Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 6

6.1 Acknowledgement for Winston Halbert 6

6.2 Results of the General Election 2020 6

7 Petitions 7

8 Deputations 7

8.1 Digital screen at 272 Onewa Road, Birkenhead 7

9 Public Forum 8

10 Extraordinary Business 8

11 Auckland Transport Monthly Update 9

12 Little Shoal Bay Reserve Service Assessment 15

13 Cadness Loop Reserve - Development of Open Space 43

14 Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections Business Case 57

15 Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard 59

16 Local board delegations to allow local views to be provided on matters relating to the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 67

17 Local board views on plan change to enable rainwater tank installation for the Auckland region 77

18 Local board views on Plan Change 53 - Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct 81

19 Addition to the 2020 Kaipātiki Local Board meeting schedule 87

20 Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson's Report 91

21 Members' Reports 111

22 Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update 113

23 Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board - October 2020 115

24 Governance Forward Work Calendar 121

25 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

Text

Description automatically generated

2 Apologies

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

3 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.

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii) A non-financial conflict of interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Local Area Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 21 October 2020, as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

6 Acknowledgements

6.1 Acknowledgement for Winston Halbert

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To acknowledge the passing of Shanan Halbert’s father Winston Halbert, and express condolences to Shanan’s family and friends.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 17 October 2020, Winston Halbert, Shanan Halbert’s (MP for Northcote) father sadly passed away on the day of the General Election 2020. The Kaipātiki Local Board would like to express sincere condolences to Shanan Halbert’s family and friends.

3. The local board would also like to acknowledge Winston’s service to Kaipātiki and his frequent journeys to help and support Shanan in his mahi in Kaipātiki.

4. Winston Halbert’s tangi took place at Moawhanga Marae on 20 October 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) acknowledge the passing of Winston Halbert, noting his service to Kaipātiki Local Board area.

b) send its condolences to Shanan Halbert’s family and friends.

6.2 Results of the General Election 2020

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To acknowledge and congratulate the successful candidates of the recent Parliamentary General Election 2020.

2. To acknowledge and thank those who were unsuccessful or no longer standing for their services to the Kaipātiki community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Kaipātiki Local Board would like to acknowledge and congratulate the successful candidates of the General Election 2020, Shanan Halbert for Northcote, Kelvin Davis for Te Tai Tokerau and Vanushi Walters for Upper Harbour.

4. The Kaipātiki Local Board would like to thank Paula Bennett and Dan Bidois for their services to the Kaipātiki community.

5. Paula Bennett served as MP for Upper Harbour from 2014 to 2020, Deputy Leader of the National Party from 2016 to 2020 and Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand between December 2016 and October 2017.

6. Dan Bidois served as an MP for Northcote from June 2018 to October 2020, and was National’s spokesperson for the future of work, and associate spokesperson for workplace relations and safety.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) acknowledge and congratulate the successful candidates of the Parliamentary General Election 2020, Shanan Halbert for Northcote, Kelvin Davis for Te Tai Tokerau and Vanushi Walters for Upper Harbour.

b) acknowledge and thank Paula Bennett and Dan Bidois for their services to the Kaipātiki community.

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Kaipātiki Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Digital screen at 272 Onewa Road, Birkenhead

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this deputation is to update the board regarding the digital screen at 272 Onewa Road, Birkenhead.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Suzanne Harper will be in attendance to address the board in support of this item.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the deputation.

b) thank Suzanne Harper for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a 18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Digital Screen report................................................................................................ 129

b 18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Update from Council.................................................................................................. 135

c 18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Proposed plans 85 - 87 Birkenhead Avenue............................................... 137

d 18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Screen from intersection........................................................................................... 141

e 18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - LED Sign Community Support Birkenhead Business group letter...................... 143

9 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

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

10 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.”

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Auckland Transport November 2020 monthly update	11

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Little Shoal Bay Reserve Service Assessment

File No.: CP2020/12558

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the parks service outcomes developed from the strategic assessment and site surveying processes for Little Shoal Bay Reserve.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The approved Parks Sport and Recreation (PSR) work programme for the 2019/2020 year included the item ‘Little Shoal Bay Service Assessment’ (PSR SharePoint ID: 3347). The assessment involved gathering empirical and observational data on the usage of the reserve to enable a better understanding of how people use the space and identify the key experiences that they value.

3. Conclusions drawn from the surveys have resulted in a number of potential service outcomes being proposed to inform options for future development of the reserve.

4. The results and proposed service outcomes were workshopped with the local board on 1July 2020 and the feedback received has been collated to define future service outcomes to inform long-term management options for the reserve. This will ensure any development aligns with experiences that the community values when visiting the reserve.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) adopt the following key service outcomes for Little Shoal Bay Reserve, noting these outcomes will be used to inform long-term management options for the reserve:

i) enhance opportunities for passive recreational experiences around the foreshore, particularly around the popular eastern areas;

ii) enhance opportunities for active recreational experiences around the eastern side of the reserve north of the road;

iii) improve pedestrian connectivity through the north-western reserve area to facilitate better pedestrian access to Le Roys Bush Reserve;

iv) consider options for rationalisation of the boat hard stand, boat ramps and coastal access provision;

v) retain an open grass area suitable for informal community recreational activities to the north of the road; and

vi) retain a road connection for public vehicle access through the reserve.

Horopaki

Context

5. Coastal inundation of the Little Shoal Bay Reserve area, coupled with the effects on open space due to impacts of the adjoining wetland and stream, has led to a need to develop a framework for the future management of the reserve. It is anticipated that the reserve will look different in the future. Therefore, it is important to understand the experiences that make the reserve special and valued by the community. This will enable a strong case to be made to ensure any potential future development aligns to the experiences that are valued by the community.

6. To better understand the functionality of this reserve a strategic assessment was developed from various surveying processes undertaken by Parks Services during the 2019/2020 financial year.

7. Three separate surveying activities were carried out through the late summer of 2020. These were:

· Aerial photography using drones

· A site interceptor survey

· An observation survey undertaken by staff.

8. The aerial drone photography captured views of the reserve from the same perspective twice a day on the 27^thand 29^th of January, the 1^st, 2^nd 6^th and 8^th of February 2020. Both January 27^th and February 6^th were public holidays.

9. The site interceptor survey was designed to assess what activities users were involved in when they visited the reserve. This was conducted over five days, including two weekdays and three weekend days in February 2020 between 8am and 7pm. A total of 392 people were surveyed. A 400-person sample size is considered large enough to be accurate, reliable and statistically valid. The interviewers asked visitors to identify how often they visited the reserve, which zones they frequented and what activities they were involved in while there.

10. For the site interceptor survey, four distinct environmental zones were identified within the reserve. Analysis of how visitors interacted within and between these zones was considered important to get a clear understanding of how they used and experienced each of these zones (refer to page 8 in Attachment A of the agenda report).

These four zones were:

· Beach;

· Reserve;

· Sports park; and

· Urban Forest /Wetland.

11. An observation survey was also undertaken to determine how the reserve was being used. This was carried out by Parks Services graduates on both the mornings and afternoons of the 8th ,10th, 12th and 14th of February 2020. The survey involved observing the movements and numbers of users in and around the reserve, including a qualitative assessment of how they were using the reserve. The visitor counts were aligned to the four areas used in the interceptor survey with at least 700 visitors and their activities observed.

12. The data was analysed by staff by cross referencing the findings of each survey to establish patterns of use of the reserve. This enabled several conclusions to be drawn about which areas, facilities and activities are most used and valued. The drone footage study was also analysed to identify usage patterns to support the interceptor and observational surveys.

13. The results of these surveys and the proposed service outcomes were workshopped with the local board on 1July 2020. The feedback received from the board highlighted the importance of the existing road through the reserve which currently provides the only vehicle connection between Northcote Point and Birkenhead other than Onewa Road. The board considered that is a key service that is currently provided by Little Shoal Bay Reserve and needs to be included as an additional service outcome. The feedback received has been incorporated to further refine the proposed future service outcomes.

14. At the July workshop the board requested further clarification relating to the future use and management of the sportsfield. The sportsfield currently accommodates mostly informal sporting fixtures during summer months, but the usage of the field is low due to the availability of better-quality fields nearby and other venues providing adequate capacity for the requirements of the current and projected future demand. The Sports Park Specialist teams from Community Services and Community Facilities have confirmed that the regional sporting bodies prefer these other venues for their fixtures, and also noted that the field has many fundamental maintenance and management issues due to its low-lying location, thereby making effective drainage and other development options challenging. This means it is unlikely that funding will be prioritised for upgrading this field, as priority will be given to facilities that can accommodate floodlighting and resilient surfaces that allow for high intensity use.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The drone photography was a snapshot of activity in the reserve at the same time of the day. These images were analysed and revealed how the different areas of the reserve were being used by visitors. These patterns of use were then incorporated into the final assessment for each zone and to support the final conclusions.

16. The interceptor survey results below show the breakdown of the number of visitors to each of the four zones of the survey with many visiting more than one of the zones. Greater detail on these figures is provided in the presentation attached to this report (refer to pages 9-14 of Attachment A in the agenda report).

· 74% (291) visited the beach area

· 83 % (327) visited the reserve area

· 47% (186) visited the sports park area

· 48% (189) visited urban forest/wetland.

17. The top three activities were identified for each zone and percentages and numbers for these are listed below:

Beach zone

· Walking 66% (192)

· Picnicking 39% (114)

· Swimming 34% (99)

Reserve zone

· Walking 63% (205)

· Car parking 54% (175)

· Playground 54% (175)

Sports zone

· Walking 64% (119)

· Sports 41% (77)

· Dog walking 34% (64)

Urban forest/wetland zone

· Walking 86% (163)

· Dog walking 34% (64)

· Running 29% (54)

18. Key findings from each zone studied in the surveys were assessed and the following conclusions were able to be drawn from the combined analysis of these surveys.

19. Key conclusions from combining all the survey material enabled conclusions regarding the usage of the reserve to be drawn. These were determined to be:

· The foreshore around the playground and barbecues is the most popular area in Little Shoal Bay Reserve

· Little Shoal Bay Reserve is well frequented by all age groups for a broad range of activities

· Walking and dog walking are the most popular activities on all zones surveyed

· Passive enjoyment of the reserve in a vehicle is a significant activity

· Carparks are well used. The ‘beach’ and ‘road’ car parks are substantially busier than the other car parks and the bowling club car park is only busy during bowling tournaments

· The grassed area is more popular than the beach for sunbathing and picnicking, but the number of people swimming is low

· The boat hard stand area is seldom used for recreational activity

· The sportsfield is seldom used for organised sport and predominantly used for pedestrian connectivity through the reserve.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. Auckland is characterised by 3,200 kilometres of coast with high environmental, social, cultural and economic value. However, the complexity of coastal processes, combined with the future pressures associated with climate change and future growth, pose significant future management challenges. Considering Auckland Council’s key roles with regard to coastal management (including regulatory, asset and emergency management) an enduring responsibility to address these issues is acknowledged.

21. In August 2017, a Coastal Management Framework was approved to provide a best practice, operational framework for coastal management in Auckland (resolution number ENV/2017/116). This framework highlighted the need to better understand and address the ongoing impacts of climate change (sea level rise, increased storminess), human modification and future growth.

22. An ‘adaptive planning’ approach to coastal management has been refined to best align to all current national policy and council directives, including:

Ministry for the Environment ‘Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Guidance’ - endorses the need to understand long term coastal hazard risk across a range of potential climate change scenarios and develop adaptive planning ‘pathways’ based on determined trigger points with community engagement at the centre of the approach.

Auckland’s Climate Action Framework – Outlines a series of key moves for climate action across Auckland, including Key Move 7 to improve the resilience of our coastal communities, including development of Coastal Compartment Management Plans as a sub-action.

Natural Hazards Risk Management Action Plan – Summarises Auckland’s natural hazard risk profile and how this is likely to change over time with climate change and development pressure. This plan identifies key actions across Council including development of Coastal Compartment Management Plans and improved coastal hazards knowledge.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. The Community Facilities and Infrastructure and Environmental Services departments have been involved in discussions with the local board to facilitate an integrated approach to identifying and analysing options for the protection of the coastal and stream margins of the reserve.

24. The coastal team from Infrastructure and Environmental Services has been supporting the Community Facilities project team in developing an assessment of the coastal processes present at Little Shoal Bay.

25. The Service Strategy and Integration department are reviewing the reserve management plans for all reserves within the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

26. Auckland Transport is a key stakeholder in Little Shoal Bay Reserve as a legal road connects to both sides of the reserve which includes the existing bridge across the stream. A section of road between these two connecting sections of road sits on reserve land. The road provides and important link for the communities of Northcote Point and Birkenhead and Auckland Transport supports ongoing access for vehicles through the reserve.

27. The review of reserve management plans across the Kaipātiki Local Board area by the Service Strategy and Integration department is underway. Adoption of the recommendations in this report will enable the new Kaipātiki Local Parks Management Plan to be aligned to these outcomes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The Kaipātiki Local Board Plan highlights the issues at Little Shoal Bay and makes the following statements:

‘Kaipātiki has coast on the north, west and south, so we are particularly susceptible to inundation, flooding, coastal erosion, and slips. Coastal inundation and flooding at Dudding Reserve in Little Shoal Bay is a current example of where we are experiencing impacts from these processes. We want to better understand these local coastal hazards so we can reduce the impacts where possible, particularly for those disproportionately affected communities.’

‘In 2019 we commissioned the development of a Parks Service Assessment for Little Shoal Bay. With increased impacts from coastal processes, such as inundation and flooding, we wanted to know more about how the park was being used and what it was that made people treasure this space. When we receive the completed assessment, we will consider its findings in the decisions we will need to make on the future look, feel and use of this special place.’

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. When adopted, future projects aligned to service outcomes will be presented to the North-western area hui. Iwi will have the opportunity to express interest in these projects and indicate how they would like to be involved.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. The service outcomes process is used as a tool to understand how funds may be allocated in the future. Should any projects be initiated in response to these service outcomes then funding will need to be allocated as part of the Community Facilities work programme for investigation and design.

31. For development of Little Shoal Bay Reserve to progress the Kaipātiki Local Board will need to allocate locally driven initiative (LDI) capital funding to further investigation.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. There are inherent financial risks in setting service outcomes as these may influence where future funding is allocated. It is not possible to assess these risks directly at the time of setting the outcomes, but these will need to be continually reassessed during the feasibility phase.

33. There is an inherent risk in allocating funding to investigation and design that may initiate projects when there is no capital funding identified to deliver the physical work components.

34. Any further investment in the site will be made through the Community Facilities Work Programme. The work programme development process is designed to ensure the local board receive quality advice to inform financial decision making.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. Assist Community Facilities and the other council departments with the identification of future management and development of the reserve, through the application of these outcomes. Detail on future development at Little Shoal Bay Reserve that will deliver on the service outcomes will require further investigation as well as community engagement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Little Shoal Bay Survey Presentation	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John McKellar - Parks & Places Specialist

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Cadness Loop Reserve - Development of Open Space

File No.: CP2020/15912

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the proposed development of the new Cadness Loop Reserve playground and reserve development in Northcote by Kāinga Ora.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1. Development of the Cadness Loop Reserve will be carried out by Kāinga Ora at their cost and vested in Auckland Council.

2. Kāinga Ora have engaged Isthmus to design a playspace for the re-oriented Cadness Loop Reserve. The concept design has been refined through consultation with the local board at a local board workshop on 23September 2020.

3. It is recommended that an infrastructure funding agreement is entered into between Auckland Council and Kāinga Ora to record what is being delivered and handed over to council.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) recommend Auckland Council enter into an infrastructure funding agreement for the Cadness Loop Reserve playground development with Kāinga Ora.

b) approve the design for the playspace shown on the Cadness Loop Reserve concept plan prepared by Isthmus and Kainga Ora dated 4September 2020 (included within Attachment A to the agenda report) for the proposed development of the Cadness Loop playspace, and approve that the asset be taken on by Auckland Council upon practical completion.

c) delegate through the Chief Executive that the General Managers of Community Facilities and Parks Sport and Recreation assess and approve engineering detail for the Cadness Loop Reserve playspace and development.

Horopaki

Context

4. Council has been provided with a proposed concept plan for the installation of a playground and reserve development by Kāinga Ora to be constructed at their cost within the new layout of Cadness Loop Reserve.

5. On 15 August 2018, the Kaipātiki Local Board resolved to support the notification of a proposed land exchange to create a new Cadness Loop Reserve (resolution number KT/2018/166).

6. On 20 February 2019 at a business meeting, the Kaipātiki Local Board resolved the following:

c) note that the playground and basketball court are outside the land exchange process, however the local board has an expectation that the playground and basketball court will be reinstated into the newly configured reserve at no cost to the local board (resolution number KAI/2019/5).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

7. The Cadness Loop Reserve concept plan was presented to Council for review and feedback. The following changes were made to the concept plan by Isthmus following Council officer feedback:

· The learn to ride track was added and this is envisioned as a beginner trail and will be appropriate for pedestrians as well as those learning to ride. If budget allows it could be painted in vibrant colours and potentially incorporate cultural patterns or text.

· Lawn area was increased and concreted areas were reduced, and bollards provided at perimeter of the park.

· The amount of skate features has been decreased. The proposed element would be a basic skate box feature.

· Benches from existing park can be salvaged for re-use. They are a version of this bench and may be able to be cleaned and painted. They function well around basketball courts.

· A large specimen tree is now proposed in the middle of the playground for shade.

· A low mounded lawn area has been added to provide a hangout space and focus for toddlers in addition to the flat kick-a-ball space.

· A scooter rack has been provided near the learn to ride track.

Discussion and feedback from Isthmus on the playground design intent

8. The Northcote Play Provision Coordination Plan was developed using the Kaipātiki Local Board Play and Sunsmart Provision Existing Open Space Analysis as a reference. The Plan has identified that the existing playground at Cadness Loop Reserve accommodates 0-12 year age groups, however it lacks an all-weather footpath and there are gaps in imaginative play. The close proximity to other reserves allows for unique play provision to be provided here.

9. The intent of the proposed concept plan is to provide a unique experience at Cadness Loop Reserve targeting 1-12 year olds by providing a diverse range of activities, including:

· free play kick-a-ball space (lawn);

· beginner and challenging play (climbing and balancing play equipment);

· interactive play (4 person hurricane swing);

· a 3x3 basketball court; and

· learn to skate element will target the junior age group (9-12 years).

10. The park and playspace is designed for a wide age group targeting 1-13yrs. This was based on feedback received from mana whenua who desired that the playspace accommodate children up to 13 years. The parkour play element is appropriate for children over the age of six, and the hurricane style swing is appropriate for children aged five and older. The reserve’s close proximity to Onepoto Primary school supports this age range.

11. There was a strong desire evidenced for climbing and balancing 'free-movement' equipment during school workshops at Northcote Intermediate. The parkour structure offers a lot of different play elements, altering the rhythm of the climbing movement and training balance and coordination skills. The selected equipment is appropriate for children six years and older. Less challenging balance beams and steppers will be incorporated into the playspace to target children under six.

12. The half-court basketball and learn to skate will target the junior age group (9-12 years). In comparison, Cadness Reserve is thought to target junior and senior age groups as a more intensive destination reserve/playspace.

13. Cadness Loop Reserve is being renamed to avoid confusion with the Cadness Reserve. Council staff are working with mana whenua and the Te Kete Rukuruku (Maori naming) programme to consider a new mono-lingual name change for Cadness Loop Reserve.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. It is anticipated that with the planting of 13 new specimen trees that there will be a net positive benefit to climate change. The trees will over time absorb and store the carbon dioxide emissions created by human activities in relation to construction and travel to and from the playground. The local playground is proposed to be for local residents, and it is expected that the majority of users will walk to the playground.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. The original concept plans were reviewed by staff and main inputs were the following:

· The basketball half court should be constructed from noise resistant products including the laykold surfacing and the parklife basketball hoop. The response from Isthmus is that the court will have an acrylic sports coating to be designed in conjunction with a mana whenua appointed artist.

· Scale back the amount of concrete, particularly the concrete plaza area as this requires waterblasting which can’t be undertaken with the current water restrictions and replace with grassed areas. In response, the plaza area has been downsized and the concrete will be broom finished and will not require waterblasting. The grassed area has been increased and a learn to ride trail has been incorporated.

· Clarification was requested as to the shade provision over the playground in accordance with the Kaipātiki Local Board Play and Sunsmart Provision Existing Open Space Analysis with regards to provision of shade trees and shade sails. In response, a shade tree has been added in the centre of the playspace. A roofed shelter will also now be located near the playspace. Low heat absorptive materials (bark mulch, timber posts, playrope) will be used in the park to limit the urban heat island effect. Vibrant acrylic court surfacing will be used to diminish the heat abortive properties of the basketball court and learn to ride trail. If budget allows a shade sail structure may be incorporated over portions of the playspace.

· The existing playground has bollards around the entire edge of the park, and it was requested that the same be provided around the newly reconfigured park. In response, bollards have been added to the concept plan to restrict vehicular access. Plant beds will also be strategically located to minimize the number of bollards required.

· A scooter stand was requested to be added which has now been provided.

· Clarification was requested on the type of BBQ to be provided and this will be the same type of BBQ as found in Greenslade Reserve and the Richardson Park Pocket Park. The style is an urban effects element in an in-situ concrete plinth and tabletop.

· It was questioned whether the fort/playground module could be replaced with something similar. The response is that the parkour timber climber does not have an enclosed tower but does have informal timber platforms at height. A fort style element may be incorporated into the playspace if budget allows.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. A local board workshop was held on 23September 2020 and the following suggestions were made and addressed here for the local board’s benefit:

Shade sails

17. The local board were keen to see more extensive shade sails over the playspace. This may be able to be provided if funding allows.

Fencing along edge of road adjacent to basketball half court

18. The basketball half court is located quite close to the road and footpath and could some consideration be made to install some low fencing along the edge of the road or could further information be provided on the types of plants in the plant bed. This will be addressed at engineering plan approval stage.

Rubbish bins

19. There were split views on whether a rubbish bin would be installed when the local board’s views were sought, and subsequent to the local board workshop advice has been received from Panuku with regards to Northcote’s Para Kore/zero waste initiative. The Kaipātiki Local Board have invested $20,000 into the delivery of this plan. It is recommended that in alignment with this plan that no rubbish bin is installed at the Cadness Loop Reserve playspace, and that this is removed at engineering plan approval stage.

Lighting

20. A query was raised about lighting and it was confirmed that the only lighting for the park will be from street lighting. It is preferred that the park and basketball half court are not lit to discourage use of the park after dark.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. Kāinga Ora works closely with the 19 iwi entities of Tāmaki Makaurau that have cultural interests across their developments.

22. Kāinga Ora’s regular engagement with mana whenua includes individual as well as bespoke collective iwi engagement arrangements. Regular monthly hui are held which cover all of Kāinga Ora - UDD AHP projects as well as individual project workshops.

Northcote Development

23. Throughout their interactions with mana whenua, Kāinga Ora - UDD have developed an understanding and appreciation of iwi cultural values and are working to ensure true expression of cultural priorities in the design and delivery of their developments.

24. Mana whenua have been actively assisting Kāinga Ora - UDD in informing their precinct designs through the influence of their unique matauranga design expressions. The Te Aranga Design Principles have occasionally been referenced, however mana whenua have expressed a preference for developing their own design principles set.

Awataha Greenway Project

25. Mana whenua have been directly involved in the integration of design principles through the Awataha Greenway Project managed through the Panuku mana whenua engagement forum. The integration of design outcomes was informed by their own design principles with reference to the Te Aranga Design Principles.

26. A specific workshop has been held in addition to regular hui updates specifically around Cadness Loop Reserve, and this has included overview of design principals and evidence of incorporating mana whenua direction and input into the design development. This has identified areas of possible cultural artist input consistent with other park areas which help form the greenway projects including Te Ara Awataha, Richardson Park (to be renamed), Whakamua Parade, Greenslade Reserve and Kaka Street. An example of cultural artist input is the basketball court mural, cultural carvings on the shelter and possible concrete footpath patterning. Artist input design is currently in early engagement process.

Homes, Land, Community (HLC) Māori Design Guidelines

27. Kāinga Ora is working with mana whenua of Tamaki Makaurau on a design set (cultural design guideline). They are in the process of developing the design set through the Kāinga Ora - UDD Spatial Delivery Strategy (SDS). In August/September 2019, Kāinga Ora - UDD will be facilitating targeted design workshops with mana whenua to assist in the development of the cultural design guideline, this is a work in progress.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The local board has decision making responsibility for the development and management of the Cadness Loop Reserve as the asset will be vested to council. A high-level assessment of the consequential opex per annum has been estimated by Community Facilities for all of the landscaping works to be approximately $32,000 ex GST subject to detailed design. The consequential opex per annum is estimated to fall within a range between $32,000 ex GST (low) up to $34,000 ex GST (high) and is expected to commence following practical completion in accordance with an infrastructure funding agreement that will be agreed. Practical completion is expected to be in the 2020/21 financial year.

29. It is anticipated that with local board support this playspace will be added to Council’s asset register, and Council will be expected to commence maintenance of the playground in the financial year 2020/21. If approved, annual maintenance will be paid for by the consequential opex budget.

30. Agreement has been obtained from the Lead Financial Advisor, from the Corporate and Local Board Performance, Financial Strategy and Planning team with regards to the consequential operating expenses that will be created by this proposal.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. Risks for the delivery of the playspace are cost escalation, and inadequate handover. These items can be managed via an Infrastructure Funding agreement that will be signed by both the developer’s representative and Council to ensure that proper handover of all documents, warrantees, as-builts and producer statements occurs. Landowner approval will also be required before construction commencement.

32. There is the potential for the acquisition of land and the completion of the land swap to delay the park development. This is being mitigated by the Development Programme Office (DPO) who are providing a project management service and overseeing the delivery of this as part of the wider Northcote redevelopment. As the delivery of the Cadness Loop playspace is an important aspect of the park infrastructure delivery for Northcote the DPO will take steps to ensure these processes are concluded.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. The developer wishes to develop the Cadness Loop Reserve new playspace as soon as possible once the local board’s approval is granted, engineering plan approval has been obtained and the infrastructure funding agreement has been signed. Once approval of a concept plan has been provided, Council staff will work with Kāinga Ora and Isthmus on engineering details of the proposed park developments to ensure the proposal meets the Council’s park construction standards.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Cadness Loop Reserve Concept Plan Revision C	49

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maylene Barrett – Principal Specialist Parks Planning

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections Business Case

File No.: CP2020/16328

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an opportunity for the Kaipātiki Local Board to consider feedback on the Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections Business Case.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At the Planning Committee meeting on 5 November 2020, there was a report on the agenda on ‘Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections Business Case’ (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report). The business case focuses on ‘programme level’ issues and conclusions and outlines a series of high-level interventions to be progressed further, including:

· investigating the potential for land-use planning and demand management (e.g. road pricing) to optimise existing infrastructure and delay the need for major investment

· urgent upgrade of the Northern Busway to increase its capacity, reliability and overall service quality

· development of additional rapid transit connection for the North Shore (including across the Waitematā Harbour to the city centre) that supplements and integrates with the upgraded busway and the wider public transport network to provide high quality access to opportunities and travel choice

· improving roading connectivity in the corridor in a way that addresses resilience issues in the corridor (including the Auckland Harbour Bridge).

3. Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA), Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council will progress the following planning work:

i) Detailed Business Case for ongoing busway enhancements: This will develop a programme of busway enhancements for early implementation. AT has already started this planning work.

ii) Strategic Transport Networks planning work (in the form of a document called a Single Stage Business case) for:

o Phase 1: An additional rapid transit connection across the Waitematā Harbour. This phase will investigate the form (including mode) and alignment (route) of the new cross harbour rapid transit connection, including an understanding of timing such that it may be in place prior to the enhanced busway reaching capacity.

o Phase 2: Strategic transport networks (road and rapid transit). This phase will combine investigations of the wider rapid transit network on the North Shore with what roading system improvements should look like, when it is required, and how the new road crossing would interact with Phase 1. This will include assessment of separate or combined crossing options.

o Phase 3: Future proofing and route protection. This phase will seek to route protect the land identified as required from Phases 1 & 2.

4. Following the Planning Committee meeting on 5 November 2020, the business case document was made publicly available on Friday 6 November 2020 (refer to Attachment D of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the attached documents relating to the business case on the additional Waitematā Harbour Connections.

b) consider providing feedback to Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) on the additional Waitematā Harbour Connections business case.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Report to 5 November Planning Committee - Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections Business Case (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Briefing memo: Update on the Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections (AWHC) Project (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Executive summary of the business case released by NZTA on Friday 6 November (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Business case additional harbour crossing NZTA (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard

File No.: CP2020/16575

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal local board feedback on the Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard (the Standard) and proposed regional policy (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Sustainable Asset Standard is a Community Facilities business improvement project consisting of three key deliverables to act on climate change in the built environment:

· A policy to define minimum thresholds for Community Facilities assets to achieve sustainability or ‘green’ certifications. This policy is currently an internal staff guidance document, proposed to Governing Body to adopt formally as a regional policy and is provided as Attachment A.

· Energy transition accelerator plans to align renewal works to reduce emissions at targeted, high-emissions sites.

· The change management required to support staff and suppliers to deliver green certified assets meeting the standard set out by the policy.

3. Sustainable asset certification tools are recognised as best practice to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts resulting from the development and operations of council assets, managed by Community Facilities.

4. The Standard is coupled with a funding package through the Long-term Plan as part of council’s response to climate change. Additional costs to certify those assets identified in the work programme are estimated at a 4.4 per cent per premium calculated against existing budgets.

5. The Governing Body’s adoption of the current internal policy as a regional policy would have two impacts on local board decision-making:

· all growth projects over five million dollars and renewal projects over two million dollars would obtain green building certification at no less than a Green Star five-star rating (or equivalent certification), with net zero energy operations, and

· as a fundamental principle of these rating tools, any design options provided to local boards for asset decision-making, would be required to provide whole-of-life considerations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) support the Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Standard as an action of the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri (Auckland’s Climate Plan).

b) provide any feedback to support the Governing Body’s consideration of the Standard as regional policy.

Horopaki

Context

6. In 2019 Auckland Council declared a climate emergency and in July 2020 the Environment and Climate Change Committee adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri (Auckland’s Climate Plan). The plan sets a 2030 target to reduce emissions by 50 per cent.

7. Developing a Sustainable Asset Standard is an action under Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. This will enable Auckland Council to align asset management practices with the comprehensive frameworks of green building certification tools (e.g. Green Star, Living Building Challenge, Passive House, Infrastructure Sustainability).

8. Buildings and open spaces managed by Community Facilities (CF) accounted for roughly 68 per cent of the council’s carbon footprint in 2019, as can be seen in Figure 1, right.

9. As the source of such a large proportion of the council’s emissions, Community Facilities needs to urgently address climate change through the management of public assets.

10. The Standard (orange in Figure 2, below) is one of eight key programmes identified in the Auckland Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction plan to reduce the organisation’s emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 (dashed line below).

11. Adopting the Standard as part of this cycle of Long-term Plan funding positions the council to meet compliance changes to New Zealand’s building regulations expected in October 2021, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Building for Climate Change programme. If adopted, Auckland Council would be the first local government in the country to commit to using green building and sustainable infrastructure certifications.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. Staff explored two other options to provide a comprehensive asset-focussed response to climate change:

· green building certification for existing assets (Green Star Performance)

· organisational certification under (ISO 14001 Environmental Management System).

13. The Green Star Performance ‘proof of case’ pilot certified the council’s three-building crematorium portfolio in 2018. It was the first in the country to receive a Green Star rating on operational assets.

14. The pilot proved to be a valuable exercise in developing a performance improvement plan. It also proved that certification across the Community Facilities portfolio would be cost prohibitive, as the “Performance” rating required tri-annual, on-going recertification.

15. Another option explored was a different type of certification, ISO 14001, which applies an environmental management system. Through investigation with the Chief Sustainability Office, Corporate Property and Corporate Health and Safety, it was determined that this certification is more suitable to a corporate application throughout the organisation, as opposed to only Community Facilities assets.

16. This initial investigation also found that the certification did not address the cultural and social aspects to sustainable performance in a building or asset application. These comprehensive measures are essential in green building and sustainable infrastructure rating tools.

17. Sixty-one per cent of C40 cities^{^[1]} require green building certifications for all new facilities. For Community Facilities to manage its assets efficiently and sustainably, council’s practices need to go beyond building code compliance. Green building and infrastructure tools provide the framework to align Community Facilities asset management with international best practice to deliver better asset value and outcomes for Aucklanders.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The Standard addresses climate mitigation by committing to carbon neutral growth and evidencing it using an independent assessment framework. The proposal’s primary benefit is to support Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri’s implementation. This will be achieved by mandating climate action in the built environment and making it transparent and accountable through Green Star (and other sustainable asset) certification processes.

19. Climate adaptation is also supported through the use of these sustainable asset certification processes. These frameworks encourage sustainable design features to promote resilience to climate change’s extreme weather events. Features like rainwater harvesting, living roofs and walls, and potable water use avoidance through design, all support network-scale resilience to drought, floods, and heavy storms.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. The Standard aligns with the Auckland Council Group Green Building Framework, drafted in 2018 with input from Panuku Development Auckland, Auckland Transport, and the former Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA).

21. Out of these council-controlled organisations, the Standard supports Panuku’s community-scale developments seeking Green Star Community certifications and the former RFA’s 2019 Green Building Standards.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. If the Standard is adopted, the two main impacts on local boards are:

· capital decisions on all growth projects over five million dollars, and renewal projects over two million dollars, would require green building certification at no less than a Green Star five-star rating (or equivalent certification). Growth projects will need to be net zero energy (energy use is generated on-site or through investment in renewable energy at other council facilities, any energy consumed from the grid is offset by exports to the grid)

· as a fundamental principle of these rating tools, any design options provided to local boards for asset decision-making would be required to provide whole-of-life considerations, making climate impact statements and life cycle assessments more quantified for improved advice.

23. Staff attended local board workshops in October and November 2020. At the time of this report being drafted, informal feedback has been generally supportive, however, there is also a general concern that the costs to deliver certifications to this standard will exceed allocated budgets. This report seeks the formal views of local boards.

24. The Standard directly addresses local board input as part to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri engagement in 2018, highlighting the need for council buildings to demonstrate best practice.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. The Standard supports Māori wellbeing by providing the operational tools required to action two key Māori outcomes strategies:

· The Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

· Te Aranga Design Principles.

26. Community Facilities’ early commitment to green building and infrastructure tools, within the Aotearoa New Zealand context, also benefits Māori aspirations of visible and embedded Māori identity and culture in the building industry. Māori will have increasing influence over the tools’ applications and the definition of sustainable assets in the country.

27. By becoming the first local government in the country to commit to green ratings, the council can leverage this leadership with applicable organisations to further emphasise the cultural significance of the frameworks.

28. Input will be sought from mana whenua on this proposal at the next available kaitiaki forum (date yet to be confirmed).

Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

29. The Standard supports Ngā Whāinga Mahi three to 10 of the Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework:

3.0 Mārae Development

The Mārae development Programme’s primary objective is to provide healthy, safe and warm Mārae with longevity longevity for future generations, supported by the Standard’s indoor environmental quality metrics.

4.0 Te Reo Maori

Te reo Māori to be more visible, heard, and spoken in Tāmaki Makaurau.

5.0 Māori Identity and Culture

Embed Te Aranga Design Principles into staff procedures and templates and ensure consistent application for all CF capital design work.

6.0 Māori Business, Tourism and Employment

Enable staff to apply the Auckland Council Group Sustainable Procurement Framework consistently across all asset management procurement from capital works to full facility operational tenders.

7.0 Realising Rangatahi Potential

Rangatahi potential included via two pathways:

1. by normalising sustainable procurement to deliver social outcomes (including those for youth) and

2. by shifting asset decisions away from short-term project costs (which benefit current Aucklanders disproportionately over rangatahi), towards total-cost-of-life evaluation of assets, which support providing assets with lower operating costs and avoiding carbon emissions locked in by design.

8.0 Kaitiakitanga

Supports kaitiakitanga outcomes in two ways:

1. by enabling built environment activities to improve environmental reporting and contribute to mātauranga Māori and

2. by more effective Māori engagement to apply this mātauranga through social, equity, and innovation categories of certification frameworks.

9.0 Effective Māori Participation

Equity, social and innovation categories built into sustainable asset ratings incentivises increased engagement with Māori alongside Te Aranga Design Principles.

10.0 An Empowered Organisation

Climate change is affecting the cultural landscape in a way which makes natural resources less accessible to Māori in Tamaki Makaurau. The Standard approach acknowledges the relationship between te Tiriti and improving the sustainability of public assets to enable our workforce to deliver the Māori outcome of protecting natural taonga for future generations of Tamaki Makaurau.

Te Aranga Design Principles

30. Measuring Community Facilities assets’ environmental performance supports the Te Aranga Design principle of Mauri Tu to protect, maintain and enhance the environment. Tools with a particular emphasis on place and the cultural relationships with land underscore the principles of Tohu and Ahi Kā, where cultural landmarks and heritage are designed into projects and enhance sense of place relationships.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. A four per cent^{^[2]} cost increase is forecast for 30 capital projects to be certified under the Standard over the next ten years. This increase totals $14.5 million on top of the existing allocated budgets for these 30 projects. Funding will be sought through the Long-term Plan climate lane corporate emissions package, at a future Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

32. The proposal makes provision for an additional $180,000 of asset-based service operational expense for tools development. This cost will be met by existing operational budgets as part of the continuous improvement of Community Facilities business performance over the next three years, subject to change and approval as part of the LTP approval process and finalisation of the capital and operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. As the earliest adopter of green buildings and sustainable infrastructure at scale in Aotearoa, Auckland Council will face higher risks to implementation than those organisations which follow.

34. Mitigation of these risks has been embedded in the delivery plan of the Standard by investing in change management to address industry maturity and staff capability.

35. Major risks have been identified and addressed during the strategic assessment phase of the Standard’s project governance, including risks of inaction should the Standard not be implemented. Through this assessment, the reputational, financial, legal, and business risks were found to outweigh the risks of early adoption.

36. Because the Standard is using project governance to deliver the change management, further risk management is iterative and will be further defined through the business case phase with the project team’s risk management plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. Formal local board feedback will be included in the proposal to the Governing Body when requesting the adoption of the Standard as regional policy. The report will be put to the Governing Body in the first week of December 2020. For those business meetings occurring after the reporting deadline, this feedback will be made available to Governing Body separate to the report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Policy	65

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Toto Vu-Duc - Manager Community Leases

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy – Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Local board delegations to allow local views to be provided on matters relating to the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act

File No.: CP2020/16022

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Kaipātiki Local Board appoints a local board member to:

· provide formal local board feedback on applications proposed and being processed under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020

· represent the local board at the Planning Committee Political Working Party on the Urban Development Act, as required.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The government has recently enacted two new pieces of legislation: the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 2020.

3. The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 provides an alternative resource consenting process to the usual process under the Resource Management Act 1991. This process is designed to ‘fast-track’ resource consent processes to enable development and infrastructure projects to commence more quickly, to help support the economic recovery and create jobs. Resource consent applications will be lodged directly with central government’s Environmental Protection Authority.

4. The Urban Development Act 2020 gives Kāinga Ora access to a series of development powers and the ability to establish specified development projects. Most of these powers can only be used within a specified development project but some are also available for use in ‘business as usual’ developments that Kāinga Ora undertakes. Each of the powers has been designed to address a specific barrier to development.

5. The Planning Committee has delegated to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Committee, in consultation with the Mayor’s Office, the power to establish a Political Working Group to provide political direction on the execution of powers and functions under the Urban Development Act 2020. Each political working group established will comprise of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Committee, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, relevant ward councillor(s) and a representative of relevant local board(s).

6. The council can provide feedback on applications processed under both the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 2020; however, the timeframes are very short. To ensure that local boards can provide feedback, it is proposed that each local board appoint one local board member to provide formal local board views (feedback) on applications proposed and being processed under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and to represent the local board on any relevant Political Working Party established to give political direction on the execution of the council’s powers under the Urban Development Act 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) delegate to a member, with an alternate, the authority to provide the local board views in respect of matters under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, noting that given the timeframes under the Act, it is not practicable for the matters to come before the full local board.

b) appoint a member, with an alternate, as the Kaipātiki Local Board representative as required, on any Political Working Group established (in accordance with the Planning Committee’s resolution PLA/2020/79 on 1 October 2020), to give political direction on the execution of the council’s powers under the Urban Development Act 2020.

Horopaki

Context

COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020

7. In May 2020, the Government enacted the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 to fast-track the consenting of eligible development and infrastructure projects as a major element of its COVID-19 rebuild plan. This legislation commenced in July 2020, and will be repealed in July 2022.

8. The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 provides an alternative to the usual resource consenting process under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). This process is designed to ‘fast-track’ resource consenting processes to enable development and infrastructure projects to commence more quickly, help support the economic recovery and create jobs.

9. Some infrastructure and development projects are listed in the COVID-19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020. In Auckland, the six listed projects are:

· Unitec Residential Development

· Papakainga development in Point Chevalier

· Britomart Station Eastern End Upgrade

· Papakura to Pukekohe Rail Electrification

· Northern Pathway – Westhaven to Akoranga shared pathway

· Papakura to Drury South State Highway 1 Improvements.

10. Resource consent applications for these listed projects are lodged directly with central government’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). An expert panel is formed for each application, to assess it and decide whether to approve or decline it.

11. Additionally, an applicant can request the Minister for the Environment to refer an application to an expert panel, utilising the fast-track process. The COVID-19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 specifies a range of considerations for the Minister, including:

· the public good aspects of the application

· its potential contribution to job creation and economic activity

· the potential significance of any environmental effects

· whether the consenting process under the COVID-19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 is likely to be significantly faster than a usual RMA resource consent process.

12. The expert panel must include one member who is nominated by Auckland Council. This will be considered on a case by case basis, with the nominated member potentially being a councillor, local board member, or council staff member. Decisions on the nomination of the panel member will be made by the General Manager Resource Consents, or the General Manager Plans and Places where a Notice of Requirement (designation) is involved. Discussion, including with the relevant local board(s), will inform this decision.

13. There are two opportunities for local boards to provide feedback in relation to resource consents following the fast-track process. In both cases, the council has 10 working days to provide feedback.

· The first opportunity is where the Minister for the Environment must consult with Auckland Council when there are new applications proposed for the fast-track process.

· The second opportunity occurs when the panel invites comment on the application.

14. Staff will seek formal feedback from the local board, and the local board will have four working days to provide this feedback to the council’s project lead. The feedback will be included as part of Auckland Council’s comment.

Urban Development Act 2020

15. The Urban Development Act 2020 commenced on 7 August 2020. The Urban Development Act 2020 provides for functions, powers, rights and duties of the Crown entity Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, to enable it to undertake its urban development functions.

16. This Act gives Kāinga Ora access to a series of development powers and the ability to establish specified development projects (Attachment A of the agenda report). Most of these powers can only be used within a specified development project but some are also available for use in ‘business as usual’ developments that Kāinga Ora undertakes. Each of the powers has been designed to address a specific barrier to development. Not all powers will be needed by every project.

17. This Act confers powers and functions on Auckland Council such as indicating support for the establishment of a specified development area and nominating a representative to sit on an independent hearings panel for a specified development project. The timeframes for carrying out these powers and functions is tight, only 20 working days in some instances.

18. At its 1 October 2020 meeting, the Planning Committee (resolution number PLA/2020/79) delegated to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Committee, in consultation with the Mayor’s Office, the power to establish a Political Working Group to provide political direction on the execution of powers and functions where staff advise that one or more of the following criterial are met.

· The development plan is inconsistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan and/or not aligned with the outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050.

· The specified development area is out of sequence with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

· There is insufficient infrastructure to support the development plan and/or significant public infrastructure spend is required to support the project.

· There are significant implications for the Parks Network Plans for the same location.

· There is a significant impact on Auckland Council/Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) and/or third-party infrastructure.

· There is the potential for significant adverse environmental effects to occur.

19. Each political working party will comprise of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Committee, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, relevant ward councillor(s) and a representative of relevant local board(s).

20. Attachment B sets out the steps involved in setting up a specified development project. At the time of writing this local board report, no specified development project areas have been proposed within Auckland. Local boards will have the opportunity to provide feedback on proposals administered under the Urban Development Act 2020, but it is likely that any opportunities will have short timeframes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 – options considered

21. Local boards normally provide their formal views at business meetings (option two in Table 1), however, the timeframes under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 make this mostly impossible to achieve. As local boards will only have four working days to provide their views, it is recommended that a delegation is provided to one local board member and one alternate (option three in Table 1).

22. At the start of the electoral term, local boards selected delegates to provide local board views on resource consent notification and local board views on notified resource consents. They may wish to delegate these responsibilities to the same local board delegates and alternates.

Table 1: Options for local boards to provide their formal views on applications proposed and administered under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020

Options	Pros	Cons
1. No formal local board views are provided.		· Local board views will not be considered on applications made under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020.
2. Formal local board views are provided at a business meeting.	· All local board members contribute to the local board view. · Provides transparent decision making.	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines are unlikely to align with statutory deadlines imposed by the planning process.
3. Formal local board views are provided by way of delegation to one local board member for all applications (preferred option).	· Nominated local board member is able to develop expertise on the subject on behalf of the local board. · Local boards can provide their views in a timely way that meets statutory deadlines. · Nominated local board member may informally obtain and consider the views of other local board members. · Any feedback can be reported back to the local board.	· Decisions are not made by the full local board. · Decisions made under delegation are not made at a public meeting (decisions are made public once submitted via the planning process).

Urban Development Act 2020

23. Due to the tight timeframes provided for under the Urban Development Act 2020, the Planning Committee authorised a delegation to promptly establish a Political Working Group for proposed specified development projects. Because establishment of each group will likely be required at pace, it is unlikely that local boards will have time to select a representative at a business meeting. It is therefore recommended, that the local board appoints one local board member (and an alternate) to sit as the local board representative on any relevant political working group convened to consider the council’s position on Urban Development Act 2020 matters.

24. At the start of the electoral term local boards selected delegates to provide local board views on resource consent notification and local board views on notified resource consents. They may wish to delegate these responsibilities to the same local board delegates and alternates.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. The matters raised in this report do not have any impact on climate change as they address procedural matters.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. This report recommends the delegation to and appointment of local board members to ensure that the council can undertake its operational and statutory duties in a timely manner, while receiving local board input on matters that are of local importance.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. This report seeks to appoint nominated board members to perform particular functions.

28. Any local board member who is appointed as a nominated board member should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. If local boards choose not to delegate authority/appoint a representative to provide views on matters relating to the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 2020, there is a risk that they will not be able to provide formal views within statutory timeframes and will miss the opportunity to have their feedback considered.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Training for local board members will be offered on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the Urban Development Act 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Summary of Powers available to Kāinga Ora	73
b ⇩	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - The Specified Development Project process	75

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Local board views on plan change to enable rainwater tank installation for the Auckland region

File No.: CP2020/16728

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a plan change by Auckland Council to enable rainwater tank installation across urban and rural Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the plan change, if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.^{^[3]}

4. Auckland Council’s plan change would change the Auckland Unitary Plan by adding a line entry in rural and urban zone activity tables, stating that a rainwater tank is a permitted activity. Additionally, a number of baseline standards designed to avoid objectionable outcomes would be developed for the installation of rainwater tanks along with assessment criteria where a resource consent was still required. Rainwater tanks would be excluded from the definition of “Building” in the Auckland Unitary Plan, and therefore would avoid many rules pertaining to buildings which have the potential to trigger the need for resource consent.

5. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on the council’s plan change. Staff do not provide recommendations on what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) provide local board views on council’s proposed change to the Auckland Unitary Plan to enable rainwater tank installation for the Auckland region.

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on council’s enabling rainwater tanks plan change for the Auckland region.

c) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the private plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

6. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.^{^[4]}

7. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the plan change, along with submissions.

8. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the plan change request.

9. This report provides an overview of the plan change.

10. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey. The planner must include any local board views in the evaluation of the plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

11. The plan change applies to the Auckland region. The definition of “Building” in the Auckland Unitary Plan will be amended so that a rainwater tank will not be considered a building. A new definition will be introduced for “rainwater tank”. The activity tables of the following zones will have a new line entry stating that rainwater tanks are a permitted activity. The zones directly concerned are as follows:

§ Single House Zone

§ Large Lot Zone

§ Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone

§ Mixed Housing Suburban Zone

§ Mixed Housing Urban Zone

§ Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone

§ Special Character Areas Overlay - Residential

§ Rural Production Zone

§ Mixed Rural Zone

§ Rural Coastal Zone

§ Rural Conservation Zone

§ Countryside Living Zone

§ Waitākere Foothills Zone

§ Waitākere Ranges Zone.

12. The purpose of the plan change is to enable rainwater tank installation across the Auckland region without the need for resource consent. Some baseline standards will be developed to avoid objectionable outcomes.

13. The notified plan change and section 32 document providing the rationale for the council plan change are available as Attachment A to the agenda report and on the council’s website at:

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=83

14. Public submissions will be loaded onto the council’s website once the notification period has closed. Submissions opened on 9 October and will close on 9 November.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan include:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

16. The need to initiate a plan change to enable rainwater tank installation is a response to Auckland’s current drought and potential water shortage in 2020/2021.

17. This uncertainty in water supply is likely to continue as our climate changes. Climate projections released by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) indicated that the Auckland region is likely to experience an increase of unpredictable rainfall and drought events in the Auckland region.

18. Removing unnecessary restrictions around the installation of rainwater tanks will support Auckland’s water security and resilience to climate change.

19. The proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan supports Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. One of the goals of the climate plan is to prepare Aucklanders to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

20. Easing barriers to the installation of rainwater tanks supports water supply management and aligns with the ‘Built Environment’ priority area in the Auckland Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. Other parts of the council group directly involved with the plan change include Healthy Waters, which has assisted with scoping the plan change, consultation and providing information for inclusion in the section 32 document (which provides the rationale for the plan change). Consultation has also occurred with Watercare and the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. This plan change affects all local boards.

23. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

· local board documents, such as the local board plan and the local board agreement

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

24. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

26. The council has initiated consultation with all iwi authorities in the Auckland region including the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Healthy Waters have engaged with iwi in the past on the matter of rainwater tanks and to date iwi have been very supportive of harvesting rainwater for household use.

27. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The plan change does not pose any financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the plan change, if it doesn’t pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board to express its views and preferences

· the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing.

30. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

31. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).^{^[5]} This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. The planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

33. The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the plan change request by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Proposed Plan Change 54 (PC 54) and Proposed Plan Modification 13 (PM 13) (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Barry Mosley - Principal Policy Planner, Plans and Places

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason – GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Local board views on Plan Change 53 - Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct

File No.: CP2020/16306

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite the Kaipātiki Local Board to provide its views on Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct, a council-initiated plan change.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the plan change, if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including plan changes. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.^{^[6]}

4. Auckland Council notified proposed Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct on 24 September 2020. Submissions closed on 20 October 2020. The plan change proposes to change the Auckland Unitary Plan by enabling an increase in the number of temporary activities able to be undertaken as permitted activities in the following manner.

a) Requiring a traffic management plan (as a permitted activity standard) for an event in a rural or Future Urban zone where more than 500 vehicle movements per day on adjacent roads are generated.

b) Increasing the duration of those temporary activities that are defined as noise events (i.e. they exceed the noise standards for the zone) from six to eight hours.

c) Aligning Anzac Day in the Pukekohe Park precinct to the definition under the Anzac Day Act 1966.

5. Two additional minor changes are proposed to address anomalies - a gap in the coastal temporary activities and a minor wording change to the temporary activities Activity Table.

6. The Auckland Unitary Plan objectives and policies seek to enable temporary activities so that they can contribute to a vibrant city and enhance the well-being of communities. At the same time, it seeks to mitigate adverse effects on amenity values, communities, the natural environment, historic heritage and sites and places of significance to mana whenua. The proposed plan change does not alter these objectives and policies.

7. The critical themes from submissions are:

· removing the lighting of fireworks as a permitted activity from Pukekohe Park precinct

· treating Sundays the same as other days of the week when Anzac Day falls on a Sunday at Pukekohe Park (i.e. an event can occur from 1pm onwards)

· adding the New Zealand Transport Authority to the authorisers of the Transport and Traffic Management Plan (alongside Auckland Transport) where there is potential impact on the state highway network

· support for the plan change in respect of temporary military training activities.

8. No iwi authority has made a submission in support or opposition to the plan change.

9. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on Plan Change 53 should it wish to do so. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) provide local board views on Plan Change 53 - Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park precinct.

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on Plan Change 53.

c) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Kaipātiki Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

10. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.^{^[7]}

11. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the plan change, along with submissions.

12. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the plan change.

13. This report provides an overview of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

14. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board conveys its views on plan change 53. The planner must include any local board views in the evaluation of the plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

15. The temporary activities plan change applies to the Auckland region and one specific change applies to the Pukekohe Park precinct.

16. The purpose of proposed Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct is to:

· reduce some of the compliance costs associated with temporary activities. This is in respect of the duration of noise events, the requirement for a resource consent to address traffic management issues for events in rural areas and the interpretation of Anzac Day in relation to the Pukekohe Park precinct

· address two discrepancies in the temporary activity standards – one in the Activity Table (E40.4.1) and a gap in the coastal temporary activity provisions (E25.6.14).

17. The Section 32 Report and details of the plan change are available from the council’s website at PlanChange53 (also included in Attachment A and B of the agenda report). The council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· the Section 32 Report that accompanies the plan change

· submissions

· the views and preferences of the local board, if the local board passes a resolution.

Themes from submissions received

18. Key submission themes are listed below.

· Removing the lighting of fireworks as a permitted activity from Pukekohe Park.

· Treating Sundays the same as other days of the week when Anzac Day falls on a Sunday at Pukekohe Park (i.e. an event can occur from 1pm onwards).

· Adding NZTA (New Zealand Transport Authority) to the authorisers of the Transport and Traffic Management Plan (alongside Auckland Transport) where there is potential impact on the state highway network, and

· Support for the plan change in respect of temporary military training activities.

19. Submissions were made by four people/organisations:

Table 1: Submissions received on plan change 53

Submissions	Number of submissions
In support	1
In support but requesting change(s)	3
In opposition	0
Neutral	0
Total	4

20. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from the council’s website: PlanChange53 (also included in Attachment A and B of the agenda report).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. There were no submissions that raised specific climate concerns.

22. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

23. The local board could consider if the plan change:

· will reduce, increase or have no effect on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. does it encourage car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form)

· prepares the region for the adverse impacts of climate change; that is, does the proposed plan change elevate or alleviate climate risks (e.g. flooding, coastal and storm inundation, urban heat effect, stress on infrastructure).

24. The propose changes to the temporary activity standards and the Pukekohe Park precinct are neutral in terms of climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Auckland Transport and ATEED will review relevant submissions and provide expert input to the hearing report.

26. ATEED made a submission and the key matter raised is the need to treat Sundays the same as other days of the week when Anzac Day falls on a Sunday at Pukekohe Park (i.e. an event can occur from 1pm onwards).

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. The plan change affects Auckland-wide provisions and will therefore affect all local boards.

28. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

· local board documents, such as the local board plan or the local board agreement

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

29. On 17 July 2020, a memo was sent to all local boards outlining the proposed changes, the rationale for them and the likely plan change timeframes.^{^[8]}

30. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it may also comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

32. Plans and Places consulted with all iwi authorities when it prepared the plan change. On 14 July 2020, a memorandum outlining the draft proposed plan change was sent to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities as required under the Resource Management Act. Consultation has also been undertaken with the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Responses were received from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki.

33. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had no concerns with the proposed changes and did not need to engage further. Ngai Tai ki Tamaki advised that a potential concern is the Marine and Coastal Area Act – Takutai Moana claims and legal processes. The proposed changes however do not impact on the activities able to be undertaken in the coastal marine area. They address a gap in the noise standards for the coastal marine area.

34. No iwi authorities made a formal submission.

35. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.^{^[9]} The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.^{^[10]}

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The proposed plan change involves changes to some of the standards for temporary activities and the Pukekohe Park precinct in the AUP. This will make it easier and less expensive for event organisers from a resource management perspective – i.e. they may not need a resource consent.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the plan change, if it doesn’t pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for the Kaipātiki Local Board to express its views and preferences if it so wishes; and

· the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing.

38. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

39. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. The planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the Section 42A hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

41. The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the plan change request by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Proposed Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activity Standards & Pukekohe Park Precinct (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Proposed Changes to E40. Temporary activities, I434. Pukekohe Park Precinct & E25. Noise and vibration (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tony Reidy – Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason, General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Addition to the 2020 Kaipātiki Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2020/16399

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for one meeting date to be added to the 2019-2022 Kaipātiki Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Kaipātiki Local Board adopted the 2020 meeting schedule on 19 February 2020 (resolution number KT/2020/11).

3. At that time the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision making in relation to the local board agreement as part of the Annual Plan 2019/2020 were unknown.

4. The local board is being asked to approve one meeting date as an addition to the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting schedule so that the modified 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes can be met.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the addition of one meeting date to the 2020 Kaipātiki Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate the 10-Year Budget 20212031 timeframes as follows:

· Wednesday, 2 December 2020, 10.00am

Horopaki

Context

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

6. In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

· clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings.

· sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

7. The Kaipātiki Local Board adopted its 2020 business meeting schedule at its 19 February 2020 business meeting (resolution number KT/2020/11).

8. The timeframes for local board decision-making in relation to the local board agreement which is part of the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

9. The board is being asked to make decisions in early-December, early-May and mid-June to feed into the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 process. These timeframes are outside the board’s normal meeting cycle.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. The local board has two choices:

i) Add the meeting as an addition to the meeting schedule;

ii) Add the meeting as an extraordinary meeting.

11. For option one, statutory requirements allow enough time for this meeting to be scheduled as an addition to the meeting schedule and other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting. However, there is a risk that if the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 timeframes change again or the information is not ready for the meeting there would need to be an additional extraordinary meeting scheduled anyway.

12. For option two, only the specific topic 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 may be considered for which the meeting is being held. There is a risk that no other policies or plans with similar timeframes or running in relation to the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 process could be considered at this meeting.

13. Since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, staff recommend option one, approving this meeting as an addition to the meeting schedule, as it allows more flexibility for the local board to consider a range of issues. This requires a decision of the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of climate change will not impact the decision’s implementation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. There is no specific impact for the council group from this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. This report requests the local board’s decision to schedule additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report. Local boards work with Māori on projects and initiatives of shared interest.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18. There are no financial implications in relation to this report apart from the standard costs associated with servicing a business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

19. If the local board decides not to add this business meeting to their schedule this will cause a delay to the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031 process, which would result in local board input not being able to be presented to the Governing Body for their consideration and inclusion in the 10-Year Budget.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20. Implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

18 November 2020

Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board - October 2020

File No.: CP2020/16418

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to record the Kaipātiki Local Board workshop held on Wednesday 14 October and Wednesday 28 October 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At the workshop held on Wednesday 14 October 2020, the workshop session was on:

· Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031

· Parks Sport and Recreation

- Draft Urban Ngahere Action plan (10-year)

- PSR update

- Community Access Review

· Service Strategy and Integration

- Local Parks Management Plan

· Kaipātiki Local Grant Round One 2020/2021

· Community Facilities

- CF Sustainable Asset Standard

· Long Term Plan/Local Board Agreement – consultation direction and allocation of decision-making

3. At the workshop held on Wednesday 28 October 2020, the workshop session was on:

· Community Facilities

- Little Shoal Bay coastal assessment report discussion

· Long Term Plan / Local Board Agreement

· Service Strategy and Integration

- Service Level and Funding Project Proposals

· Auckland Transport

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) note the record for the Kaipātiki Local Board workshop held on Wednesday 14 October and Wednesday 28 October 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - 14 October 2020 Workshop Record	117
b ⇩	18 November 2020 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - 28 October 2020 Workshop Record	119

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

[1] 2014 C40 Green Building City Market Briefs Compendium. C40 is a global network of leadership cities taking action to address climate change. Auckland is a member of this network.

[2] A 4.44 per cent premium was applied to those projects meeting certification thresholds for delivery between 2021-2029. This percentage was based on findings from a 2005 study by the Ministry for the Environment which found sustainable building features to cost an average of two to six per cent more than capital costs for Standard buildings.

[3] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 15(2)(c).

[4] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, ss15-16.

[5] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 36D.

[6] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 15(2)(c)

[7] Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, ss15-16.

[8] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Part 1A, clause 36D.

[10] Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017, Independent Māori Statutory Board

Chairperson	John Gillon
Deputy Chairperson	Danielle Grant, JP
Members	Paula Gillon
	Ann Hartley, JP
	Melanie Kenrick
	Cindy Schmidt
	Andrew Shaw
	Adrian Tyler

Authors	Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipātiki
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager