Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20201119 Notice of Motion Road Naming in the Puketāpapa Local	11

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 November 2020

Auckland Transport November 2020 Report

File No.: CP2020/16383

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to the Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) on Auckland Transport (AT) matters in its area and an update on its local board transport capital fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report highlights AT activities in the Puketāpapa Local Board area and contains information about the following:

· 2019-2022 Local Board Transport Capital Fund Recommendations

· Mt Roskill Safer Communities project unveiled

· Road Safety Program for Auckland

· Auckland Freight Plan

· Commuter Calculator Campaign

· Future Connect

· Keith Hay Park - Arundel St carpark – Update on Enforcement

· Public consultations and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee in the Puketāpapa Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport’s update report for November 2020.

b) approve the Local Board Transport Fund allocation of $167,138 to the following projects:

· Puketāpapa Greenways $162,138 for the delivery of stage 1

· Hillsborough Road Signalised Crossing (at Goodall Street) $5,000 towards the design phase.

Horopaki

Context

3. AT is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. It reports on a monthly basis to local boards, as set out in its Local Board Engagement Plan. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role of local boards within and on behalf of their local communities.

4. This report updates the Puketāpapa Local Board on AT projects and operations in the local board area, it updates the local board on their consultations and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

5. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by AT. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of AT’s work programme. Projects must also:

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

· be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

6. The Puketāpapa Local Board held a workshop on the 8 October where the following was presented for the Local Board consideration.

7. Key outcomes of the workshop were for the Local Board to confirm its priority projects for 2020/2021 so that these can be progressed as soon as possible.

Emergency Budget

8. Following the approval of the Emergency Budget in late July 2020 the LBTCF programme received $5,000,000 for the 2020/2021 year.

9. Advice from the AT Finance Department set the following criteria for the fund following the approval of the Emergency Budget:

· The $5m for 2020/2021 will be split using the Local Board Funding Policy

· Currently, with budgets unknown for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023, local boards are unable to combine future years allocations into a single project, unless it can be delivered in stages.

· Local boards are encouraged to target delivery of smaller projects or complete design and documentation for a project that can be physically delivered in 2021/2022

Puketāpapa Local Board Budgets

10. The following are the allocated budgets for this local board utilising the $5m allocated for 2020/2021, and on the advice of the AT General Manager of Finance, using a possible allocation for planning purposes of $10m for 2021/2022 and $10m for 2022/2023.

11. The figures for the 2 future years are currently unknown and will be subject to consultation early in 2021 to set the new RLTP budget. They are provided to allow Boards to plan which projects they are likely to be able to afford in subsequent years and allow targeted funding in 2020/2021.

Financial Year	Allocated Budget
2020/2021	$167,138
2021/2022	$358,445*
2022/2023	$358,445**
Total	$855,953

*Subject to confirmation late in 2020/2021 **Subject to confirmation late in 2021/2022

12. The list of current Puketāpapa Transport Capital Fund projects and current status is as follows:

Project Name	Status	External Consultation Complete	Estimated cost to completion
Puketāpapa Greenways	Detailed design completed Ready to tender	Yes	$420,000
Hillsborough Road Signalised Crossing (at Goodall Street)	Detailed Design completed. Ready to tender	Yes	$390,000
Pedestrian Refuge at on Hillsborough Road near Haughey Avenue	Concept and internal consultation complete. External consultation awaiting confirmation of funding	No	$79,000
Total Estimated Costs for all projects			$869,000

Current Local Board Projects

13. The list of current Puketāpapa Transport Capital Fund projects and current status is as follows:

Puketāpapa Greenways

14. This project is ready to tender and can be delivered in two stages.

15. The first stage will be to complete all works in Britton Avenue and Dornwell Road, which include speed humps, islands, road markings and lighting works.

16. The second stage would include completion of similar works in Haughey Avenue and the completion of the upgrades to the two laneways running between Dornwell Road and Clinker Street, and Clinker Street to Hayr Road.

17. If this is considered to be the Board’s priority project, it could be delivered with the funding available in 2020/2021 and part of 2021/2022.

Hillsborough Road Signalised Crossing (near Goodall Road)

18. This project is also ready to tender and can be delivered in 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 with the contract timed to be across the financial years to enable it to be delivered as a single project.

Pedestrian Refuge Hillsborough Road near Haughey Avenue

19. After experiencing some initial delays, a concept design and internal consultation have been completed for this project.

20. Should the Board confirm it wishes to continue the project, detailed design and external consultation can be completed. The contract may then have to be paused until funds are available in 2022/2023.

Possible Options

21. Below is a suggested project allocation from Auckland Transport staff to match with the potential annual allocation.

22. The Board has already invested considerable design cost into the Puketāpapa Greenways and Hillsborough Signalised Crossing projects, so it is suggested that these projects be given priority.

Project	Estimated Cost to Complete	2020/2021 Budget	2021/2022 Budget	2022/2023 Budget	Comment
		$167,138	$358,445	$358,445
Puketāpapa Greenways	$420,000	$162,138	$257,862		Deliver project in 2 stages
Hillsborough Road Signalised Crossing (at Goodall Street)	$390,000	$5,000	$100,583	$284,417	Project to span financial years to allow delivery
Pedestrian Refuge at on Hillsborough Rd near Haughey Avenue	$79,000			$79,000	Project paused to year 3
		$167,138	$358,445	$363,417

Summary

23. The option provided by Auckland Transport have been workshopped with the Local Board with the Board supporting the recommendation.

Next Steps

24. Board to approve Puketāpapa Greenways budget of $162,138 and Hillsborough Road Signalised Crossing (at Goodall Street) for the 2020/2021 allocation.

The Auckland Walk Challenge

25. This is a walking challenge for anyone in Auckland, focused on trying to get people out and about walking more.

26. Take on Aotearoa’s Great Walks, earn some awesome prizes and get fit all while strolling around Tāmaki Makaurau. The Auckland Walk Challenge returns this November. From 1 to 30 November 2020.

27. Be guided through each of the virtual walks with custom messages and images to make you feel as though you are there. Reach huts, see scenic lookouts and progress along the route. With nine tracks to finish, how many can you complete?

28. If that’s not enough to get you signed-up, then how about the chance to win some epic prizes. Prize draws will be held daily, weekly and at the end of November and you’ll earn tickets for every walk you go on, every waypoint you reach, each friend you invite and more!

29. But you don’t have to wait for the fun to begin, search for Better Points in your app store and get started on the pre-challenge today!

Commuter Calculator Campaign

30. AT has developed a useful online tool that enables customers to compare the cost and time taken to travel by car, versus train, bus or ferry.

31. In a few easy steps the Commuter Calculator help customers make the comparison.

32. This could be a game-changer for some people who find it difficult to compare the cost and/or time taken to travel between home and work.

33. AT has developed an exciting campaign in the style of a head to head title-fight poster. The only difference is it is ‘you vs you’!

34. The campaign started on Monday, 2nd October and we hope it will encourage thousands of people to try the Commuter Calculator and find out that using the bus, train or ferry is a good option for their daily commute.

35. It will continue running through to early December. AT will reprise the campaign early in the New Year.

Auckland Freight Plan

36. As Auckland’s population continues to grow, so too does the demand for goods and services. However, it has become increasingly difficult to deliver goods to customers. Managing competing network demands with the safe, sustainable distribution of freight is a critical challenge for Auckland.

37. In 2017/18, 76.3 million tonnes of freight were moved within, to, from and through Auckland.

38. Freight in Auckland is expected to grow substantially over the next 30 years, with total freight carried in the region projected to increase to 108 million tonnes by 2046, influenced by population growth as well as trends in import, export and manufacturing.

39. Freight is a key enabler of economic activity and fundamental to the liveability of a city. Given so much of the freight that comes into Auckland stays within Auckland, this needs to be a core area of focus for Auckland Transport. More detailed information is also available online: https://at.govt.nz/aucklandfreightplan

40. In the formulation of the emergency budget for Auckland Council and the Council Controlled Organisations for 2020/21, AT was requested to prioritise the Road Safety Program for Auckland based on obtaining the highest reduction in Death and Serious Injury (DSI) possible for the funding available. In making this request Council also supported the provision of an additional $27 million as part of the Emergency Budget to mitigate the scourge of road trauma that all too frequently visited upon Aucklanders. Bringing the total budget for road safety for Auckland in the 20/21 financial year to $63.75 million (as compared to the pre- COVID-19 budget of $107 million).

Vision Zero

41. In October 2019 the Auckland Transport Board adopted the Transport Safety Vision Zero Strategy and Action Plan for Tamaki Makaurau. This was in response to the alarming rates of DSI that were being experienced on Auckland’s roads, peaking at 64 deaths in 2017. Vision Zero is a human centred approach to transport safety, which holds that humans are vulnerable and that they make mistakes, but the overall transport system must be designed, constructed and operated in a manner that these mistakes do not result in death and serious injury. It focusses on four key pillars being: Safe Road Use, Safe Vehicles, Safe Roads and Safe Speeds. The Vision Zero approach to road safety has been very effective in reducing DSI in developed nations such as the UK, Australia and Sweden where the Vision Zero approach originated.

42. In support of the Vision Zero Strategy and Action Plan the AT Board also approved a Road Safety Program Business Case (PBC), which was further endorsed by Waka Kotahi. The PBC articulated a broad program of investment in road safety interventions that forecast an ambitious reduction in DSI for Auckland’s roads of 60% by 2028.

43. A broad partnership approach to Transport Safety in Tamaki Makaurau has been adopted through the implementation of the Tamaki Makaurau Transport Safety Governance Group, with representation from AT, AC, Waka Kotahi, MoT, NZ Police, ACC and Auckland Regional Public Health.

Formulation of the program

44. The 20/21 program has been formulated under the following broad categories consistent with the PBC and focused on optimising DSI reduction:

· Speed Management Projects – in support of Tranche 1 of the Speed Management Bylaw and investigation to support tranche 2

· High Risk Rural – both Intersections and Corridors

· High Risk Urban – both Intersections and Corridors

· Vulnerable Road Users – Pedestrians, Motorcyclist and Cyclists

· Various other safety programs, Safer Communities, Minor Improvements, Safe Schools and Community Safety Fund Projects

45. It should be noted that a $36.75 million portion of the 20/21 road safety program funds existing road safety commitments from the previous financial year, the additional $27 million of road safety program funding has been allocated to new projects

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. Auckland Transport engages closely with Council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and Council’s priorities.

47. One of AT’s core roles is providing attractive alternatives to private vehicle travel, reducing the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the contracted public transport network.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48. The impact of information in this report is mainly confined to Auckland Transport. Where LBTCF projects are being progressed by Auckland Council’s Community Facilities group, engagement on progress has taken place. Any further engagement required with other parts of the Council group will be carried out on an individual project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Mt Roskill Safer Communities project unveiled

49. Mt Roskill will now be safer for people walking and cycling as Auckland Transport (AT) unveiled the completed $3.1 million Safer Communities project. The work includes widened footpaths, reallocated pick-up/drop off areas and new raised zebra crossings to make it much easier for people to get around on foot or by bicycle.

50. Eighty per cent of all road deaths and serious injuries occur on 50 km/h roads, with nearly half of those deaths and injuries involving vulnerable road users like children and the elderly. We need to turn these tragic statistics around and make our roads safer for everyone who uses them. The Mt Roskill Safer Communities work is now complete and will make it easier and safer to get around the area, especially for people walking and riding bikes.

51. The roads in this area experience a very high level of pedestrian and vehicle use during peak times, with children walking to and from school. Approximately 3,000 children are enrolled at three main schools located in the vicinity. (Grammar, Intermediate and Primary). Between 2015-2019 there was 20 reported crashes on Frost Road and Carr Road, including two serious crashes involving cyclists. AT worked closely with the community to make changes to Frost Road, Carr Road and surrounding streets. Construction on the project began in March 2020, following public consultation which began in 2017. Further consultations were held until 2019.

52. Bobby Shen, Puketāpapa Local Board Member, says the project links in really well with the work that the board has been doing with the greenways network: “It will create really safe paths for the thousands of kids going in and out of school,” he says

53. Mt Roskill Safer Communities project has made this residential and business area way better for all road users - especially children, the elderly, cyclists and people walking. It is one of many AT projects that will help make our communities safer. Starting back in 2017, AT consulted several times with locals for this project - to ensure our plans were suitable. AT did make some design changes based on community feedback. Fast forward to now, we’ve had to work through COVID-19 restrictions to put in new footpaths, speed cushions / tables, as well as 11 raised pedestrian crossings that will help get kids to and from the nearby schools more safely. Mt Roskill was chosen based on the highest number of crashes that could be reduced in this area, which is a focus of Vision Zero. The Vision Zero approach aims to see no deaths on our network by 2050.

54. See more details of the improvements at: https://at.govt.nz/driving-parking/road-safety/safer-communities-programme/mt-roskill/

Future Connect

55. Future Connect will be AT’s long-term plan for Auckland’s future integrated transport system. It maps Auckland’s Strategic Networks, the most critical links of our current and future transport system and will ultimately set a 30-year vision for all modes: public transport, general traffic, freight, cycle and walking

56. Strategic Networks have been investigated to surface critical problems, opportunities and Focus Areas. This will help inform the development of the Regional Land Transport Plan (our 10-year investment programme) and will guide future planning and investment.

57. Future Connect was introduced to Local Board Chairs at the 14 September Chairs Forum. The project team provided a more detailed project overview and will answer any questions at a workshop with the Local Board on the 3 December.

Keith Hay Park - Arundel Street Carpark – Update on Enforcement

58. A meeting took place on Tuesday, 10 November with Auckland Transport and key stakeholders regarding the parking issues at Keith Hay Park. The Local Board Chairperson outlined the issues to Auckland Transport being:

· Bus stop/drop off area outside Cameron Pools

· Footpath outside Cameron Pools and old Three Kings United clubrooms

· Mobility parks by playground

· BYL curve by the southern toilets

59. Auckland Transport happy to action the following with a review period of 6 weeks

Have focused enforcement at identified times:

· Saturday mornings – 9am to 10am,

· Tuesdays and Thursdays – 6pm to 7pm

60. AT to look at signage outside the bus stops, as at the moment they do not comply. Recommendations to come back to the Local Board for consideration.

61. Community Facilities to look at putting rocks forsome of the areas where that may assist with parking on the yellow lines

Griffen Road Broken Yellow Lines

Request for Broken Yellow Lines

62. Auckland Transport Traffic Engineering team have investigated this site and based on their investigation, they will be proposing the installation of broken yellow lines at the entrance to Margaret Griffin Park.

63. The next step in this process is for Auckland Transport to consult with residents and frequent road users regarding the installation of these road markings. This consultation is important as it allows those who will be affected by this change to provide feedback on the proposed markings.

64. Auckland Transport can’t advise an exact timeframe for when this work will be completed as it will be dependent on the outcome of the consultation. Once this consultation has been completed, the request will be progressed, and the exact length of the broken yellow lines will be finalised.

Broken Yellow Line Removal

65. The work to remove these lines will be carried out at the same time as the work to install the new broken yellow lines.

Hillsborough Intersection Improvements

Safety Improvements

66. To improve intersection and pedestrian safety, Auckland Transport are proposing a roundabout at Hillsborough Road/Griffen Park Road/Commodore Drive intersection and crossing facilities on all three roads. This project is planned for construction in the 2021/2022 financial year.

Broken Yellow Lines

67. Auckland Transport will be extending the broken yellow lines outside 685 Hillsborough Road as an interim solution prior to the construction of the roundabout and the pedestrian crossing facilities. This will improve safety by removing the pinch point created by the existing pedestrian refuge island outside Melba Café

68. AT is in the process of preparing the plan and notification letter will be sent out shortly with the proposed broken yellow lines and information on the timeframe.

Shared Zone, Kimiora Street, Three Kings

69. This road needs to be resolved (approved) via a legal process that involves the Traffic Control Committee within Auckland Transport. Thereafter new signage will need to be installed to legalise restrictions and make any infringing of such restrictions, enforceable by our Parking Compliance team.

70. Due to the nature of this process, it will unfortunately take some time. The new signage will clearly mark this Shared Zone as “No Parking at all times”. The timeline for both of these actions to be completed is by the end of quarter one in 2021.

71. However, Auckland Transport will continue to actively work through this process and keep the Local Board updated on progress.

Intersection Upgrades (Intersection of Mt Albert Road/Frost Road and Mt Albert Road/Hayr Road/Dornwell Road) Update

72. Due to COVID-19 and Capex budget cuts the 2-intersection upgrade (intersection of Mt Albert Road/Frost Road and Mt Albert Road/Hayr Road/Dornwell Road) projects are currently on hold.

73. Auckland Transport have done a concept design for improvements and currently looking to move into scheme design phase. The projects will need to be reprioritised for delivery next financial year and we aim to provide an update to the Local Board early next year, around mid Feb 2021.

Damage to Road Surface, Oakdale Road (Near Intersection with Richardson Road)

74. Regarding the road surface damage on Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill. Our Road Corridor Delivery team have done a temporary patch of the road at this location.

75. The permanent fix will likely be a granular dig to strengthen the road pavement. However, this will require approval and a site visit to confirm it is appropriate given the damage. Approval usually takes about a month, and then we will schedule and undertake the works in the following weeks.

Frost and Carr Road Speed Cushions

76. Speed cushions were installed on the Hayr Road arms due to physical constraint AT have on site. With the northern arm, the existing island is currently too short for a speed table, however if we lengthen the island this will affect the operation of the driveway into and out of the BP station.

77. On the southern arm, there is a cesspit close to the new traffic island and there was concern that installing a speed table could affect the cesspit, therefore AT decided for speed cushions instead of speed tables.

May Road safety improvements Update

78. Auckland Transport are currently preparing tender documents for civil works and plan to start the construction phase in mid to late January 2021 and complete the project by end June 2021.

Winstone Road with Denbigh Avenue Project Update

79. This update is to give you some more information on the timeline on this project and to advise you that it will not be carried out in conjunction with reinstatement of the road.

80. There is a project planned to upgrade the existing crossing facility at the intersection of Winstone Road with Denbigh Avenue into a raised zebra crossing with kerb buildouts. The intention of the project is to improve safety to residents and particularly students who cross at this location to go to the schools nearby. In the investigation made in 2019, AT noted that the layout of the current crossing may expose pedestrians at side collision with a vehicle. Therefore, the crossing got prioritised as part of our Minor Improvement Programme (MIP) for design and construction between the 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years. The priority of the crossing was pre COVID-19 and unfortunately, AT got a significant budget cut in our programmes, so the design did not progress for the 2020/21 financial year as expected.

81. Although there is still some uncertainty on budget availability, we expect to progress with this project as part of the 2021/22(design) and 2022/23(construction) financial years. These years indicated are the expectation, however, it is all subject to budget availability. Once we know more details about project funding and the crossing confirmation, AT will progress with the design and consult with the Local Board.

Local Board Issues Being Investigated

82. The Local Board have requested the following issues be investigated. These investigations will be progressed as resources allow:

· Speed hump markings on Duke Street, Mt Roskill

· 307 Hillsborough Road Safety issue – Cracked Footpath

· Parking issues at Roskill South Shops

· 1 May Road, Removal of staircase leading to property

· Explanation on how AT budgets and RFT work.

· Corner Mt Eden and Landscape Roads Safety Issues – Signalisation Request

Local Board Workshops

83. AT presented the following workshop items in October 2020:

· Local Board Transport Fund Allocation for 20/21

· Site 5 Bus lay and Toilet Block Hillsborough Road

Consultation documents on proposed improvements

84. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Puketāpapa Local Board in early November for their feedback and are summarised below for information purposes only.

85. After consultation, Auckland Transport considers the feedback received and determines whether to proceed further with the proposal as consulted on or proceed with an amended proposal if changes are considered necessary.

Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

86. Decisions of the TCC during the month of September and October 2020 affecting the Puketāpapa Local Board area are listed below:

Date	Street (Suburb)	Type of Report	Nature of Restriction	Decision
1-Sept-20	Commodore Drive, Lynfield	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	Bus Stop – At Metro Only / No Stopping at All Times / Bus Shelter / Give-Way Control	NOT CARRIED
1-Sept-20	Arundel Street / Haycock Avenue / Battersby Avenue / White Swan Road, Mt Roskill	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Works)	No Stopping at All Times / No Stopping at Certain Hours / One-Way Road / Stop Control / Give-Way Control / No Right Turn / “Slow” Advisory Marking / Edge Line	CARRIED
1-Oct-20	Sandringham Road Extension / Gifford Avenue / O’Donnell Avenue, Mt Roskill	Amended Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Works)	Cycle Lane / No Stopping at All Times / Shared Path / Bus Stop / Bus Shelter / Traffic Island / Road Hump / Pedestrian Crossing / Stop Control / Flush Median / Edge Line / Removal of Pedestrian Crossing	CARRIED

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

87. There are no specific impacts on Māori for this reporting period. AT is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi-the Treaty of Waitangi-and its broader legal obligations in being more responsive or effective to Māori. Our Maori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to with 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

88. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no financial implications for the Puketāpapa Local Board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

89. Auckland Council adopted its Emergency Budget 2020/2021 at the end of July 2020.

90. AT’s capital and operating budgets have been reduced through this process. Some projects we had planned for 2020/2021 may not be able to be delivered, which will be disappointing to communities that we had already engaged with.

91. Both the Community Safety Fund and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund are impacted by these budget reductions.

92. To mitigate this risk, AT attended board workshops in September 2020 to discuss with local boards how to get best value from their 2020/2021 LBTCF allocations. Community Safety projects will continue in design and will be delivered once funds become available.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

93. Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the Puketāpapa Local Board in December 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 November 2020

Puketāpapa Fruit Trees Network Plan

File No.: CP2020/15412

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek adoption of the Puketāpapa Fruit Trees Network Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has a role to play to provide opportunities for community strengthening activities within public open spaces, and to help improve public health and wellbeing.

3. Community gardens and fruit tree installations can become focal points for the community. They allow participants to grow their own food to improve their nutrition and benefit their health.

4. They can also lead to the development of new and useful skills, upskilling the community and potential economic opportunities.

5. In FY19/20 the Puketāpapa Local Board tasked Parks Services with the production of a provision assessment focusing on fruit trees within public open space in their local board area.

6. The aim of this provision assessment was to identify where fruit trees are currently located across parks and open spaces, outline key principles for their installation and management, and provide recommendations for possible future installation to create a robust network across Puketāpapa.

7. The Fruit Trees Network Plan (Attachment A) includes a list of seventeen sites where planting of fruit trees should be considered and outlines additional actions and service principles related to the network of fruit trees within Puketāpapa.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) adopt the Puketāpapa Fruit Trees Network Plan document (Attachment A).

Horopaki

Context

8. In Financial Year (FY) 19/20 the Puketāpapa Local Board funded a fruit trees network provision assessment, focused on public open space within the parks network.

9. The aim of this provision assessment was to:

· identify where fruit trees are currently located across parks and open spaces

· determine service principles for the future installation and management of fruit trees and community gardens

· provide a suggested list of sites for possible future installation to create a robust network across Puketāpapa.

10. The assessment involved research into topics such as food scarcity, deprivation, health and community benefits, and consideration of funding opportunities and practical management implications.

11. This also enabled consideration of the current Auckland Council Community Gardens Guidelines and the addition of a fruit trees section.

12. Parks Services assessed the current provision of fruit trees across Puketāpapa, undertaking firstly a desktop exercise, followed by site visits. Following this, service principles and opportunities for future installation of fruit trees were developed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. In recent years, an increased importance has been placed on community health and wellbeing. We know that social connection directly supports wellbeing. Therefore, Auckland Council has a role to play in supporting the community to engage in community strengthening activities within parks.

14. The Auckland Plan refers to a region of abundance, diverse and vibrant, providing a natural environment contributing to our sense of identity and wellbeing. To meet this vision, the network of parks and open spaces will need to continually grow and improve to meet a diverse need of local communities beyond the traditional recreational requirements.

15. Overseas experience shows there are many reasons that members of a community come together and create a community garden or fruit tree orchard. Some reasons are described as ecological, others as social or community development, or simply for food provision.

16. Economic opportunity and security are often intertwined with community development in community gardening. In this context, security means food security. Community gardening allows participants to grow their own food to improve their nutrition and benefit their health. It also can lead to the development of new and useful skills, by upskilling the community.

17. The provision of fruit trees across Puketāpapa was found to be lacking compared to the rest of central Auckland, particularly in the western and southern areas. This was most pronounced in suburbs such as Mt Roskill, Wesley, Roskill South, Waikowhai and Lynfield.

18. Parks Services staff produced a list of service principles for the establishment of any future development of fruit trees in Puketāpapa. These principles included:

· Alignment with existing processes for establishment of community installations

· Avoid clashing with parks ecological outcomes

· Appropriateness for the specific park and specific location

· Ensure public safety and implementation of sound management practices.

19. A list of possible opportunities for future fruit tree installation which align to these principles were identified (see Attachment A – page 9). Future implementation of these opportunities will help to provide a robust network of fruit trees / community gardens across the local board area.

20. Finally, a list of recommendations for the local board to support are outlined within the document, summarized below:

· Encourage PSR staff to pursue the updating and adoption of the Community Garden Guidelines and Plant Lists to include Fruit Trees, as outlined in Appendix A and B.

· Consider funding, through future LDI budgets, the establishment of fruit trees at the opportunity sites listed in this document.

· Encourage the establishment of new community led initiatives, following both the service principles and guidance of the Community Garden Guidelines document to ensure consistency.

· Continue to support volunteer groups through existing funding channels such as the community park rangers and grants to environmental community groups.

· Work with Healthy Puketāpapa as the umbrella agency for health and wellbeing in Puketāpapa, especially when it comes to community development and food security.

· Work with Kainga Ora and private developers at key housing development sites to ensure consideration of fruit trees and community led gardening initiatives.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. The planting of trees will help to assist Auckland Council to meet their climate action goals by increasing rates of carbon sequestration and will help the public to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change by providing shade and fostering connection with nature.

22. The planting of fruit trees is also specifically identified within, and would help to achieve outcomes of, the growing phase of the Puketāpapa Local Board’s Ngahere Strategy.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. The key principles and opportunities outlined in this plan were developed in collaboration with other council departments including the Community Facilities Operations team, the Community Parks Volunteering and Programmes team, the Ngahere Strategy team, and the Service Strategy and Integration team.

24. Future implementation of this plan will likely impact future work programmes and project outcomes for council departments including Community Facilities, Park Services, and Healthy Waters.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. Puketāpapa is a highly diverse local board area, with almost half of the population having been born overseas, more any other region in Auckland.

26. It is also a region facing significant growth over the next fifteen years, putting pressure on the network of local parks. As population density increases these parks will become more important as sites for community activity and connectedness.

27. The provision of fruit trees across Puketāpapa is lacking compared to the rest of central Auckland, particularly in the western and southern areas.

28. Future investment into the network of fruit trees would result in clear benefits to community health and wellbeing, as previously identified. In addition, this would help to engage and bring together new communities within growth areas through activation of local parks.

29. As identified in the Diversity in Parks report for Puketāpapa, completed in 2018, the ethnically diverse communities within these areas would particularly benefit from improved access to activities such as food production on parks. These benefits have already been realized at the Ethnic Kitchen Gardens site in John Moore Reserve.

30. This document also has clear links to the Healthy Puketāpapa Action Plan. This multi-agency plan focusses on changes to where we live, learn, work, and play to improve health and wellbeing. It also considers both food production and the importance of parks to community health and wellbeing.

31. The document responds to outcomes identified in the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan (2017), in particular:

· Outcome one - connected communities with a sense of belonging

· Outcome two – improved wellbeing and safety

· Outcome six - vibrant and popular parks and facilities.

32. The Puketāpapa Local Board were involved in the development of this plan, and their comments at a workshop on July 2^nd helped to shape the final plan to ensure its relevance to the communities that they represent.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Implementation of this plan is not expected to have any adverse outcomes for Māori. By ensuring fruit trees are planted following the principle of “right tree, right place”, cultural and environmental considerations will be given due diligence.

34. All proposed planting areas will be reviewed before delivery, and their archaeological status checked as part of the site selection process. Planting is unlikely to take place on areas of high cultural and archaeological significance and full consultation with all relevant stakeholders will be carried out before specific projects get approval.

35. The establishment of new community gardens or orchards may present an opportunity for Māori, through possible establishment of pa harakeke sites, and incorporation of cultural management practices. These opportunities should be encouraged by the local board when reviewing community led applications.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. Future delivery of fruit trees in line with this document could be considered as part of the growing phase of the Ngahere Strategy.

37. Future delivery of fruit trees in line with this document could be considered as part of volunteer planting projects, through future allocation of LDI Opex funding.

38. Future delivery of fruit trees in line with this document could be considered as part of existing or future projects delivered on behalf of the local board by Community Facilities and other stakeholders such as Parks Services or Healthy Waters.

39. David Rose, financial advisor for Auckland Council has reviewed and approved this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. Several potential risks were identified during the development of this plan, explored further within the document. These potential risks include:

· Lack of maintenance or community use leading to the site becoming unkempt

· Lack of a committed group of people leading to the project being abandoned

· Unsuitable sites such as poor soil leading to tree loss

· Vandalism of sites or theft of fruits

· Community backlash

· Increase of pests, both plant and animal

41. These can largely be mitigated through good management, planning and maintenance, and through a thorough process during the site – establishment phase, where all possible issues are considered by council staff prior to development.

42. In addition, a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities as outlined in the document will ensure clear communication with the applicant, resulting in improved risk mitigation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43. Staff will share this document and list of possible future opportunities to all relevant council departments and teams for consideration in future work programmes and projects.

44. The local board can refer to this document moving forward when engaging with internal, private, and public partners on outcomes related to fruit tree provision.

45. The local board may consider funding the future delivery of fruit trees at the outlined opportunity sites as an LDI Opex project or through programmed delivery over a period of several years, with consideration for inclusion in their Ngahere Strategy “growing phase”.

46. The local board may wish to consider their advocacy role to ensure that these outcomes are considered in future departmental work programmes and projects, and community led initiatives.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Fruit Trees Network Plan	31

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Thomas Dixon - Parks & Places Specialist

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 November 2020

Puketāpapa Seating Provision Assessment

File No.: CP2020/15416

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek adoption of the Puketāpapa Seating Provision Assessment.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The provision of seating in public open spaces is one way to provide opportunities for social connection, which has been shown to directly support wellbeing. Auckland Council therefore has a role to play in creating the conditions for people to gather/connect in parks by improving the availability of seating.

3. In FY19/20 the Puketāpapa Local Board tasked Parks Services with the production of a provision assessment focusing on seating within public open space in their local board area.

4. The aim of this provision assessment was to identify where seats and picnic tables are currently located across parks and open spaces, outline key principles for future investment, and provide high level recommendations for possible future installation to improve the network across Puketāpapa.

5. While streetscape seating is not governed by the local board, a less comprehensive analysis was also undertaken on these assets to ensure a complete picture of current provision was obtained.

6. The Puketāpapa Seating Provision Assessment (Attachment A) includes a list of eleven parks where seating provision could be improved, four sites for possible installation of friendship benches, and sixteen sites where activation of parks is encouraged.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) adopt the Puketāpapa Seating Provision Assessment (Attachment A).

Horopaki

Context

7. In Financial Year (FY) 19/20 the Puketāpapa Local Board funded a seating provision assessment, focused on public open space within the parks network.

8. The aim of this provision assessment was to:

· identify where furniture including seats and picnic tables are currently located across parks and open spaces, including streetscapes

· determine service principles for future investment into seating across the network

· provide a list of sites for possible future installation to create a robust network across Puketāpapa

9. This study also considered other relevant topics such as accessibility, demographics, social connection, community development, and opportunities for non-asset-based seating or activation of parks.

10. Parks Services assessed the current provision of seating across Puketāpapa, undertaking a desktop exercise, followed by site visits where required. Following this, service principles and opportunities for future investment into the seating network were developed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. In recent years, an increased importance has been placed on community health and wellbeing. One action coming from this is the drive to create convivial and sociable public spaces, as well as enjoyable cities where everyone can come together and be human.

12. This will become more relevant as communities seek to rebuild their connections and support networks following the global pandemic of 2020.

13. The Auckland Plan refers to a region of abundance, diverse and vibrant, with natural places like parks contributing to our sense of community identity and wellbeing. To meet this vision, the network of parks and open spaces will need to continually improve to meet a diverse need of local communities beyond the traditional recreational requirements.

14. We know that social connection directly supports wellbeing, and that provision of seating can help to provide social opportunities. Auckland Council therefore has a role to play in creating the conditions for people to gather/connect in public open spaces by increasing the availability and appropriateness of seating.

15. With loneliness and isolation identified as a key issue for diverse communities within Puketāpapa in both the Quality of Life Survey (2016) and Diversity in Parks Report (2018), improving opportunities for social interaction and connection is of particular importance in this local board area.

16. Additionally, Auckland is faced with an ageing population. It is expected that by 2030 more than 50% of people over the age of 65 will have at least one impairment. Provision of seating for accessibility is therefore another important driver of investment.

17. The provision of seating/furniture within parks in Puketāpapa was found to be generally adequate. Minor gaps in provision were found in only seven parks, and in several streetscape locations.

18. Parks Services staff produced a list of service principles and considerations to help guide and prioritise future investment into seating within parks in Puketāpapa (see Attachment A, page 8).

19. In addition, a list of possible opportunities for installation of additional furniture, or activation of existing spaces where seating is already in place was produced in line with these key principles (see Attachment A, page 9).

20. Opportunities to trial friendship benches to improve social connection were identified within four parks in the network, with close alignment to areas of future population growth.

21. Several key sites for improvement of streetscape seating opportunities were identified and will be passed on to Auckland Transport staff for consideration.

22. Future implementation of these opportunities will help to provide a robust seating network across the local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. Improving the network of seating across Puketāpapa is not expected to have any adverse climate impacts. In fact, this may instead lead to increased adaptiveness in the community by enabling people to be more active in an increasingly warming climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. Future implementation of this plan will impact future work programmes and project outcomes for council departments including Community Facilities, Park Services, and Auckland Transport.

25. Opportunities for activation of existing parks were identified in collaboration with the Parks Activation team within Parks Sport and Recreation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. Puketāpapa is a highly diverse local board area, with almost half of the population having been born overseas, more any other region in Auckland. Loneliness and social disconnection were identified as significant issues to the diverse communities of Puketāpapa. Opportunities for social connection are therefore particularly important.

27. It is also a region facing significant growth over the next fifteen years, putting pressure on the network of local parks. As population density increases these parks will become more important as sites for physical activity and social connectedness.

28. The provision of furniture across Puketāpapa was found to be generally adequate. However, opportunities were identified to further improve the network in key parks and to provide social connection in other parks through friendship benches and activation.

29. Future investment into the network of seating would result in clear benefits to social and physical wellbeing, particularly for diverse communities and those with accessibility concerns.

30. This document also has clear links to the Healthy Puketāpapa Action Plan. This multi-agency plan focuses on changes to where we live, learn, work, and play to improve health and wellbeing.

31. The document responds to outcomes identified in the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan (2017), in particular:

· Outcome one - connected communities with a sense of belonging

· Outcome two – improved wellbeing and safety

· Outcome six - vibrant and popular parks and facilities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Implementation of this plan is not expected to have any adverse outcomes for Māori. By ensuring new furniture is installed in an appropriate location and with an appropriate design, cultural and environmental considerations will be given due diligence.

34. The installation of new furniture, particularly the trial of friendship benches, may present an opportunity for Māori through possible partnerships to design and create bespoke and meaningful furniture. These opportunities should be encouraged by the local board.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. Future installation of furniture as outlined in this document could be considered as part of existing or future LDI capital or renewals projects delivered on behalf of the local board by Community Facilities, as well as other stakeholders delivering projects in public spaces, such as Healthy Waters, Kainga Ora and Auckland Transport.

36. David Rose, an Auckland Council financial advisor has reviewed and approved this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. By identifying specific locations and opportunities to improve the seating network in Puketāpapa, it is possible that community expectation will be raised. To mitigate this, the document is clear that these are opportunities for future consideration and does not refer to them as projects planned for delivery.

38. Auckland Council currently has limited budget for delivery of LDI CAPEX projects due to budget constraints stemming from the 2020 global pandemic. To mitigate this, focus should be placed initially on activation of existing infrastructure through programmes like Out and About, and improvements to the network via the renewals programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. Staff will share this document and list of possible future opportunities to all relevant council departments and teams for consideration in future work programmes and projects.

40. The local board may also wish to consider future delivery additional furniture in line with this document as an additional LDI funded development project or programmed delivery over a period of several years.

41. The local board may wish to consider their advocacy role to ensure that these outcomes are considered in future work programmes and projects, and by other stakeholders such as Kainga Ora and Auckland Transport.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Seating Provision Assessment	51

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Thomas Dixon - Parks & Places Specialist

Authoriser

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa 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.: CP2020/15357

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/s

That the Puketāpapa 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.^{^[1]}

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^{^[2]} 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	$7,500
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.	$3,500
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.	$2,000
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.	$2,000
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.	$3,000
	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
Puketāpapa	Young Enterprise Scheme	Local board funds supported the Kick Start Days (February). Sponsorship Agreements signed. Expected draw-down of funds by 30 June 2020.	$1,000
	Pop-Up Business School	The planned delivery in March/April 2020 was postponed due to COVID-19. Event rescheduled for later start date.	$7,500
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.	$2,000
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^{^[3]} 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.^{^[4]} 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 & Planning - ATEED

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 November 2020

Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard

File No.: CP2020/16627

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

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa 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, right.

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

14. The pilot proved to be a valuable exercise in developing a performance improvement plan. It also proved that certification across the 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^{^[5]} 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 Tamaki Makaurau. The Standard approach acknowledges the relationship between te Tiriti and improving the sustainability of public assets to enable our workforce to deliver the Māori outcome of protecting natural taonga for future generations of Tamaki Makaurau.

Te Aranga Design Principles

30. Measuring 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^{^[6]} 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	89

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

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa 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.: CP2020/16360

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

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

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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	97
b ⇩	The Specified Development Project process	99

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16356

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite the Puketāpapa 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.^{^[7]}

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. The critical themes from submissions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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.^{^[8]}

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.^{^[9]}

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

34. No iwi authorities made a formal submission.

35. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.^{^[10]} The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.^{^[11]}

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 Puketāpapa 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 – Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason – GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

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

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

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

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

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

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

Chairperson	Julie Fairey
Deputy Chairperson	Harry Doig
Members	Ella Kumar, JP
	Fiona Lai
	Bobby Shen
	Jon Turner

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Harry Doig's Report, 01 October - 31 October 2020	121
b ⇩	Ella Kumar's Report, 01 October - 31 October 2020	123
c ⇩	Bobby Shen's Report, 01 October - 31 October 2020	127
d ⇩	Jonathan Turner's Report, 01 September - 30 October 2020	129

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board, Workshop Record, 15 October 2020	143
b ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 22 October 2020	145
c ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 29 October 2020	149
d ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 05 November 2020	153

Author	Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Local Area Manager