|
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
Scope
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.
Engagement
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
|
Description
|
|
· Use elected
member and staff knowledge from previous engagement to inform approach
|
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· 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
|
Description
|
|
· 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.
|
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· 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
|
Description
|
|
· Engagement
with stakeholders as per Option 2
· Public
engagement with all Aucklanders
|
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· 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.
Timelines
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.
|
ACTIVITY
|
SEPT
|
OCT
|
NOV
|
DEC
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adoption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
Author
|
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and
Research
|
|
Authoriser
|
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
