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




Meeting Room:



Tuesday, 4 September 2018


Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street


Komiti Whakarite Mahere /
Planning Committee









Cr Chris Darby


Deputy Chairperson

Cr Richard Hills



Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Daniel Newman, JP


Cr Dr Cathy Casey

IMSB Member Liane Ngamane


Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

Cr Greg Sayers


Cr Ross Clow

Cr Desley Simpson, JP


Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM


Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE


Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Wayne Walker


Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr John Watson


Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP



IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare



Cr Penny Hulse



Cr Mike Lee



(Quorum 11 members)




Kalinda  Gopal

Senior Governance Advisor


3 September 2018


Contact Telephone: (09) 367 2442

Email: kalinda.gopal@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz




Planning Committee

04 September 2018



ITEM    TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                                  PAGE


10         Strategic approach to marinas                                                                                             5 



Planning Committee

04 September 2018



Strategic approach to marinas


File No.: CP2018/16444




Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve development of a strategic approach to future proposals and decision-making on council-owned marinas.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       There are 12 marinas across Auckland. Six marinas are either in private ownership or owned by the Crown. Six are owned by Auckland Council and these assets are held by Panuku Development Auckland.

3.       Marinas are complex in nature and the council-owned marinas are subject to a range of legacy decisions and long-term leases.

4.       Panuku needs to manage these marinas into the future, extracting the best outcomes for Aucklanders from them.

5.       This report recommends that a strategic approach to marina assets be developed, and that this approach be used to:

·      develop proposals for the future use and operation of marinas

·      evaluate proposals and make decisions on the future of marinas.

6.       It also recommends that the proposed strategic approach be reported back by December 2018.


Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)       direct staff to develop a strategic approach to council-owned marinas to be used for future proposals and decision making.

b)       endorse the proposed scope, process, timeframe and targeted stakeholder community engagement for developing such a strategic approach.

c)       delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee to make scope and process decisions, within the parameters set in clause b) above, should any such decisions be required during the process.



Horopaki / Context

7.       At a Planning Committee workshop on 22 August, Panuku Development Auckland presented a strategic approach to marina assets with the purpose of:

a)       providing an overview of marinas in Auckland

b)       presenting an approach for considering the future of council-owned marinas

c)       the current state of council and non-council marinas

d)       getting political direction on the way forward.

8.       During the discussion it was generally agreed that there wasn’t yet sufficient context for making decisions on council-owned marinas and that a broader strategic approach is needed. It was also noted that any such approach should:

a)       recognise the importance of this environment – marine and surrounding land – to mana whenua, as well as the harbour settlement process underway

b)       reflect public feedback, given the high level of public interest in marinas

c)       ideally be ready for political consideration by December 2018.

9.       The purpose of such a strategic approach would be to:

a)       guide Panuku in its consideration of future options for the respective marinas

b)       provide a reference point for elected members when making decisions on the respective marinas.

10.     This report proposes a scope for such an approach and a process by which it can be developed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice


11.     A strategic approach can be articulated through a set of principles or criteria. If criteria, it may also be possible to develop a form of weighting or ranking. It is not known at this stage whether principles or specific criteria would be the best approach.

12.     In thinking about principles / criteria, the broad outcomes of Auckland Plan 2050 should be the starting point. For example, what does it aim to achieve in terms of:

·         inclusion, equity, public space and opportunities for all in accessing the opportunities Auckland’s environment offers.

·         protecting and restoring the natural environment, or at minimum not creating future environmental problems.

·         the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki, affecting rangatiratanga, acknowledging customary rights and supporting te Tiriti principles.

·         public transport and transport orientated development.

·         supporting different sectors of the economy and enabling Maori economic opportunities.

13.     The Auckland Plan provides direction on all these matters, which can be articulated into specifics related to marinas.

14.     Principles / criteria will necessarily include matters of land and marine public access (e.g. recreation, fishing), jobs and marine based activity (e.g. marine industry, tourism), environmental outcomes (e.g. biosecurity, water quality), but may also include less obvious aspects when driven from Auckland Plan outcomes.

15.     In other words, the original approach taken by Panuku remains valid, but needs to be expanded on. What also needs to change is a clear articulation of how future proposals adhere to this. A method of weighting or scoring may be helpful in this regard.

16.     Such a new set of principles / criteria may require a relaxation of Panuku’s imperative to extract monetary value from these assets, in exchange for broader community and other outcomes.


17.     It should also be noted that the following are specifically excluded from the proposed scope:

a)       privately owned marinas

b)       detail regarding any specific marina (each of which have very complicated arrangements) – the principles / criteria would provide a generically applicable framework.

18.     The approach would therefore only apply to:

i)        Gulf Harbour Marina

ii)       Hobsonville Marina

iii)      Half Moon Bay Marina

iv)      Westhaven Marina

v)       Viaduct Harbour Marina

vi)      Silo Marina.


19.     Given the proposed December timeframe there is limited ability to engage on the approach. Council staff will work with Panuku and Auckland Transport (regarding ferry and related transport services) during the process.

Political engagement

20.     It is proposed that political engagement be kept as informal as possible to speed up the process. This means:

·         staff will get views / input from councilors through one-on-one discussions and/or via email, and this will occur throughout the process as is necessary

·         it is however likely that at least one workshop or will be required – most likely prior to any public or stakeholder engagement

·         local board services will get views / input from local boards in a manner that fits with the proposed timeframe

·         local board chairs, or their representative, should be invited to any Planning Committee workshop.

Public / stakeholder engagement

21.     Matters important to the public are generally well understood from a wide range of previous engagement. The question therefore is what new information will emerge from further engagement? Counter to this is the appreciation of the strong feelings associated with marinas, particularly around access and privatisation of public assets.

22.     Three options are therefore identified.

Option 1: No public engagement


·     Use elected member and staff knowledge from previous engagement to inform approach



·     Drastically speeds up the process

·     Uses feedback already given through previous engagement processes

·     Communities and/or stakeholders may not agree that their views are understood

·     No opportunity to capture new / different views that may emerge

Option 2: Targeted community / stakeholder engagement


·     Targeted engagement with stakeholders (more regional) and specific communities (local to individual marinas)

·     Stakeholders may include users of marinas such as Recreational Fishing NZ, yacht, boat and sailing clubs, the Auckland Marina Users Association and marina-based businesses, but also groups such as environmental agencies, physical activity organisations etc.

·     Communities groups would include those representing communities in the broader vicinity of each marina, and possibly also individual property owners adjacent to marinas

·     Note – if this option is chosen, councilors will be asked to contribute to the list of groups and stakeholders that should be invited to engage.



·     Targets those most directly affected

·     Focuses input to more specific needs, concerns and impacts

·     Targeted approach can be better managed in limited time available

·     General public not engaged


Option 3: General public and stakeholder engagement


·     Engagement with stakeholders as per Option 2

·     Public engagement with all Aucklanders



·     General public has the opportunity to engage

·     Requires more time to undertake and possibly significant more time to process feedback

·     May not result in any new information


23.     Both options 2 and 3 are based on the premise that engagement will be kept as informal as possible - traditional formal processes cannot be accommodated within the December timeline. This means:

·         using channels that are easy for people to respond to and easy to analyse feedback

·         limiting engagement to ‘by invitation only’ in the case of Option 2

·         no hearings.

24.     Staff recommend Option 2.

Mana whenua engagement

25.     Given the nature of the topic, mana whenua have significant relevance and will have a high degree of interest. The matter of harbour settlements only adds to this.

26.     It is proposed that iwi who have a direct interest – likely more than rohe – be engaged. The process will have to accommodate a process of identifying the iwi groups to be included.


27.     Based on a timeline of reporting back in December, a broad process and timeframes are shown below. Further detail will be developed early in the process.

28.     The last Planning Committee meeting of 2018 is on 27 November. Engagement Option 1 is the only option that could meet this date. Options 2 and 3 would require a report to the Governing Body on 13 December 2018.







Develop initial principles/criteria















Initial Councillor input















Councillor engagement on draft principles/criteria















Local Board engagement on draft principles/criteria















Finalise principles/criteria for engagement















Possible workshop pre-engagement















Engagement – communities / stakeholders















Analise feedback & recommendations















Cllr / LB engagement re proposed changes















Finalise principles/criteria















Draft report






























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

29.     Marinas are often an integral part of and used by a local community, an also attract visitors or users from outside the area. For these reasons local boards within whose areas the respective council-owned marinas fall have a high interest in future decision making on these marinas. Local boards need to be involved in developing a strategic approach to marinas.

30.     The proposed process caters for local board involvement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

31.     The foreshore is important to Māori both historically and today. In the past, travel by sea and other waterways was an important and necessary means of transport, especially in Auckland. The foreshore also provided sustenance for Auckland’s hapū and iwi as many whakatāuki attest to. Personification of the both the sea and the foreshore by Māori highlight the interrelatedness of people, land and sea and therefore the responsibility of people to the marine environment.

32.     Māori view that their rights to the foreshore and seabed were guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland’s three harbours are the subject of Treaty Settlement negotiations, which once completed are likely to have implications for Auckland Council.

33.     Decisions on marinas need to be understood in this context. The nature of Auckland’s geography means that marinas will be important to all mana whenua authorities. Involving mana whenua early on the proposed approach and throughout the process is imperative and the recommended approach supports this.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

34.     There are no financial implications associated with decisions on this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

35.     There are no identified risks associated with decisions on this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36.     If endorsed, next steps will include:

·         immediate work on developing initial principles / criteria for political input

·         developing further process detail, including around the engagement option decided upon, and setting up the necessary logistics for engagement.


Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories


Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research


Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy