Agenda of Ōrākei Local Board

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport November 2020 monthly update report	9
b ⇩	Allocation of Local Board Transport Capital Fund	15

Ōrākei Local Board

19 November 2020

Ōrākei Quick Response and Tree Protection Grants Round One 2020/2021 grant allocations.

File No.: CP2020/16596

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline the applications received for Ōrākei Quick Response and Tree Protection Grants Round One 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Ōrākei Quick Response and Tree Protection Grants Round One 2020/2021 (Attachment B).

3. The Ōrākei Local Board adopted the Ōrākei Local Board Community Grants Programme 2020/2021 on 16 April 2020. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $279,000 for the 2020/2021 financial year. A total of $94,864 was allocated in the Ōrākei Local Grants Round One 2020/2021.This leaves a total of $184,136 remaining to be allocated in two quick response and one local grant round.

5. Nineteen applications have been received for Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021 requesting a total of $53,760.96.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Ōrākei Quick Response Grants Round One, listed in Table One

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QRTP2112-101	Glen Taylor School Board of Trustees	Community	Towards the purchase of an 'Automatic External Defibrillator'	$2,999.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-102	Glendowie Kindergarten under the umbrella of the 'Auckland Kindergarten Association Group'	Environment	Towards the purchase and installation of a water tank.	$1,995.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-103	Zionist Federation Of New Zealand Incorporated	Events	Towards musicians fees and hireage of a public announcement system for the 'Hanukkah in the Bays' event on 13 December 2020.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-104	Remuera Chinese Association	Community	Towards Christmas and end of year celebrations on 17 December 2020.	$3,662.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-105	Meadowbank Community Toy Library Incorporated	Community	Towards rental of the basement of 'St Chads Church' from 1 February to 30 April 2021.	$725.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-106	Hapori Marketing Limited	Community	Towards costs of rental space and marketing for events from 1 December 2020 to 26 June 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-107	Eastern Bays Toy Library	Community	Towards rent for the toy library from 1 January to 31 December 2021	$2,800.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-109	Quantum Events Lmited	Events	Towards discounted tickets, lifeguarding and patrol costs for the 'Bean Rock Swim' on 27 February 2021	$5,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-110	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards costs of supervision and clinical support for volunteer counsellors for Youthline.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-111	Blue Light Ventures Incorporated	Community	Towards printing and production costs of 772 'Street Smart Handbooks' for year thirteen students of Ōrākei area.	$2,702.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-112	Road Safety Education Limited	Community	Towards venue hire and facilitator costs for the Road Safety Programme.	$2,172.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-113	Bach Musica NZ Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards rehearsal pianist fees for Bach Musica.	$2,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-115	Grammar TEC Rugby Club Incorporated	Community	Towards the installation of an emergency phone in the elevator.	$2,724.71	Eligible
QRTP2112-116	Remuera Heritage Incorporated	Historic Heritage	Towards costs of editing, proof-reading, design, printing, photographs and digital publishing for a booklet on the 'Great Maori Feast of Remuera' by Joseph Merrett in 1844.	$3,450.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-119	Kāhui Tu Kaha Limited	Community	Towards venue hire, development of promotional materials, production of resource packs, workshop refreshments, mental health first aid workbooks, external presenters in kawa kawa remedies and rongo from 18 January to 21 December 2021.	$5,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-121	Mission Bay Business Association Incorporated	Community	Towards the purchase and installation of an additional security camera.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-122	Stonefields Community Centre Incorporated	Community	Towards costs of geotechnical foundation design and engineered protection of a council owned pressurised sewer main on proposed community centre site.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-123	Social Enterprise Auckland Incorporated	Community	Towards costs for venue hire, administration, project management, travel, contractor fees, donations, food and contingency fees for conducting impact workshops between 1 January to‍ 30 June 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QRTP2112-124	Claire Mason	Community	Towards tree protection and maintenance	$531.25	Eligible
Total				$53,760.96

Horopaki

Context

6. The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

7. Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme.

8. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Ōrākei Local Board adopted the Ōrākei Local Board Community Grants Programme 2020/2021 on 16 April 2020. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

10. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

12. Due to the current COVID-19 crisis, staff have also assessed each application according to which alert level the proposed activity is able to proceed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13. The Local Board Grants Programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include local food production and food waste reduction; increasing access to single-occupancy transport options; home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.

15. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Ōrākei Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications in accordance with its priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

17. The local board is requested to note that section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time”.

18. A summary of each application received through Ōrākei Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021 (Attachment B) is provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Maori. Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

20. Seven applicants applying to Ōrākei Quick Response Grants Round One indicate their projects target Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

22. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $279,000 for the 2020/2021 financial year. A total of $94,864 in grants was allocated in the Ōrākei Local Grants Round One 2020/2021. This leaves a total of $184,136 to be allocated to two quick response and one local grant round.

23. Nineteen applications have been received for Quick Response and Tree Protection Grants Round One 2020/2021 requesting a total of $53,760.96.

24. Relevant staff from Auckland Council’s Finance Department have been fully involved in the development of all local board work programmes, including financial information in this report, and have not identified any financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. Following the Ōrākei Local Board allocation of funding for the quick response grants round one, grants and incentives staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ōrākei Local Grants Programme 2020/2021	25
b ⇩	2020-2021 Ōrākei Local Board Quick Response Applications summary	29

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ann Kuruvilla - Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

19 November 2020

Proposed land exchange of part of 25 Barbarich Drive for 50 Tihi Street, Stonefields

File No.: CP2020/16142

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek the local board’s support to publicly notify a proposed land exchange of part of 25 Barbarich Drive with land located at 50 Tihi Street in Stonefields.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Local board views are sought to inform decision-making about a proposed exchange, in accordance with section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977, of 2970m² of land at 25 Barbarich Drive with 19,425m² of land located at 50 Tihi Street.

3. Staff recommend that the local board supports notification of the proposed land exchange.

4. The proposed exchange has been assessed against council open space policies and is deemed to be a high priority.

5. The land which is proposed to be acquired through the land exchange is situated on the base of Maungarei/Mount Wellington. It contains a walking path that links the Stonefields community with the maunga and connects to the Stonefields Heritage Trail.

6. Acquiring this site could benefit the local community by:

· ensuring public access to the existing walking path

· protecting Stonefields cultural and natural heritage

· enlarging and enhancing the reserve on Maungarei/Mount Wellington.

7. The land proposed to be disposed of through the land exchange has low open space amenity value and is not required to meet the provision targets in the Open Space Provision Policy in Stonefields. The site is located within 100 metres of Ngahue Reserve.

8. There is a low legal risk to council if it manages the land exchange in accordance with section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977. Key aspects of this process include public and mana whenua consultation.

9. If the land exchange does not proceed, there is a risk that public access to the walking path could be withdrawn in the future.

10. The local board’s views on the proposed land exchange will included in a report to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee on 10 December 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) support notification under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 of a proposed exchange, of approximately 2970m²of 25 Barbarich Drive, Stonefields (Lot 100 DP 529532), with approximately 19,425m² of land located at 50 Tihi Street, Stonefields, (Lot 901 DP 478725).

Horopaki

Context

A developer has proposed a land exchange in Stonefields

11. Templeton Group, a property development company, has proposed an in-principle exchange of part of 25 Barbarich Drive, Stonefields (2970m²)with 19,425m² of land located at 50 Tihi Street, Stonefields.

12. The proposal is in-principle because the council does not hold the title to 25 Barbarich Drive.

13. Under an existing agreement, the land will vest with the council under section 239 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as an unclassified recreation reserve upon deposit of the plans for subdivision with Land Information New Zealand by the developer.

14. This will allow a legal title to be created for 25 Barbarich Drive.

15. As the land will vest in the council as an unclassified reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 it should be afforded all the statutory protections of the Act. Accordingly, the land exchange should be managed in accordance with section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Figure 1: The proposed land exchange is the area shaded green for the area outlined in blue at the base of Maungarei/Mount Wellington

16. 25 Barbarich Drive was intended to be developed as open space under the Stonefields Master Plan.

17. The land is currently zoned as Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings under the Unitary Plan. If the land exchange is approved, the developer would seek to develop housing on the site.

18. The site proposed to be acquired by the council though the land exchange (outlined in blue) is located on the base of Maungarei/Mount Wellington. It has two Unitary Plan zonings – part Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building Zone and part Residential – Single House Zone.

19. This site is a steeply contoured conservation area containing a walking path that connects to, and complements, the Stonefields Heritage Trail on council-owned land (see Attachment A).

The land exchange process is set out in the Reserves Act 1977

20. Section 15 of the Reserves Act prescribes the process for a land exchange between reserves and other land. The process has four key steps:

· the administering body (in this case Auckland Council) publicly notifies its intention to undertake the land exchange and calls for objections in writing, allowing a period of at least one month for objections to be received

· after a period of at least one month following public notification the administering body considers all objections to the proposed land exchange

· the administering body passes a resolution supporting the land exchange if it considers it appropriate to do so in light of the objections received

· a copy of the resolution supporting the land exchange is forwarded to the Minister of Conservation, or their delegate, along with the objections for authorisation.

21. Relevant mana whenua must also be consulted.

There is shared decision-making for the acquisition of open space

22. The decision-making allocations for the acquisition of land for parks and open space is set out in Volume Two of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

23. The governing body is responsible for:

· the number and general location of all new parks and the prioritisation of major upgrades to existing parks (including sports fields within parks)

· acquisition and divestment of all park land, including the disposal or surplus parks, excluding any disposals and reinvestment made in accordance with the Service Property Optimisation Approach.

24. Local boards are responsible for the specific location of new local parks (including the prioritisation for acquisition) within budget parameters agreed with the governing body.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The proposed land exchange is deemed to be a high priority when assessed against council policy

25. Land exchanges are assessed against criteria in the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013 and Parks and Open Space Provision Policy 2016. Proposed land exchanges are prioritised according to the highest rating.

26. Table 1 provides a summary of the assessment of the proposed land exchange.

27. The acquisition of the land at 50 Tihi Street is a high priority when assessed against council policies. 25 Barbarich Drive is not a priority for retention.

Table 1: Initial assessment of the open space benefits that could result from the proposed land exchange

Acquisition criteria	Comment	Total Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	· 25 Barbarich Drive is not needed to meet the provision targets in the Open Space Provision Policy and is not a priority for retention · 50 Tihi Street contains a well-used walking path	The land exchange is a high priority
Connecting parks and open spaces	· 25 Barbarich Drive does not connect existing parks or open space to each other · 50 Tihi Street links the community with the maunga and connects to the Stonefields Heritage Trail
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings	· 25 Barbarich Drive has no known ecological, historic heritage, landscape, geological or cultural values · 50 Tihi Street is at the base of Maungarei/Mount Wellington which has significance to mana whenua and also natural heritage values due to its geology
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have	· 25 Barbarich Drive would not improve any existing parks and open spaces and is not a priority for retention · 50 Tihi Street is a logical extension to the small triangular park adjacent to Papango Street and Tauoma Crescent. It connects to and improves the functionality and accessibility of Maungarei/Mt Wellington, the reserve at the end of Gollan Road, and 63 Lunn Avenue, Mount Wellington – the linear open space that contains the Stonefields Heritage Trail.

28. Staff recommend that the local board support public notification of the proposed land exchange.

29. Acquiring this site could benefit the local community by:

· ensuring public access to the existing walking path

· protecting Stonefields cultural and natural heritage

· enlarging and enhancing the reserve on Maungarei/Mount Wellington.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. Vegetation on parks and open space can serve as temperature regulators through shade and evapotranspiration. Plants and woodlands can also process and store carbon, helping to offset the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

31. Parks and open space also act as collection points for surface and run-off water, reducing flood risks during storms.

32. Climate change is expected to bring increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and changing rainfall patterns. Park development proposals will need to reflect these effects and take into consideration the environmentally sensitive ways parks and open space must be managed to achieve their benefits. This includes energy and waste reduction and conserving water resources.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. The proposed land exchange is supported by Parks, Sport and Recreation staff.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. Residents of Stonefields generally have good access to a wide range of open space for public sport and recreation.

35. Acquiring 50 Tihi Street would safeguard existing community access to the existing path. This would support the delivery of the goal in the Ōrākei Open Space Network Plan ‘to formalise public access rights [across 50 Tihi Street] as an extension of the Stonefields Heritage Trail.’

36. This exchange would also support key aspects of the Ōrākei Local Board Plan 2017:

· Outcome 1: Our local parks and open space areas are valued and enjoyed

· Outcome 4: The natural environment is valued, protected and enhanced by our communities.

37. However, local residents may have an expectation that 25 Barbarich Drive will be developed as a neighbourhood park as outlined in the Stonefields Master Plan.

38. Local board approval to publicly notify the proposed land is sought through this report. The public consultation process will enable these residents to express their views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. The land to be acquired by the council under the proposed exchange is part of Maungarei and it has significance to mana whenua.

40. Subject to the proposed land exchange being approved for public notification, consultation with mana whenua will be undertaken under section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

41. If the land exchange proceeds, the site could be administered by the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority in accordance with the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.

42. Integrated management of the site as part of Maungarei would benefit open space outcomes. It would also reflect the significance of the land to mana whenua.

43. The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority has indicated it is willing to meet all costs associated with administration of the site.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

44. The costs of public and mana whenua engagement on the land exchange will be met within the existing department budget.

45. Council will seek an independent valuation of the two sites to ensure the exchange represents fair value to council and an equality of exchange as required under the Reserves Act 1977. The cost of the valuation will be met within the existing department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46. There is a low legal risk to council if it manages the land exchange in accordance with section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977. Key aspects of this process include public and mana whenua consultation. Approval is sought to undertake this consultation.

47. There is a low delivery risk as there is no guarantee that the proposed land exchange will be:

· approved by the governing body for notification

· supported by mana whenua through the consultation process

· supported by the public through the consultation process

· supported by the governing body following consultation

· authorised by the Minister of Conservation or their delegate.

48. If the exchange does not proceed and the site remains in private ownership, then a current or future owner may withdraw public access to the existing path. This represents a low reputational risk to council as some members of the public may consider it to be part of the adjacent Stonefields Heritage Trail.

49. There is a low financial risk that council and Templeton Group will not reach an agreement on the value of the sites. This risk can be mitigated by obtaining independent valuations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. The local board’s views on the proposed land exchange will included in a report to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee on 10 December 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Stonefields Heritage Trail and adjoining path on 50 Tihi Street	109

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Caroline Stephens - Graduate Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

19 November 2020

Approval for a new road name at 43-45 Benson Road, Remuera

File No.: CP2020/14558

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Ōrākei Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of a subdivision development at 43-45 Benson Road, Remuera.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names within the Board’s area. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation.

3. The developer and applicant, Bei Yue Limited, has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

4. Any of the proposed road name options would be acceptable for the local board to approve for use in this location, having been assessed to ensure that they meet Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines for road naming. All technical standards are met and the names are not duplicated anywhere else in the region. Mana Whenua were also consulted.

5. The proposed names for the new private road at 43-45 Benson Road are:

· Marānui Lane (Applicant Preferred)

· Maunga Lane (Alternative 1)

· Maungaiti Lane (Alternative 2)

· Te Hākari Lane (Alternative 3).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) approve the name Marānui Lane (applicant preferred name) or Te Hākari Lane (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei preferred name) for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 43-45 Benson Road, Remuera in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent reference BUN60307793 and SUB60307796).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent BUN60307793 (subdivision reference number SUB60307796) was issued in June 2018 for the construction of fourteen residential units and one commonly owned access lot (COAL).

7. In accordance with the National Addressing Standards for road naming (the AS/NZS 4819-2011 standard), the road requires a road name because it serves more than five lots.

8. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B respectively.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the Local Board’s approval.

10. The Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines typically require that road names reflect one of the following local themes, with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

· a historical, cultural, or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature; or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

11. All four names were suggested by the Remuera Heritage Society and reflects the history of 43-45 Benson Road and the local area.

12. The Applicant’s proposed names and meanings are set out in the table below:

Suggested name	Meaning (as described by the applicant)
Marānui Lane (Applicant preferred)	The development sits on land that originally formed part of Marānui, a large house and property owned by Thomas Cheeseman, who for 50 years was the Curator Director of the Auckland Museum. The property fronted Benson Road, Upland Road, and Ōrākei Road with over 3 acres and had a very large garden of native trees and plants.
Maunga Lane (Alternative 1)	Upland Road used to be called Mountain Road. Maunga is the Maori word for ‘mountain’.
Maungaiti Lane (Alternative 2)	Maungaiti means ‘little mountain’.
Te Hākari Lane (Alternative 3)	Te Hākari means ‘the feast’ - The great feast of Remuera was held in 1844 near Rangitoto-iti volcano. This name is preferred by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei as they strongly supported this feast by contributing copious amounts of kaimoana and vegetables for attending guests.

13. All the name options listed above are acceptable for use, having been assessed by the Council Subdivision team to ensure that they meet Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. All technical standards are met and the names are not duplicated anywhere else in the region, therefore it is up to the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context.

14. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable for use and not duplicated elsewhere in the region.

15. ‘Lane’ is an acceptable road type for the new private road, suiting the form and layout of the road, as per the Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines.

16. Mana whenua were consulted in line with agreed processes and requirements – see the ‘Māori Impact Statement’ section of this report for more details.

Consultation

17. The Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines expect that there will be consultation with the local residents’ and business associations, local special interest groups, historical societies and mana whenua. A list of those organisations which may have an interest in the naming was prepared for the applicant. The applicant then consulted with the following groups:

· Remuera Heritage Society

· Remuera Resident Association

· Remuera Business Association.

18. The Remuera Heritage Society suggested all four of the applicants proposed names. These names were then forwarded on to the Remuera Resident Association and Remuera Business Association for their feedback.

19. Both the Remuera Residents Association Inc and the Remuera Business Association responded with their preference for ‘Marānui Lane’.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. The naming of roads has no effect on climate change. Relevant environmental issues have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the associated approved resource consent for the development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. The decision sought for this report has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. To aid local board decision making, the Ōrākei Local Board Road Naming Policy and Guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua, particularly through the resource consent approval process, and the allocation of road names where appropriate, as well as a process to enable mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications. Depending on the scale of the development and its level of significance, not all road naming applications receive comments from mana whenua.

24. On the 10 September 2020, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process. Representatives of the following mana whenua groups with an interest in the local area were contacted: Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, Ngāti Paoa Trust Board, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Ahiwaru Waiohua, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Te Kawerau a Maki, Te Patukirikiri, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, and Waikato – Tainui.

25. Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara, Ngati Paoa, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua all deferred their interest to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

26. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei responded in support of the applicants third alternative name, however recommended adding ‘Te’ (The) in front of ‘Hākari’ to mean ‘The Feast’. They note that Te Hākari was significant to the history of the area and is a good example of Māori and the English settlers working and coming together for a magnificent and momentous occasion.

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei also insisted on the inclusion of macrons over the ā in both words Te Hākari and Marānui. Macrons should be used to ensure the words mean what is intended.

The applicant has agreed to the above recommendations by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and the names have been changed in the report to include the spelling corrections.

27. No other iwi provided responses or comments or suggested any other road name options.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process, with consultation being a key part of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by local councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan for 43-45 Benson Road, Remuera	115
b ⇩	Location plan for 43-45 Benson Road, Remuera	117

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Salter - Subdivision Technical Officer

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

19 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/15241

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.^{^[1]}

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 recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Ōrākei 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 Ōrākei 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.^{^[2]}

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

o Rural Coastal Zone

o 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 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.

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 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 People, 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 Ōrākei 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).^{^[3]} 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

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Barry Mosley - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

19 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16294

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite the Ōrākei 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.^{^[4]}

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

Recommendations

That the Ōrākei 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 Ōrākei 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.^{^[5]}

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. 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.

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.^{^[6]}

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 Tāmaki.

33. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had no concerns with the proposed changes and did not need to engage further. Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki 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.^{^[7]} The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.^{^[8]}

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 Ōrākei 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

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

19 November 2020

Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard

File No.: CP2020/16649

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 (Attachment A).

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 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

Recommendations

That the Ōrākei 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. 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, below.

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 CF 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 CF 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^{^[9]} require green building certifications for all new facilities. For CF to manage its assets efficiently and sustainably, our practices need to go beyond building code compliance. Green building and infrastructure tools provide the framework to align CF 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 Tāmaki 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 Tāmaki Makaurau.

Te Aranga Design Principles

30. Measuring CF’s 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^{^[10]} 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 OpEx as part of the continuous improvement of CF business performance over the next three years, subject to change and approval as part of the LTP approval process and finalisation of the CapEx and OpEx 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	135

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toto Vu-Duc - Manager Community Leases

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

19 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.: CP2020/15971

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Ōrākei 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

Recommendations

That the Ōrākei 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 Ōrākei 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). 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 (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 ⇩	Summary of Powers available to Kāinga Ora	143
b ⇩	The Specified Development Project process	145

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Acting Policy and Planning Manager

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

19 November 2020

Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development six-monthly update to local boards: 1 January to 30 June 2020

File No.: CP2020/14942

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local boards with an update on Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development activities in each local board area as well as Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development’s regional activities for the period 1 January to 30 June 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To inform the local board about local/regional initiatives and how they are tracking.

3. The role of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) is to support:

· the growth of Auckland’s key internationally competitive sectors

· the provision of quality jobs across Auckland.

4. ATEED has supported multiple local board/regional initiatives that have supported economic development through development of businesses and an increase in events and sustainable tourism growth (including for Māori) across Auckland.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) receive the update from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development for the period 1 January to 30 June 2020.

Horopaki

Context

5. ATEED has two areas of delivery focus:

· Economic Development – including business support, business attraction and investment, local economic development, trade and industry development, skills employment and talent and innovation and entrepreneurship.

· Destination – supporting sustainable growth of the visitor economy with a focus on destination marketing and management, major events, business events (meetings and conventions) and international student attraction and retention.

6. ATEED works with local boards, the council and other council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to support decision-making on local economic growth and facilitates or coordinates the delivery of local economic development activity. It further ensures that the regional activities it leads and/or delivers fully support local economic growth and employment.

7. Additional information about ATEED’s role and activities can be found at: www.aucklandnz.com/ateed

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. From 1 January to 30 June 2020, 3726 businesses had been through an ATEED intervention, including 3174 businesses for Economic Development-related programmes and 549 for Destination-related programmes.^{^[11]}

9. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns have seen a marked increase in demand for business support in both resource and monetary terms, cancellation and postponement of major events and significant fallout incurred by the tourism sector. Figure 1 shows the number of businesses in each local board area who have sought out an ATEED Economic Development and/or Destination intervention.

10. Waitematā Local Board had the highest number of business interventions, while Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board had the lowest. Because Waitematā Local Board includes the region’s CBD, it is unsurprising that it has had the highest number of interventions. The data shows that within a local board area, between 1 per cent and 4 per cent of businesses took part in an ATEED intervention.

11. Most local board areas had higher rates of participation in Economic Development-related programmes compared to Destination-related interventions over the six months. The following local board areas had Destination-related interventions of over 25 per cent:

· Waiheke

· Waitematā

· Rodney

· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu.

12. The businesses in these local board areas have high rates of Auckland Convention Bureau^{^[12]} membership and many benefit from ATEED’s tourism advocacy programme.

Māori businesses

13. Māori businesses are represented in ATEED interventions across all local board areas, with Waitematā Local Board having the highest intervention uptake. This is due to the high number of businesses in the Waitematā Local Board area relative to other local board areas.

Jobseekers in Auckland

14. During the April to June 2020 quarter, New Zealand experienced a rapid increase in the number of people who became recipients of a jobseeker benefit from the Ministry of Social Development. Jobseeker benefit data acts as a proxy for unemployment figures. The number of new recipients of the Jobseeker – Work Ready benefit from April to June 2020 can be compared for each local board area in Figure 3. Please note that the data from the Ministry of Social Development grouped together Waiheke and Aotea / Great Barrier local boards and cannot be separated for the purposes of this graph.

15. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Henderson-Massey Local Board areas have the highest numbers of recipients in the second quarter of the year. Aotea / Great Barrier, Waiheke, and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards reflect the lowest number of recipients in Auckland. The number of recipients generally correlate with socio-economic status and population size.

Economic Development

Locally driven initiatives

Table 1: Locally driven initiatives
Local board	Initiative	Update	Budget
Albert-Eden	Sustainability Kick Start	Business participation: 10 Programme completed: March 2020	$24,000
Franklin	Hunua Trail Plan Implementation	Project reinstated after Covid-19 interruptions in Q4 with expected increase in project activity going into 2020/21.	$80,000
Hibiscus and Bays	Pop-Up Business School	Course delivered: 10-21 February 2020 Registrations: 57	$7500
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	Young Enterprise Scheme	Local board funds supported the Kick Start Days (February). Sponsorship Agreement signed. Expected draw-down of funds by 30 June 2020.	$3500
Manurewa	Young Enterprise Scheme	Local board funds supported the Kick Start Days (February). Sponsorship Agreement signed. Expected draw-down of funds by 30 June 2020.	$2000
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Onehunga Sustainability Development Programme	First year of two-year project. First stage focuses on retail/services. Waste audits scheduled for April-June, however continued business participation in programme uncertain due to pandemic.	$20,000
Ōrākei	Young Enterprise Scheme	Local board funds supported the Kick Start Days (February). Sponsorship Agreement signed. Expected draw-down of funds by 30 June 2020.	$2000
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	Young Enterprise Scheme	Local board funds supported the Kick Start Days (February). Sponsorship Agreement signed. Expected draw-down of funds by 30 June 2020.	$3000
	Business Sustainability Follow-Up Programme	Programme launched mid-March, however continued business participation in programme uncertain due to pandemic.	$20,000
	Little India Promotion	The promotion part of Visitor Attraction Programme, launched in February. Programme put on hold in March due to the pandemic.	$20,000
Upper Harbour	Young Enterprise Scheme	Local board funds supported the Kick Start Days (February). Sponsorship Agreement signed. Expected draw-down of funds by 30 June 2020.	$2000
Waitematā	Sustainability Kick Start Programme	Business participation: 10 Programme completed: March 2020	$24,000
Waitematā	Young Enterprise Scheme	Local board funds supported the Kick Start Days (February). Sponsorship Agreement signed. Expected draw-down of funds by 30 June 2020.	$5000
Whau	Young Enterprise Scheme	Local board funds supported the Kick Start Days (February). Sponsorship Agreement signed. Expected draw-down of funds by 30 June 2020.	$1000

Supporting local business growth

16. A key programme in supporting the growth of Auckland’s internationally competitive sectors and the provision of quality jobs is central government’s Regional Business Partnership Network. This is delivered by ATEED’s Business and Innovation Advisors, whose role is to connect local businesses to resources, experts and services in innovation, Research and Development, business growth and management.

17. Three thousand and seven businesses participated in this programme from January 1 to June 30, represented below in Figure 4 which also breaks down business uptake per local board area.

18. Demand for business support increased significantly between March and June because of the fallout from the pandemic. To this end, programme coverage for the region ranged from 1 per cent to 2 per cent of all businesses in each local board area. Local boards with the highest coverage in percentage terms were Waitematā (2.1 per cent), Upper Harbour (2 per cent), Maungakiekie-Tāmaki (2 per cent), and Kaipātiki (1.8 per cent).

Other support for new businesses

19. Figure 5 shows the number of Auckland businesses that took part in ATEED’s business innovation clinics per local board area from January to June 2020. Local board areas with the highest number of participants were:

· Albert-Eden

· Kaipātiki

· Manurewa

· Ōrākei

· Waitematā.

20. As businesses refocus their efforts to cope with uncertainties arising from the pandemic, ATEED has reviewed one of its programmes with a decision for it to be discontinued - no workshops took place over the relevant six-month period. The ‘Starting Off Right’ programme gave free support and provided expert advice to new business owners and managers. ATEED is working on an alternative approach to support Auckland business start-ups and entrepreneurs.

Film activity

21. ATEED’s Screen Auckland team issues film permits for filming in public open spaces. This activity supports local businesses and employment, as well as providing a revenue stream to local boards for the use of local parks.

22. Between 1 January and 30 June 2020, a total of 246 film permits^{^[13]} were issued across Auckland. During lockdown, most filming activity ceased, however once the more restrictive alert levels were lifted in May, there was an increase in permits being issued.

23. Although Waitākere Ranges Local Board had the most permits issued (46), Franklin Local Board’s share of the permit revenue was the highest ($9921.74) from its 12 permits. Total revenue for all local boards was $45,342.49.^{^[14]} This information is shown in Figure 6 and Table 2 below.

Table 2: Film permits and revenue
Local Board	Film permits	Revenue
Albert-Eden	15	$2893.92
Aotea / Great Barrier	0	$0.00
Devonport-Takapuna	16	$3756.51
Franklin	12	$9921.74
Henderson-Massey	31	$3147.82
Hibiscus and Bays	18	$4066.08
Howick	3	$460.87
Kaipātiki	5	$1085.21
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	8	$2452.18
Manurewa	3	$252.18
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	6	$600.00
Ōrākei	8	$1017.39
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	14	$2782.60
Papakura	0	$0.00
Puketāpapa	4	$973.91
Rodney	26	$2817.39
Upper Harbour	0	$0.00
Waiheke	0	$0.00
Waitākere	46	$4860.87
Waitematā	30	$4210.34
Whau	1	$43.48
Total:	246	$45,342.49

Young Enterprise Scheme

24. The Auckland Chamber of Commerce has delivered the Lion Foundation Young Enterprise Scheme (YES) since January 2018. ATEED plays a strategic role and provides funding for this initiative. Through the programme, students develop creative ideas into businesses, complete with real products and services generating profit (and sometimes losses). During the period, there were 53 schools (1523 students) that completed the programme. This year, the programme took place mostly online.

Table 3: YES Schools
Local Board	Schools involved
Albert-Eden	Auckland Grammar School Diocesan School for Girls Epsom Girls Grammar School Mt Albert Grammar School St Cuthbert's College (Epsom)
Devonport-Takapuna	Rosmini College Takapuna Grammar School Westlake Boys' High School Westlake Girls' High School
Franklin	Onewhero Area School Pukekohe High School Wesley College
Henderson-Massey	Henderson High School Massey High School Waitakere College
Hibiscus and Bays	Kingsway School Whangaparāoa College
Howick	Macleans College Edgewater College Pakuranga College Saint Kentigern College (Pakuranga)
Kaipātiki	Birkenhead College Glenfield College Northcote College
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	Al-Madinah School De La Salle College King's College Māngere College Southern Cross Campus TKM o Nga Tapuwae
Manurewa	Alfriston College Manurewa High School
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	One Tree Hill College Onehunga High School
Ōrākei	Baradene College Glendowie College Sacred Heart College (Auckland) Selwyn College
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	Aorere College Ormiston Senior College Papatoetoe High School Sancta Maria College Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate Senior School
Rodney	Mahurangi College
Upper Harbour	Albany Senior High School Hobsonville Point School (Secondary) Kristin School
Waitematā	Auckland Girls' Grammar School St Mary's College (Ponsonby) Western Springs College
Whau	Auckland International College Avondale College Kelston Girls' College

25. Figure 7 shows the number of schools participating in the Young Enterprise Scheme by local board area.

26. Higher participation in the scheme occurred in the following local board areas:

· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

· Albert-Eden

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe.

27. This is mainly due to there being a higher number of schools in these areas.

Local jobs and skills hubs

28. The City Centre, Manukau and Northern hubs were all closed during lockdown and were open in June but with limited public-facing services. A reorganisation of the jobs and skills hubs services is underway in response to the impact of COVID-19 on the labour market and the funding received in the central government budget in May this year.

The South and West Auckland Prosperity Project

29. ATEED, the Southern Initiative (TSI) and the Western Initiative (TWI) have been working together on a project that is focused on how we can ensure that the mega economic shock of Covid-19 does not create further disparity and inequity for South and West Auckland, in partnership with Stakeholder Strategies. The presentation of the South and West Prosperity Project has been compiled using Auckland, South and West, Māori and Pacific-specific data, and includes a number of next steps for ATEED, TSI and TWI, and direction for the eco-system to enable prosperity for South and West Auckland.

Destination

Visitor survey insights report

30. The Auckland Domestic Visitor Insights Report was created to inform the Auckland tourism industry about the changing domestic visitor market to assist with improved product development and destination marketing. This report was released in May 2020 for the year up to January 2020. It contains insights that can be used to market regions and local board areas to domestic visitors. Relevant insights are captured below.

31. Central Auckland (Albert-Eden, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Puketāpapa, Ōrākei, & Waitematā local boards):

· The majority of domestic visitors surveyed (78 per cent) came to Central Auckland, with an average satisfaction of experienced activities and attraction of 8.2/10. The top three attractions were Queen Street, Sky Tower and downtown waterfront/viaduct area.

· Of the surveyed domestic visitors that came to Auckland Central (year to December 2019), the most popular activities were frequenting a restaurant/café (59 per cent) followed by shopping (55 per cent). Other activities included visiting the casino or participating in gambling (21 per cent) and attending an event, concert or festival (20 per cent).

32. North Auckland (Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Rodney, and East Upper Harbour local boards):

· Just under half of surveyed domestic visitors (43 per cent) visited North Auckland. Their average satisfaction with experienced activities and attractions was 8.2/10. Of these domestic visitors, the top attraction was Albany (30 per cent), followed by Devonport (27 per cent) and Takapuna (27 per cent). This group also visited Wellsford (17 per cent) and Whangaparaoa Peninsula (13 per cent).

· The most common activity undertaken by surveyed international (39 per cent) and domestic (50 per cent) visitors was visiting a restaurant/café.

33. East Auckland (Franklin (East) and Howick local boards):

· A third of surveyed domestic visitors (32 per cent) visited East Auckland. Average satisfaction with East Auckland’s experienced activities/attractions was 8.2/10. Almost half (46 per cent) of domestic visitors went to Sylvia Park, a quarter (24 per cent) visited Howick and 18 per cent visited Half Moon Bay. In comparison to the international market, domestic visitors called in on the Howick Historical Village (13 per cent) and the Pakuranga Night Markets (11 per cent) in greater numbers.

· Further, surveyed domestic visitors visited art galleries, museums, historic sites (10 per cent) in the region more than surveyed international visitors.

34. South Auckland (Franklin (West), Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, and Papakura local boards):

· Over half of surveyed domestic visitors (52 per cent) to Auckland visited South Auckland, with the average satisfaction with South Auckland’s activities and attractions being 8.0 out of 10. Over half of surveyed domestic visitors that visited South Auckland visited the Auckland Airport (53 per cent); a third (33 per cent) visited Manukau; and a quarter (26 per cent) visited Rainbow’s End. In comparison to the international market, surveyed domestic visitors visited the Ōtara Market (13 per cent) and Ōtara (10 per cent) in greater numbers.

· Of the visitors that visited South Auckland, the top three activities for surveyed international and domestic visitors was visiting a restaurant or café, shopping and general exploration.

35. West Auckland (Henderson-Massey, West Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, and Whau local boards):

· Over a third of surveyed domestic visitors (35 per cent) to Auckland visited West Auckland. The average satisfaction with West Auckland’s activities and attractions for the international market was 8.2 out of 10. A third of the surveyed domestic visitors who visited West Auckland went to Piha Beach (34 per cent); 20 per cent visited Titirangi; and 19 per cent visited the Avondale Sunday Markets. In comparison to the international market, domestic visitors visited the Kumeu Farmers’ Market (14 per cent) and Parakai Hot Pools (13 per cent) more often.

· Visiting a restaurant or café, shopping and going to the beach were the top three domestic visitor activities.

36. Hauraki Gulf Islands (Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards):

· 20 per cent of surveyed domestic visitors to Auckland visited Hauraki Gulf Islands. Average satisfaction with the area’s experienced activities/attractions was 8.5/10 (highest satisfaction rating from the domestic market). The top domestic visitor attraction was Waiheke Island (44 per cent), followed by Rangitoto Island (18 per cent) and Onetangi Bay on Waiheke Island (18 per cent). In comparison to the international market, domestic visitors visited the Kaitoke Hot Springs on Great Barrier Island (12 per cent) and Whittaker’s Musical Museum on Waiheke Island (11 per cent) in greater numbers.

· The top three activities for surveyed domestic visitors was visiting a restaurant (33 per cent), general exploration (24 per cent) and sightseeing (22 per cent). Visiting wineries/breweries was a common activity cited by both international and domestic markets and was unique to the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

Local board destination management and marketing activities

37. During the six months to July 2020, there were a number of tourism-related ATEED interventions in each of the local board areas, including:

· Spring Campaign: Number of businsses promoted and supported through a multi-platform campaign to drive domestic visitation and spend in the spring off-season in Auckland.

· Tourism Advocacy: Number of businesses promoted for example in:

o offshore trade events

o trade shows

o marketing material

o broadcasts

o social media

o specific campaign content.

· Tourism Destination Development/Innovation: Tourism business capability building through coaching and facilitation. This includes one-on-one advice from ATEED Tourism team members for new and existing Auckland businesses.

· Tourism Famils (familiarisation trips for travel agents or media): Number of businesses who benefited from agent famils (ATEED links tourism operators to travel agents which results in bookings being made with the operators) and media famils (ATEED facilitated media files/hosting media to showcase tourism products).

38. Figure 8 below shows the number of Auckland businesses in local board areas (excluding Rodney and Waitematā local boards) involved in an ATEED tourism intervention (January-June 2020). Figure 9 depicts the number of Auckland businesses in the Albert-Eden, Rodney and Waitematā local board areas involved in an ATEED tourism intervention for the same period of time.

39. Waitematā and Rodney Local Boards are excluded from Figure 8 to allow for intervention participation scales of the other local boards to be appreciated without distraction. Instead, Waitematā and Rodney local boards are depicted in Figure 9 and compared to the Albert-Eden Local Board to highlight a much larger uptake of interventions by businesses in the two previously mentioned local board areas.

40. The reason for the difference in scale amongst the identified boards is because Waitematā includes the region’s central business district – it is therefore unsurprising that it maintains the highest number of business interventions.

41. Specific tourism interventions in the period included the Nau Mai multi-media content series in collaboration with New Zealand Media and Entertainment, which saw ambassadors promoting their favourite places in Auckland including where they love to eat, shop and go on ‘staycations’. These stories were aimed at encouraging Aucklanders to experience and explore their own region and targeted and encouraged other regions in the upper North Island to come and visit Auckland. Ambassadors mentioned attractions such as cafés, walks, beaches, parks, venues from the Matakana Farmers’ Market in Rodney Local Board to Castaways Resort on the west coast in Franklin Local Board, Ambury Farm in Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board and Waiheke Island’s Oyster Inn.

42. In March, the ‘Journeys North’ project in collaboration with Northland Inc saw the development of ‘Auckland Journeys’ offering visitors richer and easier journeys in the region to enjoy. Promoted locations included:

· Puhoi to Pakiri in Rodney

· Auckland Airport to Wellsford through Waitākere and Kumeu in the Waitākere Ranges

· Rodney.

43. ‘Famils’ are a means of promoting Auckland to influential international travel sellers, and prior to March hosted guests from the United States. Orewa and Waiheke Island were profiled in Air New Zealand’s in-flight magazine. Two episodes of Emmy award-winning US Travel show Samantha Brown’s Places to Love which focused on marketing Auckland to domestic and overseas viewers aired in January with an advertising spend rate of NZ$2.1 million per episode, and a reach of 700,000+ people per episode. Samantha enjoyed sailing in the Waitematā Harbour, eating and drinking in the city’s centre, hiking with a local Māori guide in the Parnell Domain, and taking a surf lesson at Piha beach.

Examples of separate local board area activities include:

44. Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board – Direct/indirect marketing activity increased in late June/July including:

· Surfer Today articulating the best surf spots in New Zealand featuring the Great Barrier Island.

· Stuff.co.nz published an article detailing the successes of Aotea / Great Barrier Island and other small towns, in terms of recovery from the pandemic.

· New Zealand Herald in an article about the ‘Life on Great Barrier Island: Local remedies led to thriving Māori health business’ and other articles (‘Off the Beaten Track’ and ‘The Best of Great Barrier’) promoting Aotea / Great Barrier Island as a great place for domestic tourists to visit.

· Radio New Zealand interviewed the owner of Great Barrier Island’s ‘The Curragh’ to talk about the upswing in domestic tourism after lockdown.

· ATEED will continue to play a supportive and facilitative role for tourism product development in the region to help raise the profile of Auckland as a destination.

45. Devonport-Takapuna Local Board – Devonport, Takapuna and Milford Business Improvement Districts were supported via the marketing activity of Explore North Shore – a digital site encouraging visitation and activity into the North Shore. Takapuna Beach Business Association received a grant from the local board for providing highly targeted and relevant tactics for businesses impacted by the Hurstmere Road infrastructure upgrade. The grant is endorsed and managed by ATEED.

46. Franklin Local Board – Ongoing support to the East Auckland Tourism Group and the Franklin Tourism Group through regular attendance at board meeting and important events, working with ATEED and leveraging this relationship for mutual benefit across marketing and product opportunities, and working with individual operators on product development for example the continuing development of the Hunua Trail and the Glenbrook Vintage Railway. Additionally, there was a focus on ongoing work with the development of Clevedon as a destination.

47. Howick Local Board – Continued engagement and strategy sessions through the ATEED Tourism Innovation team and South Auckland tourism clusters as well as managing an increased Howick Local Board grant to East Auckland Tourism development.

48. Rodney Local Board – Initiated multi-linked support for Aotea Organics in Rodney, which is one of the oldest organic farms in New Zealand. Multi-linked means that ATEED has a very large suite of products and services it can offer businesses, in this case ATEED was able to establish links and actions for tourism; inclusion in the travel maps, identification of event hosting, and research and development activity.

49. Waiheke Local Board – Collaboration with the Waiheke Island Tourism Group and other key stakeholders on the sustainable future of tourism for the island.

Māori Tourism Development Activity

50. ATEED worked with 45 Māori businesses in the tourism and 23 Māori businesses on the Māori and Iwi Tourism Development programme. Table 4 details the number of Maori tourism businesses by local board area:

Table 4: Māori Tourism businesses
Local board	Māori businesses	Māori and Iwi tourism development businesses
Albert-Eden	4	3
Aotea / Great Barrier	1	1
Henderson-Massey	4	4
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	5	2
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	1	1
Orākei	2	1
Rodney	4	3
Waiheke	1	-
Waitākere Ranges	4	1
Waitematā	18	7
Whau	1	-

51. Waitematā Local Board had the most Māori businesses involved in an ATEED tourism intervention, once again, owing to its inclusion of the CBD and being a top tourist destination. Just under half of local boards are not included in this table because no businesses that were involved in an ATEED tourism intervention were identified as Māori.

52. The Māori Tourism Innovation Partnership Programme has been established to enable ATEED to work collaboratively with the tourism industry to support the sustainable growth of tourism within Tāmaki Makaurau The programme aims to grow and strengthen the Auckland visitor economy by supporting iwi, hapū, marae, Māori Trusts, Urban Māori Authorities and Māori Tourism collectives within the region, and to aid the development of new Māori tourism experiences, build capability and business partnerships to meet the diverse needs of international and domestic markets.

Delivered, funded and facilitated events

53. The Tāmaki Herenga Waka Festival occurred on 31 January 2020 celebrating Auckland’s Māori heritage. The event was attended by nearly 6000 people and received media coverage. Overall customer satisfaction with the festival was 90 per cent.

54. To date, event cancellations and postponements due to COVID-19 have resulted in the loss of an estimated 74,179 visitor nights and over $10 million in GDP for the local economy. Cancelled events include the 2020 Auckland Lantern Festival, the 2020 Pasifika Festival and the 2020 Corona Piha Pro Challenger Series event.

55. Diwali and the second year of Elemental are confirmed to join other exciting events for the region in the coming months. Elemental 2020, like its inaugural festival last year, will take place all over the Auckland region. It will feature over 30 free and ticketed events in October. Elemental 2019 was attended by over 147,000 people. Due to uncertainty in the domestic tourism market, it is unlikely that there will be the same attendance for the 2020 festival.

56. Diwali is an annual festival that celebrates traditional and contemporary Indian culture in Aotea Square in the city centre and is set to occur in the last weekend of October this year. Last year’s festival was attended by approximately 65,000 people, up 9 per cent from an estimated 59,990 in 2018. Due to COVID-19, festival attendance is uncertain, but likely to decrease.

57. Figure 10 shows businesses ATEED works with across its major events. Major events stallholders are businesses that were supported through ATEED delivered events. Major Events Investments are those that were supported through ATEED sponsored events. Local boards not included in the graph were not part of such interventions.

Go With Tourism

58. Go with Tourism (GWT) is a jobs-matching platform that targets young people (18-30 years) and encourages them to consider a career in tourism. Since 2019, GWT has been expanded from an ATEED initiative to a national programme.

59. The platform signed up over 550 businesses prior to COVID-19, 149 of those were in Auckland.

60. In response to the pandemic, GWT formed a new ‘Support the Tourism Workforce’ Strategy which aims to help redeploy displaced tourism workers and provide guidance to businesses as they navigate their way through the impacts of the pandemic and, in due course, begin a post-crisis rebuild. Go with Tourism has received over 2200 requests for assistance from employees and businesses, since adopting the new strategy.

61. The industries most represented in the Auckland GWT programme (classified by Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification codes) are:

· Accommodation and Food Services (60 per cent)

· Arts and Recreation Services (19 per cent)

· Administrative and Support Services (7 per cent)

· Transport, Postal and Warehousing (5 per cent).

62. Because the programme is sector-focused, there is a cluster of businesses in tourism-heavy Waitematā Local Board (central city), and surrounding areas (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, and Ōrākei local boards). Local boards not included in the graph did not have any businesses take part in the interventions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

63. ATEED is currently considering how we respond to climate impacts in our projects and programmes. In the interim, ATEED assesses and responds to any impact that our initiatives may have on the climate on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

64. The proposed recommendation of receipt of this paper by the local board has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required in the preparation of this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

65. Local board views were not sought for the purposes of this report. However, such views were sought in the development of some of the initiatives as described in this paper.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

66. The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no impact on Māori. ATEED assesses and responds to any impact that our initiatives may have on Māori on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

67. The recommendation to receive the report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

68. The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no risk. ATEED assesses and manages any risk associated with our initiatives on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

69. ATEED will provide the next six-monthly report to the local board in February 2021 which will cover the period 1 July to 31 December 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Stephanie Sole, Strategy & Planning Graduate, ATEED

Authorisers

Quanita Khan, Manager Strategy and Planning, ATEED

Louise Mason, General Manager Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9] 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.

[10] 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.

[11] Some businesses were involved in an ATEED intervention for both Destination- and Economic Development-related activities, hence the numbers adding to over 3726. Business names must remain confidential for privacy reasons.

[12] Auckland Convention Bureau is responsible for positioning Auckland as a premium business events destination and for sales and marketing activity to grow the value and volume of business events in Auckland.

[13] This does not reflect all filming that takes place in studio, private property or low impact activity that does not require a permit.

[14] This includes local board fees only, other permit fees are directed to Auckland Transport (Special Events) and Regional Parks. Figures exclude GST and are as per the month the permit was invoiced, not necessarily when the activity took place.

Chairperson	Mr Scott Milne, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Sarah Powrie
Members	Troy Churton
	Colin Davis, JP
	Troy Elliott
	Margaret Voyce
	David Wong, JP

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ōrākei Local Board workshop record - 1 October 2020	183
b ⇩	Ōrākei Local Board workshop record - 8 October 2020	185
c ⇩	Ōrākei Local Board workshop record - 22 October 2020	187

Author	Kim Lawgun - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager