working Group established by Panuku were however involved in the preparation of the Civic Quarter Masterplan and included representatives from Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngaati Whanaunga, Te Akitai Waiohua and Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara. Panuku held a hui in September 2016 and a second hui was held on 7 November 2016 where mana whenua were generally supportive of the Whare Tapere building, but a design of the building was not agreed.

21. Panuku held a third hui on 12 June 2017 where the proposed plan change was discussed as being necessary to enable the development of the Whare Tapere building. Mana whenua remain supportive of the Whare Tapere building. Panuku are committed to work with mana whenua going forward to allow the design decisions for the building to be more considered to Maori history, context, knowledge, tikanga and reo.

22. The final step in making both plan changes operative is a procedural matter only and does not affect the content of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. There are no financial implications associated with making the plan changes operative.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. There are no risks associated with making the plan changes operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. The Planning Technicians in the Auckland-wide Planning Team implement the final step in making plan changes operative by publicly notifying that the plan changes are operative and removing the plan change annotations.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team leader - Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 April 2018

Managing and protecting trees in Auckland

File No.: CP2018/01760

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the committee with a summary of regulatory and non-regulatory techniques used to manage and protect trees in Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The council’s recently-adopted Urban Forest Strategy provides a comprehensive approach to maintaining and enhancing (through regulatory and non-regulatory techniques) trees and vegetation in Auckland’s urban area.

3. The council’s principal regulatory technique for managing and protecting trees is the Auckland Unitary Plan. The Auckland Unitary Plan is supported by a suite of non-regulatory council and private initiatives that contribute to the management and protection of trees.

4. Following amendments to the Resource Management Act in 2012 that prevented the use of general (or blanket) tree protection, the council’s regulatory focus has been on managing and protecting:

· ‘scheduled’ trees

· trees within specifically identified ‘significant ecological areas’

· trees in riparian and coastal areas

· street trees and trees on reserve land.

5. At this point in time, the key regulatory options available to the council for tree management and protection are:

· rely on the existing provisions contained in the Auckland Unitary Plan and carefully monitoring their effectiveness before making any changes

· prepare a plan change to add trees to the ‘schedule of notable trees’ contained within the Auckland Unitary Plan.

6. A cross-council approach is required to ensure Auckland’s trees are appropriately managed and protected. The vehicle for this is the Urban Forest Strategy.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the council’s current approach to managing and protecting trees in Auckland as set out in the agenda report.

Horopaki / Context

7. At its meeting on 10 October 2017, the Planning Committee requested a report back to the Environment and Community Committee, Planning Committee and Regulatory Committee on regulatory and other techniques used and/or available to council to protect trees in Auckland. This was in response to concerns raised by the community about the loss of tree cover in the region. The respective chairs of the committees were satisfied that the report be received by the Planning Committee only.

Tree protection within legislation and national direction

8. Prior to 2015, general (or blanket) tree protection rules meant that property owners had to apply for a resource consent to remove large native and exotic trees in most parts of Auckland. An amendment to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) prevented the use of general tree protection, resulting in limited ability for the council to impose rules for the removal of urban trees other than specifically identifying them on a schedule.

9. The RMA still enables the council to protect ‘significant ecological areas’ and other ‘groups’ or trees, however they must be specifically described and identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (or the Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan).

Auckland Council’s strategic approach to tree protection

10. The council’s Urban Forest Strategy provides a clear framework for maintaining and enhancing Auckland’s urban ngahere (urban forest). The strategy outlines the current policy context for urban ngahere and lists the policies, plans and guidelines in place to manage the ngahere, including the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan.

11. Research was undertaken as part of the strategy on the extent and distribution of tree cover in Auckland, and the current protection regimes in place to manage and protect it. The Urban Forest Strategy was approved by the Environment and Community Committee on 20 February 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

The Urban Forest Strategy

12. As part of the Urban Forest Strategy, the level of protection afforded to Auckland’s urban ngahere was assessed. The Urban Forest Strategy recognises the numerous policies, plans and guidelines with multiple operational and strategic drivers that address urban ngahere both explicitly and implicitly. The principal aim of the Urban Forest Strategy is to consolidate and strengthen the numerous directives that support Auckland’s ngahere and to increase overall canopy cover in the urban environment. It recognises the pressure on Auckland’s ngahere, not only due to the amendments to the Resource Management Act, but also because of population growth and intensification, pressure on water infrastructure, and the ongoing threats from pests, diseases and climate change.

13. LiDAR (light detecting and ranging) data from 2013 indicates that urban Auckland has approximately 18 per cent tree cover distributed unevenly throughout the urban area. The majority is located on private land (60%), with the remaining 40% on public land (parkland and road corridors, for example). Canopy cover is also unevenly distributed between local board areas. Kaipātiki and Puketāpapa local board areas have the greatest canopy cover, while Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Otāhuhu have the least.

14. Approximately half of Auckland’s urban trees have some degree of formal protection (through regulatory techniques) and the other half do not.

15. The Urban Forest Strategy provides three clear themes under which the high-level actions to increase Auckland’s ngahere are to be delivered. These are:

· ‘knowing’ actions – having better data and understanding

· ‘growing’ actions – increasing the canopy and leveraging partnerships

· ‘protecting’ actions – direct and indirect ways to better protect trees.

Auckland Council’s current regulatory techniques for tree protection

16. General tree protection was removed from the Resource Management Act in 2012. The intent behind the change was to reduce the large number of resource consents required as a result of general tree protection in urban environments. As a result, district plan rules relating to tree protection must comply with specific criteria and must be specifically described either individually or as a group.

17. The principal regulatory technique by which Auckland’s trees are managed and protected is through the Auckland Unitary Plan. The Regional Policy Statement chapter of the Auckland Unitary Plan contains a number of objectives and policies relating to the natural environment, including trees. It recognises the importance of Auckland’s distinctive natural heritage and the numerous elements that contribute to it, with trees being an integral component.

18. The rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan that manage and protect trees are summarised as follows:

Rule	what it protects
Vegetation management and biodiversity	Vegetation within 30 metres of urban lakes management areas Vegetation within 20 metres of mean high water spring (includes coastal pohutukawa) Vegetation located on certain cliffs or slopes Vegetation within a natural stream management area overlay or within 10 metres of urban streams
Overlays	Significant Ecological Areas overlay (SEA) Vegetation located on outstanding natural features, outstanding natural landscapes and high natural landscape overlays Heritage extent of place (often includes vegetation/trees)
Open Space Zones	Most trees over 4 metres in height
Trees in roads	Most trees over 4 metres in height
Schedule of Notable Trees	Approximately 3000 scheduled items representing >6000 trees or groups of trees throughout Auckland (the majority are within the urban environment)

19. Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) within the urban environment are afforded a high level of protection. There are currently 3,666.8 hectares of SEAs within the urban area.

20. Auckland Transport is subject to the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions relating to trees in roads. A Service Level Agreement between Auckland Transport and Auckland Council sets out the maintenance agreement for green space management which includes the planting and maintenance of street trees, and works under and around the root zones of existing trees. Auckland Transport is developing a policy on street trees through the draft Transport Design Manual.

21. A plan change to amend errors and inconsistences in the Schedule of Notable Trees is currently being drafted. The anticipated date of notification is mid-2018. The plan change will clarify ambiguity in the existing schedule and maps, but will not ‘open up’ the schedule for new nominations or re-evaluations. A plan change to do this is not included in the Plans and Places Department work programme for 2018. Currently, those property owners wishing to nominate a tree or trees for the schedule can complete a nomination proposal which is held in a database for consideration as part of a future plan change.

22. Covenants are another regulatory technique (sometimes imposed through the subdivision process) which formally protect trees. There are numerous properties with covenants across the region (approximately 7,000 totalling around 25,000 ha, with additional covenants being created on a regular basis), representing a significant biodiversity asset across the region. The council’s Biodiversity team has an active covenant-monitoring programme, and since 2012 has carried out a covenant monitoring and landowner engagement programme involving more than 700 properties containing covenants. More than half were found to be in good condition in terms of biodiversity health. While the majority of covenanted areas are outside of the Rural Urban Boundary, some covenanted areas of trees/vegetation are located within the Rural Urban Boundary.

The draft Regional Pest Management Strategy

23. The 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy is currently being reviewed to ensure compliance with the Biosecurity Act 1993. As this document provides a framework for the management of animal, plant and pathogen pest species in Auckland, it provides an indirect and important factor in the overall picture of tree protection. The current level of pest management on council parkland will result in canopy loss and degradation of biodiversity over time. The Regional Pest Management Strategy proposes a number of implementation programmes for the control of various pest species, which will have the benefit of improving and protecting overall biodiversity.

Resource Consents data

24. It is currently difficult to extract quantitative or qualitative resource consent data on activities related to trees. Staff from the Plans and Places and Resource Consents departments are working through potential solutions to this issue to ensure that robust information is available to assist the council in carrying out its monitoring requirements under the Resource Management Act.

Current non-regulatory techniques for tree management and protection

25. As the Urban Forest Strategy identifies, non-regulatory techniques that manage and protect Auckland’s ngahere are wide-ranging. The Urban Forest Strategy refers to the following key documents, all of which include non-regulatory techniques for tree management or protection:

· Local Board Plans

· Greenway Plans

· the Parks and Open Space Action Plan (2013)

· the “Million Trees programme”

· Auckland Growing Greener

· Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy,

· Low Carbon Auckland (2014)

· Sports and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (2014)

· Auckland Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision

· Vegetation in the Road Corridor Guidelines (draft).

26. The majority of Local Board and Greenway Plans specify outcomes and initiatives that are relevant to the management and protection of trees. These are summarised in Attachment A.

Options available for regulatory tree management and protection

Option 1 - Status quo

27. The status quo option would rely on the current Auckland Unitary Plan provisions for tree management and protection and the continued use and monitoring of covenants. Apart from the proposed administrative plan change to amend errors and inconsistencies in the Schedule of Notable Trees, no changes would be made to the Auckland Unitary Plan at this point in time. The effectiveness of the current approach would be monitored, and if appropriate, changes made at a later date.

28. The benefit of the status quo option is that there would be no additional cost to the council other than the ongoing business costs associated with administering the current rules. This approach would allow time for the current provisions to be implemented, so that a robust analysis of their effectiveness can be undertaken at a future date as part of the council’s overall monitoring programme for the Auckland Unitary Plan.

29. The costs of the status quo include a potential minor reduction in Auckland’s tree cover, however, this could potentially be offset by the various non-regulatory approaches set out in the Urban Forest Strategy.

Option 2 - Adding new trees to the Schedule of Notable Trees

30. The most cost-effective way to add trees to the Schedule of Notable Trees contained in the Auckland Unitary Plan would be to notify a region-wide plan change after calling for nominations. There are currently approximately 40 public nominations to include additional trees on the schedule. These nominations are held in a database for future consideration.

31. The cost of this option is very hard to estimate. On average, individual tree assessments cost approximately $500. Assuming 500 nominations were received, the cost would be approximately $250,000 up to the point of the conclusion of the assessment process. Additional costs would be incurred in preparing the plan change and associated section 32 report, responding to submissions, conducting a hearing, preparing the council’s decision and responding to any appeals to the Environment Court. The actual cost of responding to 500 nominations could in excess of $500,000 approximately, and may result in only a relatively small number of trees meeting the council’s criteria for scheduling. The council has not currently set aside a specific budget to undertake this work.

32. The benefit of this approach would be the protection of some additional trees that meet the notable tree criteria in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Option 3 – Request the Government to consider changes to the Resource Management Act to enable the council to reinstate general tree protection

33. General tree protection applied variously throughout the region prior to the amendments to the RMA (i.e. certain species over a certain height and girth were protected and a managed approach to their alteration and removal was provided for in respective legacy District Plans.) This was removed in 2015.

34. The main benefit of general tree protection as a regulatory technique is that it provides for retention of all trees that meet a height/girth threshold, representing a large proportion of trees across the region. A resource consent would be required for removal or significant alteration of those trees, allowing for mitigation planting in the case of removals, and the ability to enforce rules rather than relying on public goodwill in terms of tree retention. It also promotes a precautionary approach to removal of, or significant alteration to, trees when particular information about a tree’s qualities is not known.

35. The costs of tree protection include the additional expense to property owners (or the council if it waived resource consent fees) through the processing of consents, monitoring and enforcement. Whether or not general tree protection is successful in terms of retaining large numbers of trees over a longer timeframe is also questionable.

Conclusion

36. In summary, while additional regulatory options to protect the region’s existing tree cover are available for consideration, it is important that they are considered in the context of the existing regulatory techniques for managing and protecting Auckland’s trees, principally the Auckland Unitary Plan, which only recently became operative in part. It would be important to consider them in the context of the recently adopted Urban Forest Strategy and its strategic context of knowing, growing and protection.

Options for future non-regulatory techniques for tree and vegetation management and protection

37. As has been discussed previously in this report, the initiatives for tree and vegetation planting and protection are wide-ranging across the region and contribute both directly and indirectly to the comprehensive picture of Auckland’s ngahere.

38. The Urban Forest Strategy identifies a suite of non-regulatory actions for knowing, growing and protecting urban ngahere. In summary these are:

Knowing

Incorporate 3-yearly LiDAR surveys in council work programmes

Create database for existing assets within 2 years

Integrate scientific knowledge with matauranga Maori in partnership with mana whenua of the urban ngahere

Quantify values and benefits

Determine survival rates of new council plantings

Identify key pressures and risks in partnership with mana whenua and local boards

Growing

Increase canopy cover in road corridors, parks and open spaces to support an average of 30% canopy cover across Auckland’s urban area with no local board having less than 15% canopy cover

Identify and prioritise locations for future planting on public land in partnership with mana whenua and local boards

Use science and ongoing engagement with local boards, mana whenua and communities to inform decisions in relation to types of planting

Increase the capacity of nursery programmes (including maraes) to increase the supply of eco-sourced plants

Leverage partnerships established through existing initiatives (e.g. the Mayor’s Million Trees programme)

Protecting

Increase landowner grants and incentive programmes (e.g. heritage tree fund for private property owners)

Address current and future pressures to Auckland’s ngahere and protection

Raise public awareness of the values and benefits of the urban ngahere

Raise arboricultural maintenance programme from 2 to 5 years or until new plantings are well established (survival rate 70-80 %)

Establish a labelling programme for protected trees within 12 months (e.g. species, age and benefits)

39. Progress with these actions will be managed through the Environment and Community Committee.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

40. The important role of local boards in tree protection is recognised, particularly at the non-regulatory community level. As part of this report, advice was sought from all local boards in terms of their current and proposed initiatives relating to trees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

41. The protection of trees and vegetation is an issue important to many Māori. No specific consultation has been undertaken with Māori in relation to this report, however most Mana Whenua groups were actively involved in the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The Urban Forest Strategy was also developed in collaboration with Mana Whenua. Te Ao Māori principles were applied to its design and implementation. Several workshops were held and attended by Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Paoa, Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaoho, with a separate meeting held with Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki. Overall support was expressed. The strategy also identifies the importance of ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

42. The status quo option for regulatory techniques for managing and protecting Auckland’s trees and vegetation can be managed within existing council budgets. Introducing new techniques or adding to the Schedule of Notable Trees contained within the Auckland Unitary Plan would require additional funds to be made available.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

43. The main risk associated with the approach recommended in this report is a potential reduction in Auckland’s tree cover. This is potentially offset by other council and private initiatives relating to trees, and would be carefully monitored. If appropriate, changes could be made to the Auckland Unitary Plan at a later date.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

44. The key next steps for the recommended approach are to continue with the implementation of the Urban Forest Strategy and to carefully monitor the effectiveness of the council’s current regulatory approach to tree management and protection.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of outcomes and initiatives in local board plans relevant to the enhancement of the natural environment	151

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Ruth Andrews - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Richard Hills
Members	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	IMSB Member Liane Ngamane
	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare
	Cr Penny Hulse
	Cr Mike Lee

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Planning Committee forward work programme 3 April 2018	155
b ⇨	Schedule of May Planning Committee workshops (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity Quarterly Monitoring Report February 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

Author	Kalinda Gopal - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy