Agenda of Planning Committee

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use, transport and infrastructure strategies and policies relating to planning, growth, housing and the appropriate provision of enabling infrastructure, as well as programmes and strategic projects associated with these activities. The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

· relevant regional strategy and policy

· transportation

· infrastructure strategy and policy

· Unitary Plan, including plan changes (but not any wholesale review of the Plan)

· Resource Management Act and relevant urban planning legislation framework

· oversight of Council’s involvement in central government strategies, plans or initiatives that impact on Auckland’s future land use and infrastructure

· Auckland Plan implementation reporting on priorities and performance measures

· structure plans and spatial plans

· housing policy and projects

· city centre and waterfront development

· regeneration and redevelopment programmes

· built and cultural heritage, including public art

· urban design

· acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and in accordance with the LTP

· working with and receiving advice from the Heritage Advisory Panel, the Rural Advisory Panel and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board to give visibility to the issues important to the communities they represent and to help effect change.

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) If a policy or project relates primarily to the responsibilities of the Planning Committee, but aspects require additional decisions by the Environment and Climate Change Committee and/or the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, then the Planning Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on behalf of those other committee(s). For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to more than one of those committees for decisions.

(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).

Auckland Plan Values

The Auckland Plan 2050 outlines a future that all Aucklanders can aspire to. The values of the Auckland Plan 2050 help us to understand what is important in that future:

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 Thursday, 5 March 2020, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

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

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

6 Local Board Input

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

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

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

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 a Notice of Motion has been received from Councillor Walker for consideration under item 9.

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion Councillor Wayne Walker 26 May 2020	11
b ⇩	Supporting information for Notice of Motion on an Auckland Water Conservation Campaign	13

Planning Committee

04 June 2020

Project proposals for the joint Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bid to the second round of the Innovating Streets pilot fund

File No.: CP2020/06423

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek Planning Committee approval of the proposed list of projects for further development and inclusion in Auckland Council and Auckland Transport's submission to the second round of the Waka Kotahi NZTA Innovating Streets for People pilot fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 7 May 2020 the Emergency Committee approved Auckland Transport and Auckland Council's joint bid to round one of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s (Waka Kotahi) Innovating Streets Pilot Fund (ISPF) (CP2020/05144). The package comprised 12 Auckland Transport led projects and three Panuku Development Auckland led projects.

3. The Emergency Committee also approved the process for developing proposals to include in the second round bid and a criteria by which they would be assessed prior to their submission to Waka Kotahi.

4. Expressions of interest (EOI) for the joint bid to the second round of the ISPF were developed by a range of departments from Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Panuku Development Auckland, and Kāinga Ora.

5. Local boards were invited to submit EOIs for projects. Ward councillors, Mana Whenua and stakeholders have also been engaged in development of the second round bid.

6. A total of 45 EOIs were received by the joint Auckland Transport and Auckland Council project team (see below for the full list of EOIs). In order to encourage alignment with ISPF requirements and council’s strategic priorities, participants in the EOI process were required to self-assess their projects against the Emergency Committee approved criteria.

7. The joint project team will undertake a quality control exercise to check the suitability of each EOI for further development and eventual submission to Waka Kotahi for funding consideration. This work will take place subsequent to agenda close but prior to the Planning Committee meeting on 4 June 2020. It will take into account the criteria approved by the Emergency Committee and feedback on the EOIs received from elected members.

8. A list of projects recommended for inclusion in the second round bid to Waka Kotahi will be distributed to committee members under separate cover on 3 June 2020. It is likely that not all of the 45 EOIs received will be recommended for further development and potential inclusion in the second round bid.

9. Subject to Planning Committee approval, the EOIs on the recommended list will be further developed into full project proposals. It is possible that through this process, and in response to feedback from Waka Kotahi, some of the projects approved for further development will be found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the second round bid. Staff therefore recommend that the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member be delegated the authority to sign off the final list of projects for submission to Waka Kotahi.

10. The deadline for second round bids is 3 July 2020. An announcement by Waka Kotahi on successful applications will be made on 31 July 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Auckland Transport and Auckland Council’s proposed list of projects for further development and likely submission to the second application round of the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency Innovating Streets for People pilot fund closing on 3 July 2020

b) delegate the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member with authority to approve the final submission to Waka Kotahi after the project proposals have been fully developed.

Horopaki

Context

11. On 8 May 2020, following Emergency Committee approval the previous day (see report), Auckland Transport and Auckland Council submitted 15 applications to round one of the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s (Waka Kotahi) Innovating Streets Pilot Fund. The first application package included 12 applications for AT project proposals and three applications submitted on behalf of Panuku Development Auckland.

12. Following the ISPF application development process agreed at the Emergency Committee meeting, the Auckland Transport and Auckland Council ISPF project team prepared a preliminary list of projects to be further developed and subsequently submitted to Waka Kotahi for the second application round.

13. Expressions of interest (EOIs) – essentially outline proposals – for the second round of projects were sought from local boards, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport departments, Panuku, Kāinga Ora and stakeholders. Kāinga Ora are ineligible to apply to the fund in their own right as they are not a Road Controlling Authority or Territorial Authority approved to receive funding from the National Land Transport Fund. They have been invited to submit their project proposals for consideration for the joint Auckland Council / Auckland Transport application.

14. Local boards, ward councillors and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum were given the opportunity to provide feedback on these EOIs between 25 and 29 May. This feedback informed the work undertaken by the ISPF project team to assess the proposals against an agreed set of criteria to ensure strategic alignment. More detail on the EOIs received from each source is provided in paragraphs 21 to 29.

15. The proposed list of projects for submission will be distributed to Planning Committee members under separate cover on 3 June 2020. Subject to approval by the Planning Committee, these projects will be further developed into a full application package for submission to Waka Kotahi. Mana whenua and key stakeholders will be engaged in the development of final project proposals.

16. Given processes’ tight timeframes, the likely variability in alignment with council’s strategic priorities and Waka Kotahi’s criteria, and the novel nature of the proposals themselves it is probable that some of the EOIs received will not be recommended for further development.

17. Similarly, as projects are fleshed out during the development phase, and as further feedback is received from Waka Kotahi, it is possible that some projects may prove to be infeasible, may not fully meet the Waka Kotahi criteria or may need to be amended from what was originally proposed. Staff therefore recommend that the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, be delegated to approve the final list of project proposals prior to their submission to Waka Kotahi.

18. The application window for round two closes on 3 July 2020, and an announcement by Waka Kotahi on applications will be made on 31 July 2020.

19. Staff have been in frequent contact with Waka Kotahi throughout the process of developing bids for rounds one and two, and in the context of the Covid-19 emergency response work refund application. Waka Kotahi has consistently stated its high expectations for the quality of applications, particularly with regards to stakeholder engagement, monitoring and design. By following an application development approach that prioritises project quality over quantity, the ISPF project team aims to meet Waka Kotahi’s expectations in the second funding round.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Forty-five EOIs were received from a number of sources as candidates for further development and potential inclusion in the eventual submission to Waka Kotahi.

Source	Number of EOIs	Additional comments
Local boards	17
AT	8 + 1 on behalf of Tāmaki Regeneration + 1 on behalf of Architect and Urban Designer, Ken Davis (endorsed by Cr Darby)	One of these EOIs applies to 10 local board areas
Auckland Council	11	Three of these EOIs apply to 7, 7 and 2 local board areas respectively
Panuku	3	One of these EOIs is in partnership with AT and applies to 2 local board areas
Kāinga Ora	4
Total	45

Local board and stakeholder expressions of interest

21. Local boards were provided the opportunity to submit an EOI for a project they would like to see developed in their board area. Departmental responses on the EOIs were provided back to the local boards for their consideration.

22. Selected region wide stakeholders such as Bike Auckland and Living Streets Aotearoa were also provided the opportunity to submit funding proposals through local boards.

23. Once all EOIs had been received Local Boards were also asked to provide feedback on all the projects relevant to their area.

24. At the time of writing staff were unable to confirm the combined value of the 17 EOIs from local boards. These include:

· Hillsborough Primary School safer streets intervention – Puketāpapa

· Maungakiekie Tāmaki Low Traffic Neighborhoods (LTNs) – Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

· The Pt Chevalier ‘Bird’ Streets - a low traffic neighbourhood – Albert-Eden

· Re-imagining Surfdale Precinct – co-design for improved safety, cycling and walking – Waiheke

· Okahu Bay Wharf & Tamaki Drive Cycleway/Pedestrian Improvements – Ōrākei

· Mangere East pedestrian improvements including Massey Road – Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

· Glen Eden Town Centre pop-up cycleway: Captain Scott Road to Savoy Road – Waitākere Ranges

· Finlayson Avenue traffic calming – Manurewa

· Clevedon Village Welcome and Slow Tactical Urbanism Project – Franklin

· Al Fresco Fridays - Pop up outdoor dining and entertainment areas in the three town centres – Devonport-Takapuna

· Broadway Papakura – shared space – Papakura

· Wakefield Park – Waitematā

· Papatoetoe Speed Management Programme – Ōtara-Papatoetoe

· Whau Town Centre Connections – Whau

· Shared path on western half of Oteha Valley Road – Upper Harbour

· Glenfield – Beach Haven Wharf cycle lanes – Kaipātiki

· Trialling Bike Safety Improvements and Tactical Intersections – Henderson-Massey.

Expressions of interest from Auckland Council departments

25. Eleven EOIs were received from Auckland Council departments with a combined value of approximately $2m:

· Tāmaki Makaurau Open Streets – Albert-Eden, Franklin, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā

· Pavement to Parklet – Albert-Eden, Waitākere Ranges

· Sherwood/Stanmore Modal Filters – Waitematā

· Ōtāhuhu Canal Reserve Portage project – Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

· Street Activation Inverness Rd, Browns Bay – Hibiscus and Bays

· Tyler Street Pedestrianisation Trial – Waitematā

· Creating Safer Streets – Emily Place – Waitematā

· Federal Street Laneway (Swanson to Fanshawe) – Waitematā

· Play street pilot for Tāmaki Makaurau – Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Papakura, Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges, Whau

· Safe, Accessible, Connected Streets project - Cross Street and West Terrace – Waitematā

· Te Tōangaroa - Quay Park, Eastern Gateway – Waitematā.

Expressions of interest from Auckland Transport

26. Projects submitted from Auckland Transport staff are in alignment with existing programmes, such as the Connected Communities programme, and have a combined value of $6m:

· Connected Communities:

o Ponsonby Road

o Sandringham Road

o Manukau Road

o Newmarket

· School Pavement Artwork – Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges, Whau

· Safe and Healthy Streets South Auckland (SHSSA) - Safe school streets – Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

· Royal Oak roundabout – Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

· Cut through Pavement Marking – Waitematā

· Activate City Fringe Walking Routes – Waitematā

· No Exit Streets Retrofit for People – Henderson-Massey

· Continuous Pavement Pilot – Waitematā

· Devonport safer street initiative (on behalf of Architect and Urban Designer, Ken Davis) – Devonport-Takapuna.

Expressions of interest from Panuku

27. Panuku Developments Auckland submitted three EOIs, of which one was a combined EOI with Auckland Transport. The combined value of these proposals is $2.3m:

· Pukekohe – Eat Streets and Laneway Enhancements – Franklin

· Manukau – Safe and Healthy Streets South Auckland – Manurewa-Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe

· Panmure – Putting people first. Strengthening neighbourhood connections and mainstreet vitality – Maungakiekie-Tāmaki.

Other expressions of interest

28. Other EOIs were submitted by Kāinga Ora, Tamaki Regeneration, with a combined value of approximately $500,000:

· Kāinga Ora

o Mangere: “Mangere, it’s time to Thrive” – Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

o Oranga: “Connecting Oranga” – Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

o Roskill South & Waikowhai: “Putting Roskill on the Map” – Puketāpapa

o Ōwairaka Temporary Greenway Albert-Eden

· Tamaki Regeneration – Maungakiekie-Tāmaki.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. The transport sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the Auckland region, accounting for around 40 per cent of Auckland’s total emissions. Increased support and prioritisation of zero and low emissions modes of transport, such as active transport and micromobility modes, will help reduce these emissions.

30. The interventions supported by the Innovating Streets for People pilot fund enable a reduction of transport emissions by encouraging increased take up of walking and cycling. This supports Auckland Council’s ability to achieve its climate goals and is well aligned with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework and with the in-principle changes to this framework endorsed by the Environment and Climate Change Committee (ECC/2020/12).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Panuku and Kāinga Ora are following an aligned approach for the ISPF submission and are working together to develop a joint application package for round two funding.

32. EOIs have been submitted by relevant Auckland Council departments (Arts, Community and Events; Auckland Design Office; Community Facilities; Development Programme Office; Parks, Sports and Recreation) and local boards, as well as Auckland Transport, Panuku and Kāinga Ora.

33. Ward councillors, local boards and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum were given the opportunity to provide feedback on EOIs. The project lead team has sought guidance from the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on an engagement process with mana whenua and will follow this process in the further development of a full application for submission to Waka Kotahi. If the application is successful there will be a need to implement, coordinate and monitor the outcomes of those projects that receive funding. This will be jointly coordinated by Auckland Transport and staff from across the Auckland Council family. Successful projects will be implemented using a co-design approach with communities and mana whenua.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

34. The types of projects that Waka Kotahi seek to promote through this fund will have positive impacts on local communities in terms of the outcomes that are reflected in the assessment criteria.

35. Local boards were invited to submit EOIs from within their areas. Local boards and ward councillors were also given the opportunity to provide feedback on the list of project proposals from across Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Panuku and Kāinga Ora. Local board projects will be assessed against the purpose of the fund and Auckland Council’s own strategic criteria, while local board feedback will also be considered in the assessment process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. The Innovating Streets fund encourages community-led interventions to transform urban spaces into safe and liveable spaces for people. There are opportunities to tap into the creativity and local knowledge of Māori communities in Tāmaki Makaurau to create urban interventions that address community needs and provide a strong sense of place.

37. One of the criteria used to assess projects considered their ability to contribute positively to Māori outcomes, by adopting a design or project approach founded on Māori principles, or by helping to advance Māori wellbeing, through active Māori participation, improved access to marae, kura, kohanga, papakāinga or employment, for example.

38. The project lead team has sought guidance from the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on an engagement process with mana whenua and will follow this process in the further development of a full application for submission to Waka Kotahi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

39. The funding provided by Waka Kotahi for piloting or testing of temporary interventions is likely to reduce design time and increase financial security for permanent improvements in the future. Trialing of real-life options for more permanent activities can also reduce or avoid potential costs associated with the redesign of interventions in case desired outcomes could not be achieved.

40. The proposed high levels of funding assistance from Waka Kotahi (up to 90 per cent of a project’s value) will potentially result in higher cost-benefit ratios for Auckland Council projects, as the fund is an opportunity to learn and deliver better outcomes for communities on a pathway to permanence.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. There is a risk that Auckland Council may not be able to afford the local share of 10 per cent of the project cost needed to implement interventions under the Innovating Streets for People pilot fund, particularly given the present circumstances and the need to significantly amend the draft Annual Plan 20/21. This risk has been mitigated, at least in part, by requiring projects to demonstrate local share funding availability before submission to Waka Kotahi. Nevertheless, until the uncertainty around Auckland Council's annual plan is resolved the availability of local share funding will remain a risk for projects included in the bid to Waka Kotahi.

42. Waka Kotahi’s Criteria 2: Ability to Deliver requires a co-design approach with community and key stakeholders in the development and delivery of projects. The possibility that unified community support for local interventions cannot be achieved through the co-design process within the required timeframe poses an additional risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43. The proposed list of projects to be further developed into a full submission for the second application round of the fund will be circulated under separate cover prior to the committee meeting on 4 June 2020.

44. Subject to Planning Committee approval, the list of proposed projects will be further developed by their respective project leads into full applications between 8 and 26 June 2020.

45. Completed applications will then be collated and reviewed by the ISFP project team and, subject to approval by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, submitted as a full application package to Waka Kotahi by the 3 July 2020 deadline. Planning Committee will be advised of the full application package.

46. Waka Kotahi will announce successful applicants for round two funding by 31 July 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Lisa Bloss - Transport Advisor

Robert Simpson – Transport Strategy Manager

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2020

Auckland Council submission on the proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality: Particulate Matter and Mercury Emissions

File No.: CP2020/03757

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse Auckland Council’s submission on the proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality: Particulate Matter and Mercury Emissions.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Ministry for the Environment released a consultation document (link) on 26 February 2020 setting out the proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality: Particulate Matter and Mercury Emissions. The original consultation period ended on 24 April 2020, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the submission deadline was extended.

3. The proposed amendments aim to better regulate fine particulate material that can adversely affect human health and to better target controllable sources of air pollution. The amendments specifically relate to the standards for particulate matter concentrations within airsheds, emissions standards for domestic fuel burners and the emission of mercury.

4. The draft Auckland Council submission (Attachment A) supports the proposals in general, as they seek to achieve improved air quality outcomes.

5. Local boards, mana whenua and relevant council-controlled organisations were provided with an opportunity to contribute. Feedback from both Albert-Eden and Aotea / Great Barrier local boards has been received, and that input has been considered in finalising the submission.

6. It is envisaged that Cabinet will receive advice on the proposals in late 2020, following the general election.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse Auckland Council’s draft submission on the proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality: Particulate Matter and Mercury Emissions (included as Attachment A of the agenda report)

b) delegate authority to the Chair of the Planning Committee, Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve any minor changes necessary to the submission before dispatch to central government.

Horopaki

Context

7. On 26 February 2020 central government released its proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality. The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) was introduced in 2004 and last amended in 2011. It sets standards for outdoor air quality, woodburner emissions, and rules prohibiting certain activities with significant discharges of toxic pollutants.

8. Air is taonga and is valued for its life supporting capacity. The quality of air affects our environment, health, cultural lifestyle, and standard of living.

9. Air pollution has been described as the biggest environmental risk to human health globally. Exposure to particulate matter, particularly fine particles, can cause disease and premature death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes, and exacerbate asthma and emphysema.

10. While air quality is an issue that affects all Aucklanders, those who are most vulnerable are impacted the most. The social cost from air pollution in Auckland is estimated at $1.10 billion per year, and that there are approximately 260 premature deaths in the region caused by air pollution^{^[1]}.

11. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) seeks to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the air and sets out the framework for managing sources of air pollutants. The NESAQ sets consistent and acceptable minimum standards for certain activities that have the potential to adversely affect air quality. These interlinked standards regulate air quality, covering particulate matter and other pollutants.

12. The NESAQ sets standards for regional and unitary councils to manage their airsheds^{^[2]} and requires monitoring where standards are likely to be breached. Auckland Council is required to enforce observance of the NESAQ and demonstrate the level of compliance with the standards to central government.

13. The Auckland Unitary Plan regulates the discharge of contaminants from many industrial, commercial and residential activities that have the potential to adversely affect air quality. However, to regulate the use of indoor domestic fires, Auckland Council recently developed the Air Quality Bylaw for Indoor Domestic Fires 2017. The bylaw regulates what can and cannot be burnt in an indoor domestic fire (for example it prohibits the burning of wet wood or wood that is painted, tanalised or treated) and sets standards for new (installed, replaced or retrofitted) indoor fireplaces.

14. Auckland Council has 10 regulatory air quality monitoring sites. Particulate matter is measured at nine of these sites (located in Glen Eden, Pakuranga, Henderson, Papatoetoe, Khyber Pass, Queen Street, Patumahoe, Penrose and Takapuna)^{^[3]}.

15. The proposed amendments to the NESAQ aim to better regulate fine particulate matter that can adversely affect human health and to better target controllable sources of air pollution.

16. Central government has recognised that the mauri and hau of our air can be compromised in many ways, particularly through the release of contaminants. The proposed amendments to the NESAQ seek to improve the quality of our air, consistent with Māori aspirations to protect and enhance the mauri and hau of our air.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. The proposed amendments to the NESAQ comprises three discrete components:

· amendments to the particulate matter standards

· amendments to the domestic fuel burner standards

· introduction of standards for mercury emissions.

Particulate matter standards – proposed amendments

18. The NESAQ currently limits particulate matter (PM) contaminants in our air. PM is a collective term for particles suspended in the air that are small enough to be inhaled. PM can be generated from both human activities and natural sources.

19. PM is often classified according to its size because size determines how it interacts with the environment and the human body. PM10 has a diameter of 10 micrometres (μm) or less and PM2.5 has a diameter of less than 2.5μm and is a subset of the PM10 range.

20. A growing body of international evidence has shown that finer particles have the potential to cause harm to humans and that PM2.5 has significant health impacts. These particles can penetrate deep into the lungs, can enter the bloodstream and cause a range of health impacts, from asthma to more chronic respiratory disease.

21. For the purpose of determining an exceedance against the standard, PM concentrations are measured in μg/m³(micrograms per cubic metre).

22. Since the implementation of the NESAQ, the lack of a PM2.5 standard has been discussed through various avenues, and it is accepted by many (including the OECD Environmental Performance Review and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) that a PM2.5 standard is a sensible regulatory threshold.

23. Amendments to PM standards within the NESAQ include:

· implementation of a daily (24hr) average PM_2.5standard of 25 μg/m³ (three or less exceedances allowed in a 12-month period)

· implementation of an annual average PM_2.5standard of 10 μg/m³

· replacing the current PM₁₀ standard with PM_2.5standards as the primary measure for managing air quality (whilst retaining the PM₁₀ standard and requirement to monitor for coarse particles)

· requirement to publicly notify any exceedances of PM_2.5and PM₁₀ standards

· changes to the way airsheds are determined as being polluted and subsequent mitigation requirements are triggered.

24. In short, these amendments will mean that in addition to having a daily standard for PM10, PM concentrations will also be monitored and managed through a maximum daily average concentration of PM_2.5 and an annual average concentration of PM_2.5. Rather than being triggered by PM₁₀ exceedances, existing mitigation measures will instead be triggered by the exceedance of PM_2.5standards. All exceedances of these standards will have to be publicly notified.

25. At present, when the PM₁₀ standard is breached, the following mitigation requirements are triggered:

· the discharge of particles into the polluted airshed from an open fire, installed after the threshold is breached, is prohibited (this only applies to structures that burn solid fuel and cannot effectively control the rate of air supply to the combustion zone) (regulation 24A)

· declining new resource consent applications for certain PM₁₀ discharges in polluted airsheds (discharges that are likely to increase the concentration of PM₁₀ by more than 2.5 μg/m³ in any part of a polluted airshed other than the site on which the consent would be exercised) (regulation 17).

26. The airshed continues to be deemed polluted, and the mitigation requirements apply, until the PM₁₀standard has not been breached in the previous five years.

27. The proposed amendments would alter these mitigation requirements to be triggered by a breach of the daily or annual PM_2.5standards.

Domestic fuel burner standards - proposed amendments

Overview of Proposals

28. Central government is also proposing amendments to more stringently manage domestic burners using solid fuel (hereafter referred to as domestic burners). Specifically the emission standard for new domestic burners is proposed to be reduced to no more than 1.0g/kg (down from 1.5g/kg) and it is proposed that regulations pertaining to emissions limits and thermal efficiency be expanded to include all types of domestic burners (including coal burners, multi-fuel burners, pellet burners, open fires, cookers, and water boilers) that are newly installed. Properties larger than two hectares would remain excluded from the provisions.

29. This proposed amendment would only apply to domestic burners installed after the amended regulations come into effect (likely following the 2020 general election). It would cover the installation of any domestic burner (whether new, used or refurbished). Existing domestic burners could continue to be operated, provided they were installed legally.

30. Since the release of the NESAQ in 2011, domestic burner technology has improved. Central government is proposing stricter emissions standards for all new domestic burners using solid fuel and considers that this will continue to drive innovation to further reduce emissions. There are both wood burners and pellet burners currently available in New Zealand that would meet the proposed new standard. Coal or multi-burners would not meet the new standard.

Mercury emissions standards - proposed amendments

Overview of Proposals

31. New Zealand signed the Minamata Convention on Mercury in 2013. In order to ratify this Convention, one of the three main steps needed is to set controls on emissions to air from mercury. Central government is proposing that the NESAQ will:

· prohibit the use of mercury in identified industrial processes listed within Annex B of the Convention. These have not been carried out in New Zealand, and they are not likely to be as technology has improved and alternative mercury-free processes are available; and

· require applications for new activities (specified in Annex D of the Convention) to consider international best practice guidance. This only applies to new or substantially modified pollutant sources and few point sources fall within these source categories (except coal-fired industrial boilers). It is highly unlikely there will be resource consent applications to operate a new facility for particular industrial processes involving mercury.

Proposed Auckland Council key submission points

32. The draft submission contains the following key points:

High-level points:

· while elsewhere in New Zealand, PM pollution is caused disproportionately by domestic heating sources, in Auckland, transport is also a large contributor of PM emissions

· support in principle the more stringent regulation of air quality in New Zealand

· the interaction between air pollution and climate change should be addressed in a more integrated way^{^[4]}

· current standards do not adequately regulate gaseous pollutants and need reviewing

· there is a need for alignment with other policy and legislation.

PM standards:

· support that the proposed PM_2.5standards should replace the PM₁₀standard as the primary standard for managing PM

· support both the 24hr average PM_2.5standard of 25 µg/m³, and the annual average PM_2.5standard of 10 µg/m³. Both are considered reasonable standards to implement and represent a sufficiently effective approach to managing air pollution

· highlight that Auckland has significant PM_2.5 contributions from transport sources (largely on-road vehicle exhaust emissions), that are largely outside the control of Auckland Council

· consider that the Auckland Airsheds could comply with the PM_2.5standards, given that the 24hr PM_2.5 standard of 25 μg/m³ has been complied with since 2015 and the annual PM_2.5standard of 10 μg/m³ has been complied with since 2009 (although it is notable that this assumption is based on monitoring at only four sites across Auckland)

· highlight that there are financial implications of the proposed amendments, particularly in relation to monitoring. Auckland Council has 10 regulatory air quality monitoring sites, with PM₁₀measured at nine. At present Auckland Council is also monitoring PM_2.5 at four of these sites, however there would be a need to co-locate PM_2.₅with PM₁₀monitoring equipment at the remaining five sites. There is also a need to monitor PM_2.5in the Rural Town Airshed (likely to be within one of the towns of Warkworth, Kumeu or Pukekohe) where monitoring is not currently occurring

· support the retention of the PM₁₀ standards as it can regulate different air pollutant sources

· request that the threshold at which an airshed is determined to be polluted is lifted as it is currently unnecessarily stringent and will result in airsheds that have generally acceptable air quality being deemed ‘polluted’

· request that natural sources of PM be subtracted from the total PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ when reporting compliance against the respective thresholds

· do not support offsetting measures in polluted airsheds as the measures are not sufficiently developed for application, is not likely to be equitable and unfairly puts the burden on industry. The offsetting measures do not encourage existing polluters to reduce emissions. Rather, all the burden is on future potential polluters, and effectively disallows any expansion of consented industry.

· suggest that careful consideration must be given to the way in which existing PM_2.5datasets are used to determine pollution status

· highlight that there is considerable uncertainty for councils around ‘exceptional circumstances’^{^[5]} and there is a large resource requirement and an administrative burden associated with the process. There is a need for more clarity and guidance on the matter.

Domestic fuel burner standards:

· support the new more stringent emissions standard for newly installed domestic burners

· seek national direction on the way domestic burners are used – regulation to prohibit the burning of certain materials, considering that this kind of complementary approach is provided in the Auckland Air Quality Bylaw for Indoor Domestic Fires 2017

· suggest that central government explore whether standards should also apply to existing domestic burners, or whether there should be progressive phasing out of such ‘pre-NES’ burners. This is particularly relevant given that some existing burners are likely to be equipped to burn coal (a significant source of PM and greenhouse gases)

· suggest that it may be more appropriate that the NESAQ be aligned to the National Planning Standards, and the Zone Framework Standards. It may be that the proposed, somewhat arbitrary, 2 ha threshold has unintended consequences. For example, in some rural areas, land parcels may be smaller than 2 ha (e.g. a farmhouse on a separate title to the productive land, rural communities on islands), and as such the NESAQ clauses relating to the installation of domestic burner standards would apply regardless of the likelihood of the PM_2.5standards being exceeded

· suggest that central government consider the ways in which existing policy can be used to achieve air quality outcomes (e.g. Healthy Homes Heating Standards)

· the regulation should allow Auckland Council to amend its bylaw to give effect to the NESAQ without using the Local Government Act 2002 Special Consultative Procedure. Similar statutory provisions are provided in section 199 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and section 446 of the Food Act 2014. This will enable a bylaw to be amended as a procedural matter.

Mercury emissions standards:

· support the inclusion of standards relating to mercury emissions. They are likely to have very little practical impact on existing practices in the Auckland region

· note that affected industry are better placed to comment on any implications of this proposal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. While the primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to improve air quality, it may also have other benefits in terms of climate change mitigation. The proposed amendments are likely to accelerate the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

34. Specifically, the reductions are likely to arise from the retirement of old wood burners and their replacement by NESAQ compliant heaters or other heating methods, implementation of bans on new coal fires in some locations, and a gradual increase in the use of ultra-low emission burners (ULEBs).

35. Wood and coal burners discharge Black Carbon, a form of PM that has significant impacts on climate. Reducing PM discharges from solid fuel heaters will also reduce Black Carbon and other greenhouse gases.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36. Auckland Council staff with roles in Regulatory Services, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research, Community and Social Policy, and Plans and Places have contributed to the development of the Auckland Council submission.

37. Watercare, Auckland Transport, Panuku and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development were invited to provide feedback to council staff on the proposed amendments. At the time of authorisation of this report, no feedback had been received.

38. Should the proposed amendments come into effect, there will be several impacts for council. As the standards have changed, the monitoring network will need to reflect the new requirements. The financial impacts of this are discussed in the financial impacts section of this report.

39. The Air Quality Bylaw for Indoor Domestic Fires 2017 will need also need to be amended, however Auckland Council has requested that it amend its bylaw without using the Local Government Act 2002 Special Consultative Procedure. This will enable a bylaw to be amended as a procedural matter.

40. Furthermore, Regulatory Services would need to evaluate their current processes for consenting to ensure that the new standards are applied.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

41. Local boards were notified of the proposed submission opportunity with an information memo on 11 March 2020 and provided with a copy of the draft submission on 8 May. Feedback received by 18 May is addressed in the submission. Feedback received from Albert-Eden and Aotea / Great Barrier Local Boards was broadly supportive of the draft submission.

42. Specifically, Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board highlighted the potential impacts of the standards relating to domestic fuel burners for rural off-grid communities, noting the islands reliance on domestic burners to heat homes and cook food. The draft submission suggests that the NESAQ be aligned with National Planning Standards, and the Zone Framework Standards which will mean the standards relating to domestic burners do not apply to communities such as Aotea / Great Barrier.

43. Albert-Eden Local board highlighted that the board area has a range of sources of air pollution including several motorways, many arterial roads, as well as significant levels of older buildings that have older fireplaces as a form of heating. Albert-Eden Local Board were supportive of the proposed amendments, citing health benefits that should be expected from more stringent controls.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. Central government has recognised that the mauri and hau of our air can be compromised in many ways, particularly through the release of contaminants. The proposed amendments are seeking to improve the quality of air in New Zealand, and as such, the mauri and hau of the air is likely to be improved, therefore the cultural values upheld.

45. Air pollution has been described as the biggest environmental risk to human health globally and while air quality is an issue that affects all Aucklanders, it is important to recognise that those who are most vulnerable are impacted the most. Māori communities are vulnerable to the adverse health impacts of poor air quality. As the proposed amendments seek to more stringently regulate PM pollution and improve air quality, there are likely to be positive health impacts.

46. Mana whenua representatives and the Independent Māori Statutory Board were notified of the proposed submission opportunity with a memo on 11 March 2020 and provided with a copy of the draft submission on 9 May. At the date of agenda report authorisation, no mana whenua or Independent Māori Statutory Board feedback was received. Any changes identified and agreed in principle at committee can be included prior to final sign-off by the delegated members, which is recommended to include a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47. If the proposed amendments to the NESAQ are adopted, it is expected that there will be financial implications for Auckland Council. This is primarily due to the need to install and operate monitoring equipment to measure PM_2.5concentrations in all of Auckland Council’s existing regulatory air quality monitoring sites, and within the Auckland Rural Town Airshed.

48. Initial estimates suggest that, depending on the type of monitoring equipment used, the cost of installing five PM_2.5 monitors would be between ~$220,000- $430,000 in total, and an additional total operating cost of ~$25,000 - $35,000 per annum would be expected. If the NESAQ is enacted as proposed, the additional resources required to meet these statutory obligations cannot be accommodated within existing resources without additional budget or changes to work priorities.

49. If the proposed amendments are adopted, there would also be a requirement for Auckland Council to amend the Air Quality Bylaw for Indoor Domestic Fires 2017 to ensure that it is consistent with the NESAQ, which could have financial implications. Council intends to request that MfE provide for the amendment of bylaws, without the requirement to use the Local Government Act 2002 Special Consultative Procedure, to reduce the associated costs.

50. As proposed, the offsetting and mitigation requirements may have financial implications for industry and/or new parties wishing to gain a consent. In the draft submission, we have requested that a fairer and more equitable method of mitigation be considered.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. There is a risk that there may be a level of public concern about some aspects of the proposed amendments to the NESAQ, and in turn about Auckland Council’s position. However, there is a growing awareness that there is a need for improved air quality, and a need to reduce emissions. Accordingly, it is likely that there is less public perception risk than in the past. More broadly, these proposals have been in development for some years and the industry that imports or manufactures wood burners are aware of the direction of travel.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. The approved Auckland Council submission will be submitted to MfE prior to the extended closing date for submissions of 31 July 2020.

53. Following the close of the consultation period, central government staff will consider the submissions received. It is understood that advice is scheduled to be put to Cabinet for decision in late 2020, following the general election.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Auckland Council submission on proposed amendments to the National Envrionmental Standards for Air Quality June 2020	33

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jessica Gerry - Analyst – Strategy

Paul Crimmins – Senior Specialist, Regulatory Services

Dave Allen - Manager Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2020

COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill - approval process for Auckland Council submission

File No.: CP2020/06763

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To delegate authority to members of the Planning Committee to approve the council’s submission on the upcoming COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Government has announced a major element of its COVID-19 rebuild plan with a law change to fast-track eligible development and infrastructure projects under the Resource Management Act (RMA). The fast-track process is designed as a short-term intervention to help with economic recovery from COVID-19. It is intended that the legislation will be repealed in two years, and that existing Treaty of Waitangi settlements, the sustainable management purpose of the RMA and existing national direction under the RMA will be upheld.

3. Some large-scale Government-led projects, including those in the New Zealand Transport Agency’s National Land Transport Programme, will be named in the legislation to go through the fast-track consent process. Some works by Government agencies will be able to start “as of right” (presumably without any form of resource consent). A number of “shovel-ready” projects identified by the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group are also likely to be accelerated under the fast-track consenting process.

4. The Minister for the Environment will determine which projects will enter the fast-track resource consenting process for public and private-led projects, with reference to criteria, and with projects named through Orders in Council. Designations for public assets and infrastructure can also be part of the fast-track process. The resource consent applications for these projects will be processed by an Expert Consenting Panel. Once a project is referred to the Panel, it is likely the resource consent will be granted.

5. The changes were recently approved by Cabinet and new legislation is expected to be passed in June. The Bill itself is therefore on a fast-track process. It has not yet been released, however this is likely to occur by mid-June. In order to meet the end of June timeframe for enactment set by the Government, it appears likely the council and others will have a very short period of time to make submissions (i.e. potentially a matter of days).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve the council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Government has announced a major element of its COVID-19 rebuild plan with a law change that will fast track eligible development and infrastructure projects under the RMA. The Government considers that the sorts of projects that would benefit from quicker consenting include roading, walking and cycling, rail, housing, sediment removal from silted rivers and estuaries, new wetland construction, flood management works, and projects to prevent landfill erosion. The changes were approved by Cabinet last week and new legislation is expected to be passed in June.

7. Minister for the Environment David Parker has stated that:

“We are acting quickly to get the economy moving again and our people working. Part 2 of the RMA will still be applied. Projects are being advanced in time, but environmental safeguards remain. We went hard and early to beat the virus and now we’re doing the same to get the economy moving too. The success of our health response gives us a head start on the world to get our economy moving again and this fast-tracking process will allow our economic recovery to accelerate.

The consenting and approval processes that are used in normal circumstances don’t provide the speed and certainty we need now in response to the economic fallout from COVID-19. The new processes will get projects started sooner and people into jobs faster. Investment in infrastructure is central to the Government’s economic plan to keep New Zealanders in jobs.

We have already signaled major projects as part of the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade project. Ideas from district and regional councils as well as NGOs and the private sector will be considered. Job-rich projects like core infrastructure, housing, and environmental restoration are crucial to the Government's plan to stimulate the economy and help us recover from the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Projects that help alleviate housing challenges, encourage active transport and enhance the environment are prioritised under the proposal.”

8. Some large-scale Government-led projects, including those in the NZTA’s National Land Transport Programme, will be named in the legislation to go through the fast-track consent process. Some works by Government agencies will be able to start “as of right” (presumably without any form of resource consent).

9. A number of “shovel-ready” projects identified by the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group are also likely to be accelerated under the fast-track consenting process.

10. The fast-track process is designed as a short-term intervention to help with economic recovery from COVID-19. It is intended that the legislation will be repealed in two years, and that existing Treaty of Waitangi settlements, the sustainable management purpose of the RMA and existing national direction under the RMA will be upheld.

11. The Minister for the Environment will determine which projects will enter the fast-track resource consenting process for public and private-led projects, with reference to criteria, and with projects named through Orders in Council. Designations for public assets and infrastructure can also be part of this fast-track process. The resource consent applications for these projects will be processed by an Expert Consenting Panel. Once a project is referred to the Panel there is a high level of certainty the resource consent will be granted.

12. The Expert Consenting Panels will be chaired by a current or retired Environmental Court Judge or senior lawyer. Each Panel will have a person nominated by the relevant local councils and a person nominated by the relevant iwi authorities. The Panels will have expertise in resource management, technical project advice, environmental protection, tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori.

13. The Expert Consenting Panels will issue decisions within 25 working days after receiving comments on the application. This may be increased to 50 days for large scale projects. Appeal rights will be limited to points of law and/or judicial review to the High Court, with one further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. As discussed in the recent memo provided to members of the Planning Committee and local board chairs, the following initial comments are made based on what is known:

· the criteria for “eligible development” should be robust. Only projects that can demonstrate on a preliminary review, their ability to achieve positive economic, environmental and social outcomes, should be eligible. We have not seen the criteria yet

· existing Treaty settlements should be upheld. The Government has indicated this will be the case

· the Expert Consenting Panels should have the appropriate depth and breadth of expertise relative to the project they are considering. The Government has indicated this will be the case

· councils and Mana Whenua should be able to make nominations for people to be appointed to the Expert Consenting Panels. The Government has indicated this will be the case

· strong environmental and social safeguards should be in place for the detailed assessment of projects. The Government has indicated this will be the case. However, a broad assessment against the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act is likely to be inadequate. Council plans (such as the Auckland Unitary Plan) reflect local circumstances, are the result of significant community involvement, and should be given weight in the overall assessment process. It is not clear whether this will be the case

· councils and affected parties/members of the public should be able to make formal comments on projects being considered by the Expert Consenting Panels. The Government has indicated this will be the case, although the opportunities for public involvement are not clear

· the Expert Consenting Panels should be required to respond to comments received and provide clear reasons for their decisions. It is not clear whether this will be the case.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. The matters raised in this report do not have any impact on climate change as they address procedural matters relating to the approval process for the council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. The submission itself will consider the impact of the Bill on climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. Staff will be working with Auckland Transport, Panuku and Watercare on the council’s submission.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

17. Given the likely timeframe between the release of the Bill and the closing date for submissions (potentially a matter of days) it will be very difficult to obtain the views of local boards. Staff are exploring options and will advise the Planning Committee at the meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. Staff involved in preparing the council’s submission include the council’s Māori Outcomes Leads. Staff will also invite Independent Māori Statutory Board staff to participate in the preparation of the submission. In addition, it is recommended that an Independent Māori Statutory Board member forms part of the group delegated to approve the submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19. Any financial implications of the Bill for the council will be considered during the review and preparation of the submission.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20. Advice in relation to the risks and mitigations will be prepared once the contents of the Bill are available.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21. Staff will send a link to the Bill and associated information to the Planning Committee as soon as it is released. The Bill will be reviewed, and a draft submission prepared for the delegated members of the Planning Committee to consider before approving a final version. It is not yet clear whether the council will be able to present its submission to the select committee established to consider submission and finalise the Bill.

22. As noted previously, the Government has indicated the Bill will be enacted by the end of June 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2020

Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings - 4 June 2020

File No.: CP2020/03354

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a summary and public record of memos or briefing papers that have been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo/briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

3. The following information items are attached:

· Auckland Monthly Housing Update February 2020 (Attachment A)

· Auckland Monthly Housing Update April 2020 (Attachment B)

· Auckland Monthly Housing Update May 2020 (Attachment C)

· Auckland Council submission Infrastructure Funding and Finance Bill (Attachment D)

4. The following memos were circulated to members:

· 11 March 2020 – Preparing Auckland Council’s submission on central government’s proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality and an opportunity for input (Attachment E)

· 19 March 2020 – Council submission to the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package (Attachment F)

· 1 May 2020 – City Centre Masterplan refresh complete (Attachment G)

· 13 May 2020 – Update on Supporting Growth Programme - Public engagement for growth areas in southern Auckland (Attachment H)

· 13 May 2020 – Covid-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill (Attachment I)

· 26 May 2020 – Auckland Transport Access for Everyone update (Attachment J)

· 26 May 2020 – Auckland Transport Queen Street Access for Everyone pilot project update (Attachment K)

· 27 May 2020 – Council submission on the proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standard for the Outdoor Storage of Tyres (Attachment L)

· 27 May 2020 – National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture (Attachment M)

· 27 May 2020 – Update on Supporting Growth Programme – route protection projects in northwest Auckland (Attachment N)

5. Staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors of each information item.

6. The attachments for this report have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 4 June 2020 > Extra Attachments

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 4 June 2020 report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update February 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update April 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update May 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Auckland Council submission Infrastructure Funding and Finance Bill (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Preparing Auckland Council’s submission on central government’s proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality and an opportunity for input (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Council submission to the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	City Centre Masterplan refresh complete (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Update on Supporting Growth Programme - public engagement for growth areas in southern Auckland (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Covid-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Auckland Transport Access for Everyone update (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	Auckland Transport Queen Street Access for Everyone pilot project update (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇨	Council submission on the proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standard for the Outdoor Storage of Tyres (Under Separate Cover)
m ⇨	National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture (Under Separate Cover)
n ⇨	Update on Supporting Growth Programme – route protection projects in northwest Auckland (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Duncan Glasgow - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

[1] Research Evaluation and Monitoring Unit (2016) State of Auckland Air Quality Report Card, Available here

[2] A NESAQ airshed is a defined geographic area for air quality management which extends upwards from ground level, with no upper limit. Auckland has three types of airsheds: Auckland Urban Airshed, Auckland Rural Airshed and Auckland Rural Town Airsheds.

[3] At the tenth site, other pollutants are measured.

[4] Noting that at the time of authorization of this report, in relation to the RMA Amendment Bill, the Environment Committee has recommended that the RMA be amended and councils should consider climate change when making and amending regional policy statements, regional plans, and district plans; and authorities should be able to consider climate change when making decisions under the RMA.

[5] When an exceedance of the threshold is measured, unitary and regional councils can apply to the Minister for the Environment who can deem that it was an ‘exceptional circumstance’ and as such exceedance is excluded when determining whether the standard has been breached in that airshed. A recent example is the exceedances of the PM₁₀ standard caused by the accidental fire at the New Zealand International Convention Centre construction site.

Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Richard Hills
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Tracy Mulholland
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Pippa Coom	IMSB Member Liane Ngamane
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Shane Henderson