Agenda of Planning Committee

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

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

· relevant regional strategy and policy

· transportation

· infrastructure strategy and policy

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

· Resource Management Act and relevant urban planning legislation framework

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

· Auckland Plan implementation reporting on priorities and performance measures

· structure plans and spatial plans

· housing policy and projects

· city centre and waterfront development

· regeneration and redevelopment programmes

· built and cultural heritage, including public art

· urban design

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

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

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii) The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

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

(iii) The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

(b) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

Auckland Plan Values

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

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

Planning Committee

05 November 2020

Options for increasing the stock of housing for older people

File No.: CP2020/15457

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide policy options to increase the stock of housing for older people and seek agreement on the preferred option.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In March 2019, the Planning Committee agreed that the Council should take an intervene and lead role in affordable housing by investigating regulatory and non-regulatory interventions. It requested that staff investigate options for increasing the stock of housing for older people [PLA/2019/17 refers].

3. Auckland has an aging population and severe housing unaffordability, and as a result more older people are renting. The proportion of older people who own their own homes has decreased from 72 per cent in 2001 to 67 per cent in 2018.

4. Older Aucklanders of low financial means need quality, affordable and accessible rental housing that provides them with safe, healthy and stable tenure. Pacific people aged 65+ make up 36.5 per cent and Māori 12.3 per cent of social housing tenants. Older women also experience negative housing outcomes.

5. Kāinga Ora, Community Housing Providers and Māori organisations play a direct delivery role in the provision of housing for older people. They deliver approximately 15 per cent of Auckland’s housing stock, some of which is provided to older people.

6. Auckland Council supports the provision of housing, including housing for older people through leadership, policy, funding and partnerships (including Haumaru Housing – social housing for older people).

7. Staff identified and assessed three options to address the problem of increasing housing for older people of low financial means:

· Option 1: Status quo: Leadership, policy, funding and partnerships (including Haumaru Housing – social housing for older people)

· Option 2: Indirect provision: (Do more) Partner with a Community Housing Provider / Māori or Pacific housing provider or seek to expand the current Haumaru Housing partnership to provide more social housing stock for older people

· Option 3: Direct provision: Build and operate more social housing stock for older people.

8. The key trade-off across the options is the level of impact on the problem relative to cost.

9. If the outcome the council seeks is sustaining and incrementally increasing its impact on the housing for older people problem, then Option 1: Status Quo has the ability to achieve this.

10. If the outcome the council seeks is a step-change to significantly increase its impact on the housing for older people problem, then an increased role in provision and funding is required. This could be achieved through Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) or Option 3: Direct provision.

11. Option 1: Status quo is recommended by staff as it:

· represents a strong contribution to housing for older people through Haumaru Housing stock (at 1,452 units) given Kāinga Ora’s planned provision of approximately 670 new units to house older people (based on current demand)

· enables council to take a balanced approach to housing across its current roles and functions and through agreed forward work programmes and partnerships

· can enable incremental increases in the stock of Haumaru Housing over time

· minimises duplication of functions carried out by government through Kāinga Ora

· can be delivered within current budgets

· presents a lower level of risk to council.

12. Depending on the option agreed by the committee, staff will report back with further, substantive advice on how to implement this option.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

EITHER

a) endorse Option 1: Status quo: Leadership, policy, funding and partnerships (including Haumaru Housing – social housing for older people) [Recommended]

b) request that staff further investigate and provide advice on how to implement Option 2: Indirect provision: (Do more) Partner with a Community Housing Provider / Māori or Pacific housing provider, or seek to expand the current Haumaru Housing partnership to provide more social housing stock for older people

c) request that staff further investigate and provide advice on how to implement Option 3: Direct provision: Build and operate more social housing stock for older people.

Horopaki

Context

This report provides further advice on increasing the stock of housing for older people

13. In 2019, the Planning Committee (the Committee) agreed that Auckland Council’s preferred policy position to increase the level of affordable housing, was to ‘intervene and lead’ through regulatory and non-regulatory interventions.

14. The Committee also requested that staff investigate increasing the stock of housing for older people [PLA/2019/17 refers].

15. On 3 September 2020, the Committee endorsed a forward work programme to deliver on the policy position for affordable housing [PLA/2020/65 refers].

16. This report provides further advice on options to increase the stock of social housing for older people.

Auckland has an aging population; housing is severely unaffordable, and more older people are renting

17. Over 1.66 million people live in Auckland, and this is forecast to increase to 2.4 million by 2050. Auckland’s population is highly culturally and ethnically diverse and is aging.

18. There are over 170,000 people aged 65 or older and this is forecast to increase by 106 per cent to 350,000 by 2033.

19. The proportion of older people who own their own homes has decreased from 72 per cent in 2001 to 67 per cent in 2018. Compared with rest of the population however, older people are least likely to be in hardship due to higher rates of mortgage free homeownership and universal superannuation^{^[1]}.

Some older people experience negative wellbeing outcomes due to housing cost and quality

20. Housing is a key determinant of wellbeing for older people. However, some older people face challenges finding stable, suitable, quality affordable rental housing because much of the rental housing stock in Auckland is expensive and of low quality.

21. It is estimated that rent for the average couple living on New Zealand Superannuation absorbs around 75 per cent of their weekly income leaving little for food or utilities.

22. In Auckland, Kāinga Ora has a total of 12,133 social housing tenants aged 55 years and over, over half of these (6,311) are aged 65 or over.

23. There are 1,533 older people on the Auckland social housing waitlist as at June 2020 (847 are aged 55-64 and 686 are aged 65 or over).

Māori, Pacific peoples and women experience the most negative housing outcomes of older Aucklanders

24. Social and economic inequalities experienced by Māori and Pacific peoples mean that they have the lowest rates of home ownership.

25. As they age, Māori and Pacific peoples are less likely to benefit from the housing security and wealth accumulation linked to home ownership. They are also more likely to experience poorer health and wellbeing outcomes and have lower life expectancy than other groups^{^[2]}.

26. Kāinga Ora data shows:

· Pacific peoples are significantly overrepresented amongst social housing tenants. Pacific people aged 65+ make up seven per cent of the population and 36.5 per cent of social housing tenants.

· Māori are the next most highly represented group. Of tenants aged 65+ 12.3 per cent are Māori compared with five per cent of the Auckland population.

27. Older women also experience negative housing outcomes. Women generally earn lower incomes than men, may experience income disruption when they have children or through relationship break down and can be left in financially precarious situations.

Auckland Council is already supporting housing provision including for older people

28. Auckland Council supports housing provision, including housing for older people in a number of ways. This is in line with Council’s legislative requirements and strategic objectives. Figure 1 provides an overview of council’s role in supporting housing provision.

Figure 1: Overview of Auckland Council’s legislative and strategic mandate on housing With government through the Auckland Housing Programme
With the Selwyn Foundation - delivering Haumaru housing for older people
With the government, community housing providers, Māori housing providers and iwi on housing projects

n
Research and engagement
Support for Māori housing and papakāinga Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Act 2019
Four wellbeings - through support for housing
Local Government Act 2002, Resource Management Act 1991, the Building Act 2004
Statutory functions e.g. planning, regulation and infrastructure provision Legislative Policy and funding Auckland Plan outcomes: homes and Places
Aucklanders to live in secure, healthy, and affordable homes, and have access to a range of inclusive public places

Ngā Mātarae Māori housing outcomes Strategy Partnerships Leadership Joint work programme with government
Intervening and leading on Affordable housing
Leading and coordination on homelessness

Research and engagement
Support for Māori housing and papakāinga Funding e.g. via grants
Investment in infrastructure
Guidance and information
Research and engagement
Support for Māori housing including technical advice

and papakāinga

Kāinga Ora, Community Housing Providers and Māori organisations play a direct delivery role

29. Approximately 85 per cent of housing in Auckland is delivered by private developers with the remainder delivered by public or non-governmental organisations (including, Community Housing Providers (CHPs) and Māori housing providers).

30. Kāinga Ora is government’s key delivery agency for social and affordable housing. Kāinga Ora builds, owns and manages social housing stock in Auckland. It is focused on building more housing for older people to meet demand including in partnership with the council, Māori housing and Community Housing Providers.

31. Long-term projections suggest that the proportion of tenants aged over 65 are likely to remain relatively stable over time.

32. Kāinga Ora has 29,740 public houses in Auckland and is planning to build an additional 3,200 by 2024. Based on the current distribution whereby 21 per cent of tenants are over 65, approximately 670 of these are expected to house older people.

33. Kāinga Ora is also investigating alternative housing products to deliver accessible, village style or communal and shared living options to meet older people’s diverse needs. This includes involving providers who specialise in support for older people’s needs.

34. A number of Community Housing Providers in Auckland provide affordable and social housing for older people along with wrap around support. These include the Salvation Army and the Selwyn Foundation.

35. Māori organisations are also playing a role in delivering more projects including papakāinga and marae-based developments that can meet the needs of kaumātua. These include projects delivered in partnership with government, council and private developers.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Older people want affordable housing where they can be safe, comfortable and age in place

36. Older Aucklanders told us their vision for housing during engagement on the Age-Friendly Action Plan. They want:

· ageing in place

· affordable housing

· safe, comfortable and warm houses

· a sense of belonging.

To make sure no one falls through the cracks, especially those who are have language barrier, mental health, poverty or live in rural area.

Auckland needs more affordable and accessible homes of different typologies to meet the needs of older people

37. Research focused on kaumātua in Auckland showed a range of housing solutions are likely to be sought by kaumātua. A strong determining factor is proximity to whānau and the relationship to an iwi or hapu. Other influencing factors are housing ownership, access to good health care, reduced feeling of vulnerability and increased safety.

38. For many Pacific people, living as an extended family with older relatives is embedded in protocol and tradition. It is a key means of intergenerational transmission of language and culture and can be an economic necessity.

39. Research on the housing needs of older Pacific people, however, also highlights that a range of solutions are required that enable different housing choices.

40. There is a need for further New Zealand based research on the experiences and needs of older people of Asian and other diverse ethnicities. However, Census data tells us that more older people of Asian ethnicity as with Māori and Pacific people are likely to live with family or independently rather than in residential care^{^[3]}.

Staff assessed three options for increasing the stock of housing for older people

41. Based on research and engagement findings staff developed the following problem definition.

Problem definition

Older Aucklanders of low financial means need quality, affordable and accessible rental housing that provides them with safe, healthy and stable tenure.

42. Staff assessed three options for council to address the problem, through increasing housing stock for older people.

· Option 1: Status quo: Leadership, policy, funding and partnerships (including Haumaru Housing – social housing for older people).

· Option 3: Direct provision: Build and operate more social housing stock for older people.

43. Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) and Option 3: Direct provision assume continued delivery of Option 1: Status quo in parallel (refer to Attachment A: Long form options assessment).

44. The options target older people with the:

· highest level of housing need

· lowest financial means

· greatest risk of negative wellbeing outcomes.

45. Options on affordable or intermediate housing for older people were not progressed further as:

a) The affordable housing work programme focused council’s resources on increasing the supply of housing for rental or purchase for this group (refer to Attachment B: Affordable housing forward work programme).

b) Older people in the intermediate housing market who are not eligible for government support (for example through the Accommodation Supplement) are few in number and administratively difficult to identify. It is therefore challenging for council to appropriately target support to these people (refer to Attachment A: Older people in the intermediate housing market – Options not progressed).

46. The following table provides an overview of each option.

Option	Overview
Option 1: Status quo: Leadership, policy, funding and partnerships (including Haumaru Housing – social housing for older people) *(Cost: built into current budgets)*	· Council delivers its legislative and strategic framework outlined in Figure 1. · Council provides input or approvals from initiation to completion for new developments. · In partnership with Haumaru Housing council indirectly supports provision of 1,452 Haumaru Housing units for older people eligible for social housing. This provides direct benefits to Haumaru Housing tenants. · Panuku is working with Haumaru Housing on ways to incrementally increase its provision over time and the development of a sustainable funding and operating model. · Funding and resourcing to support current initiatives is built into existing council budgets and there are established cost recovery mechanisms that support current delivery of housing functions. · This option maintains council’s contribution to reducing the social waitlist for older people. · A key risk with the status quo relates to the ability for council to maintain delivery of its core functions in a highly constrained financial environment in the context of COVID-19.
Option 2: Indirect provision: (Do more) Partner with a Community Housing Provider / Māori or Pacific housing provider or seek to expand the current Haumaru Housing partnership to deliver more social housing stock for older people	· This option would involve council forming a new partnership with a Community Housing Provider / Māori or Pacific housing provider or seeking to expand its current partnership with Haumaru Housing to enable an increase (above the level planned under the status quo) in the social housing stock for older people. · This option allows access to government funding through the IRRS, via a third party, which is a key funding source under the current Haumaru Housing model. · Due to budget constraints in the context of COVID-19 the council would be forced to make key trade-offs against other spending priorities in order to increase the level of provision over and above the current allocation. · Further increasing the provision of social housing stock under this option could be less efficient than the status quo as it may duplicate Kāinga Ora’s social housing functions.
Option 3: Direct provision: Build and operate more social housing stock for older people	· This option would involve council taking a direct role in building and managing an additional amount of stock of rental housing for older people. This would require Council to develop new building and procurement functions. It would take time for council to grow this function to maximum efficiency. · This option is likely to require significant capital investment, potential provision of land, operational funding and additional staffing. This may include staff who specialise in building developments, property management and provision of maintenance and wrap around support for tenants. · This model is higher risk than for Options 1 and 2 because council would be liable for all associated financial risks. · In the current significantly constrained financial context the council may be forced to make difficult trade-offs to fund this option. This option would need to be supported by a detailed needs assessment and business case process. If approved, it would also need to go through the annual budget prioritisation process. · Councils are ineligible for government funding through the IRRS (a key funding source for Haumaru Housing). · Under this option council would be unable to access IRRS funding. · There is a risk that pursuing this option would divert scarce resourcing away from council’s current housing functions and that it would further overlap with Kāinga Ora’s core business.

Option

Overview

Option 1: Status quo: Leadership, policy, funding and partnerships (including Haumaru Housing – social housing for older people)

(Cost: built into current budgets)

· Council delivers its legislative and strategic framework outlined in Figure 1.

· Council provides input or approvals from initiation to completion for new developments.

· In partnership with Haumaru Housing council indirectly supports provision of 1,452 Haumaru Housing units for older people eligible for social housing. This provides direct benefits to Haumaru Housing tenants.

· Panuku is working with Haumaru Housing on ways to incrementally increase its provision over time and the development of a sustainable funding and operating model.

· Funding and resourcing to support current initiatives is built into existing council budgets and there are established cost recovery mechanisms that support current delivery of housing functions.

· This option maintains council’s contribution to reducing the social waitlist for older people.

· A key risk with the status quo relates to the ability for council to maintain delivery of its core functions in a highly constrained financial environment in the context of COVID-19.

Option 2: Indirect provision: (Do more) Partner with a Community Housing Provider / Māori or Pacific housing provider or seek to expand the current Haumaru Housing partnership to deliver more social housing stock for older people

· This option would involve council forming a new partnership with a Community Housing Provider / Māori or Pacific housing provider or seeking to expand its current partnership with Haumaru Housing to enable an increase (above the level planned under the status quo) in the social housing stock for older people.

· This option allows access to government funding through the IRRS, via a third party, which is a key funding source under the current Haumaru Housing model.

· Due to budget constraints in the context of COVID-19 the council would be forced to make key trade-offs against other spending priorities in order to increase the level of provision over and above the current allocation.

· Further increasing the provision of social housing stock under this option could be less efficient than the status quo as it may duplicate Kāinga Ora’s social housing functions.

Option 3: Direct provision: Build and operate more social housing stock for older people

· This option would involve council taking a direct role in building and managing an additional amount of stock of rental housing for older people. This would require Council to develop new building and procurement functions. It would take time for council to grow this function to maximum efficiency.

· This option is likely to require significant capital investment, potential provision of land, operational funding and additional staffing. This may include staff who specialise in building developments, property management and provision of maintenance and wrap around support for tenants.

· This model is higher risk than for Options 1 and 2 because council would be liable for all associated financial risks.

· In the current significantly constrained financial context the council may be forced to make difficult trade-offs to fund this option. This option would need to be supported by a detailed needs assessment and business case process. If approved, it would also need to go through the annual budget prioritisation process.

· Councils are ineligible for government funding through the IRRS (a key funding source for Haumaru Housing).

· Under this option council would be unable to access IRRS funding.

· There is a risk that pursuing this option would divert scarce resourcing away from council’s current housing functions and that it would further overlap with Kāinga Ora’s core business.

47. The indicative costing for Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) or Option 3: Direct provision. ranges from $50m, to impact 20 per cent of the current waitlist to $240m, to impact all of the current wait list, excluding operating expenses.

48. Staff used the following criteria to assess the options:

1. Strategic alignment: Aligns to strategic objectives and can target people with greatest need.

2. Impact: High, Medium, Low (including over time e.g. in 5, 10, 15 years)

3. Effective: can increase the supply of social housing that meets the needs and aspirations of older people.

Efficient: delivered with the least amount of resources, does not duplicate or crowd out existing provision or roles of other agencies.

4. Cost: Funding and resourcing required to set up, deliver and operate.

5. Risks and mitigation: Level of risk and mitigation do not compromise efficiency and effectiveness.

Figure 2: Summary of options assessment

Criteria	Option 1: Status quo	Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more)	Option 3: Direct provision
Strategic Alignment	High	High	High
Impact	Medium to High	High	Medium to High
Cost	Medium	High	High
Effectiveness and efficiency	High	Medium	Low
Risk	Medium	Medium-High	High

Staff recommend Option 1: Status quo: Leadership, policy, funding and partnerships (including Haumaru Housing – social housing for older people)

49. All three options provide a high level of strategic alignment in line with council’s purpose under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Auckland Plan 2050 Homes and Places outcome.

50. The key trade-off across the options is the level of impact on the problem relative to cost.

51. If the outcome the council seeks is sustaining and incrementally increasing its impact on the housing for older people problem, then Option 1: Status Quo has the ability to achieve this.

52. If the outcome the council seeks is a step-change to significantly increase its impact on the housing for older people problem, then an increased role in provision and funding is required. This could be achieved through Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) or Option 3: Direct provision.

53. Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) is more consistent with previous decisions, costs and benefits obtained through the current management of housing for older people by Haumaru Housing. It also has more potential to better meet the high and complex housing needs of Māori and Pacific peoples.

54. Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) or Option 3: Direct provision would however create higher levels of financial, organisational and reputational risk to council. They also rate as high cost within the current constrained financial context.

55. Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) and Option 3: Direct provision, represent a step change in contribution and impact on the problem particularly as the size of the problem grows in the future.

56. Option 1: Status quo is recommended by staff as it:

· represents a strong contribution to housing for older people through Haumaru Housing stock (1,452 units) given Kāinga Ora’s planned provision of approximately 670 new units to house older people (based on current demand)

· enables council to take a balanced approach to housing across its core roles and functions and through agreed forward work programmes and partnerships

· can enable incremental increases in the stock of Haumaru Housing over time

· minimises duplication of functions carried out by government through Kāinga Ora

· can be delivered within current budgets

· presents a lower level of risk to council.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

57. This report does not generate decisions with climate impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

58. This report has been developed with input from relevant council groups including Panuku, the Māori housing unit, Regulatory Services, staff from the Chief Economist’s Office and Customer and Community.

59. If Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) or Option:3 Direct provision was approved for further investigation specific impacts on budget, staffing and work programme planning and delivery would need to be determined.

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

Local impacts and local board views

60. Housing need for older people varies by local board area. Local boards including Howick, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Waitemata highlight issues or priorities for housing in their outcomes and objectives. Aotea / Great Barrier, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Waiheke and Whau local boards highlight specific issues or priorities relating to housing for older people.

61. Haumaru Housing takes a strategic approach to development and redevelopment of its housing stock across different local board areas in line with need and feasibility.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. Older Māori are more likely to have high levels of housing need. Efforts to increase the stock of housing for kaumātua can help improve wellbeing.

63. Under Option 1: Status quo council delivers a range of housing functions and this includes support for general housing, social and affordable housing and culturally responsive typologies such as kaumātua housing on papakāinga and marae.

64. Any advice on options for increasing the stock of housing for older people subsequent to this report will comprehensively assess wellbeing or hauora from a te ao Māori perspective.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

65. There are no direct financial implications associated with this report. This report provides initial advice on high level options for increasing the stock of housing for older people that require further investigation and costing before a final decision is made.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

66. Staff have identified the following risk.

Risk (If…)

Consequence (Then…)

Mitigation

Council decides to increase delivery of housing for older people over and above that planned under the status quo.

There will be benefits for older people, but it may impact council’s ability to deliver current functions within the currently constrained financial environment.

Focus on further prioritisation of key interventions that have lower cost or staff resourcing requirements.

Use detailed needs assessment and business case process to determine levels of feasibility.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

67. If the committee endorses Option 1: Status quo (recommended) staff will continue with current delivery.

68. If the committee decides on Option 2: Indirect provision (Do more) or Option: 3 Direct delivery staff will commence detailed investigation on how the policy approach can be implemented. Staff will then report back on methods of implementation, budget and resource requirements.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Long form options assessment	21
b ⇩	Affordable housing forward work programme	37

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Pania Elliot - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 November 2020

Affordable housing report back: Inclusionary zoning and options for a planning response

File No.: CP2020/15492

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider and decide on a preferred planning response for enabling more affordable housing across Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Plan 2050 prioritises secure, quality, affordable housing for all Aucklanders. Affordable housing is defined as a ‘home that a household could occupy for less than 30 per cent of its income’.

3. In September 2020, the Planning Committee approved the affordable housing forward work programme, including a report back on inclusionary zoning in November. Inclusionary zoning requires a share of dwellings in new developments to be affordable to people on low to medium incomes.

4. This report offers further detail on inclusionary zoning, discusses other mechanisms available to council to secure an increase in the supply of affordable housing and provides background on existing measures in New Zealand.

5. A resource management approach to addressing affordable housing was advanced by the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in 2013, requiring developers to contribute 10 per cent of all new housing developments (over 15 dwellings). This mandatory inclusionary zoning approach was not supported by the Independent Hearings Panel and was not taken forward at that time by council. The current legislative and policy context remains unchanged since this point in 2016.

6. A voluntary inclusionary zoning approach whereby development bonuses are provided for developments providing affordable housing has also been investigated. Given that there are no density controls through the majority of residential zones under the Auckland Unitary Plan, sufficient development bonuses to make this approach viable may not be available.

7. Both inclusionary zoning approaches above have been investigated and found to carry significant risks should either of these approaches be progressed as a plan change.

8. An alternative mechanism was the approach taken through the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA legislation). In addition to increasing supply through fast track consenting processes, affordable housing was also secured in a number of locations.

9. The comprehensive re-development at Hobsonville Point has been commended as delivering a high quality and complete neighbourhood that includes a range of housing typologies and affordable housing.

10. The experience in Queenstown is presented, with analysis of the context, approach and outcomes in comparison to the issues in Auckland.

11. The current central government tools available include support for increasing housing supply as set out in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). A range of affordable housing grants are also available for first-home buyers, as well as the Progressive Home Ownership Fund.

12. The Productivity Commission has examined a range of different mechanisms to enable affordable housing. Current resource management reform reports also consider more innovative approaches to securing and funding affordable housing.

13. Value capture seeks to share the value created through rezoning or providing infrastructure, by levying a charge to capture a portion of that value from those who benefit. The concept of value capture has had much consideration over many years. While the principle is often widely supported, the implementation and legal mechanisms to fairly capture uplift in land or property values and the delivery of associated benefits (e.g. the provision of affordable housing) has been the subject of debate.

14. Councils can set targeted rates for a specific group of ratepayers who benefit from a specific service or activity. The use of a targeted rate is considered, with a potential focus on supporting the delivery of affordable housing across Auckland. The legal mechanism to implement this tool already exists and could support a multi-year programme in partnership with Community Housing Providers.

15. This report is part of a wider council programme aimed at enabling affordable housing across Auckland, in particular housing for Māori. This work programme includes the action to continue to advocate for policy or regulatory change to increase delivery of affordable housing in the context of the NPS-UD and resource management reform.

16. The work programme focuses on the council’s key levers and a mix of quick wins and longer-term improvements, including:

· enhanced measurement, monitoring and reporting

· helping affordable housing providers through the consents processes

· responding to the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Kāinga Strategic Plan

· delivering a small number of affordable houses on surplus land including in partnership with community housing providers and mana whenua or mataawaka trusts or organisations

· continuing to support affordable and Māori housing

· investigating new policies and interventions, advocacy to and collaboration with government.

17. Measuring, monitoring and reporting on housing affordability is critical to the work programme to track the impact of interventions and investment. Staff will continue to work with the political working party to progress affordable housing matters. Ongoing progress will be reported to the Auckland Council and Government Joint Work Programme on Housing and Urban Development quarterly. Six monthly updates will be provided to the committee.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree not to make changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan due to the current legislative and policy context

b) agree that a coordinated advocacy plan to central government be developed by the political working party by February 2021 to advocate for legislative change required to enable the use of inclusionary zoning by local government.

Horopaki

Context

Housing remains unaffordable for a growing number of Aucklanders

18. The intermediate market is made up of those households that are currently in the private rental market, have at least one household member in paid employment, are ineligible for social housing, and cannot afford to buy a house at the lower quartile house price under standard bank lending criteria.

19. A recent study by Livingston and Associates Ltd, commissioned as part of the Affordable Housing Programme, indicated a total of 89,190 households in the intermediate housing market in 2018, up from 66,200 in 2013, representing an increase of 22,990 households or 35 per cent.

20. The intermediate housing market now includes more professionals, working families and older people. Managers and professionals make up 71 per cent (14,500) of the recent growth in the intermediate housing market.

Affordable housing position: do more to intervene and lead by investigating interventions

21. In 2019, the Planning Committee agreed that Auckland Council’s preferred position on affordable housing was to do more to intervene and lead by investigating regulatory and non-regulatory interventions (PLA/2019/17).

22. Council is partnering with Kāinga Ora on the Auckland Housing Programme to deliver over 20,000 dwellings, by supporting spatial planning in key locations and unlocking land for development through the planning and provision of infrastructure.

Inclusionary Zoning

23. As a planning tool, inclusionary zoning requires a share of dwellings in new developments to be affordable to people on low to medium incomes. Inclusionary zoning policies are usually introduced as a response to evidence of a lack of affordable housing availability in a particular area.

24. Inclusionary zoning approaches can be either mandatory or voluntary. Mandatory inclusionary zoning is often signalled and then introduced after a period of time, with defined thresholds and percentage requirements, that may relate to specific locations or wider areas, as determined by housing market assessments and growth plans. Voluntary inclusionary zoning schemes are often accompanied by an incentive for additional or bonus density, site coverage or height, or fast-track consent processing and support, or fee waivers.

25. In terms of the form of affordable housing, there is a difference between retained and relative affordable housing. Retained affordable housing is either retained by a community housing provider or Kāinga Ora, or is retained through a retention mechanism such as a restrictive covenant on the title (restricting future sale to eligible households only, with price restrictions), or offered on a leasehold sale basis through a Community Housing Provider (CHP). Relative affordable homes are those sold to eligible households, often with income-price related parameters, with fewer restrictions on resale. Other options include a limited retention period (usually of two or three years) before sale on the open market is permitted.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The Proposed Unitary Plan - mandatory inclusionary zoning

26. Mandatory inclusionary zoning provisions seeking affordable housing as a requirement were taken forward through both the Draft and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. These provisions included objectives and policies encouraging a range of dwelling types and sizes to meet housing needs, and requiring larger-scale development to provide a proportion of dwellings that are affordable for the intermediate market. This was intended to achieve wider housing choices to meet regional objectives of social and economic well-being. It also sought to increase overall housing output through partnership with the not-for-profit housing sector.

27. The requirements were set out in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan with a 10 per cent requirement for retained affordable housing within the Rural Urban Boundary, intended to ensure any affordable housing secured through the plan had an appropriate retention mechanism and remained affordable into the long term.

28. The Independent Hearing Panel considered the plan’s role in improving housing affordability and concluded “the Unitary Plan is best able to promote affordable housing by ensuring there is adequate feasible enabled residential capacity relative to demand, there is a range of housing types enabled in many locations, the Plan supports the centres and corridors strategy, and that the Plan does not impose undue implementation costs. This approach to housing affordability locates this issue at the heart of the design of the Unitary Plan, and correctly so, as housing affordability is fundamental to the well-being of people and communities of the Auckland region. It is important that the Plan enables affordable housing and does not present obstacles to achieving affordable housing in the region. The Panel also notes the Plan on its own is not able to deliver affordable housing”.

29. The Panel’s view after hearing submissions and evidence from a number of parties, including the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and Housing New Zealand Corporation, was that the proposed provisions were effectively a tax on the supply of dwellings and would likely reduce the efficiency of the housing market and simply be redistributional in their effect, with a risk of impeding rather than assisting an increase in supply. Further, the Panel did not support what it saw as an attempt to introduce a general price-control mechanism that could not be directly linked to effects arising from the plan, and was therefore not convinced the proposed provisions were appropriate under the Resource Management Act 1991.

30. The Panel recommended a doubling of the feasible enabled residential capacity of the Plan relative to the Plan as notified, an increase of around 30 per cent of the land area within the Rural Urban Boundary, and an increase in the choice of housing types to increase the supply of housing over the short and long term, and recommended the deletion of specific objectives, policies and methods for retained affordable housing. The Panel’s recommendations in relation to Hearing Topic 013 Urban Growth state “The affordable housing provisions as notified (B2.4 Neighbourhoods that retain affordable housing) have been deleted as these are not resource management matters. Instead policies to enable a range of housing typology to contribute to affordable housing is now included in B2.3”.

31. The Panel recommended objectives and policies that focus on intensification of residential areas in ways that support the quality compact urban form strategy, promoting increases in housing capacity and housing choice. It also promoted quality development in the context of the planned built character of areas, recognising that different neighbourhoods and different zones are likely to have differences in built form and style.

32. Council accepted the Panel’s recommendations, and the resulting and current plan provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan focus on increasing capacity and housing choice, and enabling a sufficient supply and diverse range of dwelling types and sizes that meet the housing needs of people and communities, including households on low to medium incomes and people with special housing requirements.

33. Based on early analysis re-examining inclusionary zoning, it appears that the success of such a policy rests largely on the definition of what an affordable home might be, and linking this definition with income. Analysis of recent housing data, disregarding any impact the policy might have on housing developers, indicates such a policy might yield between 250 and 350 affordable homes each year. An identified risk is that these homes would not necessarily be additional homes adding to supply, and it may be that such a policy dampens the total housebuilding output due to increases in costs to developer profit margins.

34. At this point, staff consider that the policy and legislative context remains unchanged and lacks the national level support and guidance to enable a sufficiently robust mandatory inclusionary zoning plan change to be successful under the Resource Management Act. The Panel recommendations considered that affordable housing provisions should not be included in the AUP as they are not resource management matters. The council decision accepted the Panel’s recommendations.

Voluntary inclusionary zoning

35. Through earlier work reported to committee in September 2020 (CP2020\10540) and in paragraph 50 of this report, the option of a voluntary approach to inclusionary zoning was considered, allowing for development bonuses when affordable housing was included in a development proposal. This was explored and found to be of little relevance to the Auckland Unitary Plan, given the majority of controls on density in particular no longer apply in most residential zones.

36. A further point is the risk inherent in this approach, that it could be argued that given the Auckland Unitary Plan is willing to accept higher densities, site coverage, height, etc in exchange for affordable housing, there is no clear resource management reason for the affordable housing to be provided at all, as there is no clear effects-based link evident.

Special Housing Areas

37. Special Housing Areas were a Central Government-led initiative designed to address the supply of land for affordable housing in 2013. The legislation worked alongside the Housing Accord between central and local government to establish parcels of land suitable for redevelopment.

38. After three years, Council ended its Housing Accord after 1,660 Ha of greenfield land was re-zoned and Council achieved 97.7 per cent of its target of approving consents for 39,000 dwellings over three years. A number of precincts related to Special Housing Areas remain in the Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) that require affordable housing contributions.

39. Developments of 15 dwellings or more were required to provide either 10 per cent relative affordable dwellings (targeted to first home buyers) or five per cent retained affordable (targeted to social housing providers) or a combination of both.

40. In 2017 council carried out investigation and analysis on the affordable housing provided through the Special Housing Area process. This analysis covers consenting data between 1 October 2013 (the beginning of the Accord period) until 30 June 2017 (the end of the Accord Monitoring Report period). By October 2017, 1,353 relative affordable sites/dwellings had been consented through the qualifying development resource consent process in Special Housing Areas. Over the same period, 2,077 retained affordable dwellings had been consented through the qualifying development resource consent process.

41. The Special Housing Areas highlighted the need for central government to set up and support a robust monitoring system in advance of any legislative change, to allow for high quality data collection and reporting.

Hobsonville

42. Hobsonville Point benefits from being comprehensively developed by a single landowner in accordance with detailed masterplanning, with government and council support over many years. Hobsonville Point rates highly for neighbourhood satisfaction, with 93 per cent of respondents reporting that it is a great place to live. ‘Sense of community’ rates at 71 per cent, significantly higher than for Auckland (50 per cent, 2018 Quality of Life survey). Other indicators report positively on perception of safety, and comparatively low levels of domestic energy, water and vehicle use. Significantly, 32 per cent of all homes sold to date were classified as affordable^{^[4]} (Hobsonville Point Sustainability Report 2017/2018).

43. Originally Hobsonville Land Company (later Homes. Land. Community and now Kāinga Ora) was the public partner in the Public Private Partnership (PPP). The wider development area, with its urban Concept Plan, was made up of precincts each with a Comprehensive Development Plan, each contributing to the vision of a sustainable development illustrating ‘how good urban design and affordable housing are compatible with a commercially-driven development approach, to deliver best practice that is available to all sectors of society’ (Auckland Regional Council, 2009).

44. Home. Land. Community established its own affordable housing scheme called the Axis Series housing, working with existing build partners to offer a ballot to eligible applicants that meet the residency, income and ownership criteria, along with a requirement to agree to live in the house for a minimum of two years. The current price range for Axis Series homes is between $450,000 and $650,000. These homes are an example of relative affordable homes, with no long-term retention mechanism in place.

45. It has been reported that it is often unknown to council whether purchasers meet the purchase criteria, even with signed declarations, as council is not involved in the process. Similarly, the requirement to occupy an affordable home for two years before resale is often not tracked or monitored, as it is assessed to be of low priority in the monitoring risk matrix.

Queenstown

46. Local residents and business have raised concerns for many years (dating back to the 1970s) about declining housing affordability and problems finding suitable worker accommodation in the Queenstown area.

47. Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) commissioned studies into housing affordability, along with an issues and options report, in advance of adopting the HOPE (Housing Our People in our Environment) Strategy. The HOPE Strategy was first developed and adopted by the council in June 2005 and set out a range of actions that the council and community should take to address issues of reducing housing affordability. The strategy is focused on actions relating to policy development, planning mechanisms, financial initiatives and delivery, is supported by background reports and provides the mandate to set up a working party/advisory group.

48. Plan Change 24 (PC 24) introducing inclusionary zoning was publicly notified in October 2007. The council hearing of PC 24 was held in August 2008, with the council decision notified in January 2009, and appeals lodged in February 2009. PC 24 sought to address the effects of development that exceeded what was anticipated under the District Plan (meaning permitted, controlled and restricted discretionary activities), through the requirement of qualifying developments to provide affordable housing that was proportionate to its effects or impacts. Retention mechanisms were explained in the reasons for adoption to ensure the ongoing availability of community housing for future low and moderate income households.

49. PC 24 was delayed significantly by a prolonged Environment Court appeal process ending in 2013 with mediation, resulting in affordable housing objectives and policies being put into the district plan. It failed to implement the final pieces needed to implement the requirement, leaving the final outcomes of PC 24 ineffective. One key legal point which PC 24 established is that housing affordability is an issue that can be addressed under the RMA, and therefore district plans.

50. While PC 24 was being prepared and litigated in the early 2000s, a series of private plan changes to the district plan seeking upzoning by developers were initiated. QLDC was in a position to negotiate for affordable housing contributions in relation to these plan changes, and this resulted in several affordable housing stakeholder deeds being drawn up, setting aside land for affordable housing, essentially capturing value uplift through the plan change process. The contributions from these agreements form the backbone of the affordable housing stock in the district through the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust (QLCHT).

51. The current inclusionary zoning provisions for affordable housing in the operative plan (under 4.10 Affordable and Community Housing) are applied through the assessment of resource consents that breach zone standards for density, height, building site coverage or minimum lot sizes and dimensions. In addition, applications for comprehensive residential development in the low-density residential zone, and proposed plan changes can also trigger affordable housing requirements.

52. In the meantime, the QLCHT was set up with direct financial support from Housing NZ, and further stakeholder deeds to secure affordable housing were signed between developers and the council. All land secured through deeds by the Council was transferred to the QLCHT for long-term rentals or the Secure Home programme (leasehold).

53. The QLDC has been working with the single community housing provider in the area, Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust, since 2007 to help local committed residents into decent affordable housing with secure tenure. A number of programmes are currently supported by the trust, designed to assist eligible low to moderate income households, including Secure Home, Rent Saver, Affordable Rental, Senior Housing, and Public Housing Rental.

54. The Secure Home programme has received national interest and delivers secure tenure affordable homes by QLCHT retaining land ownership in perpetuity and leasing to home owners at a concessional rate, with the dwelling purchased by the home owners and any value increase being capped at an annual CPI rate or equivalent, with the housing unit only able to be sold back into the QLCHT’s pool of buyers.

55. The next stage QLDC is considering is a variation to the Proposed District Plan to bring in stronger inclusionary zoning provisions.

56. The Queenstown context is very different to Auckland. The associated cost and risk to Auckland Council of taking forward a plan change to introduce inclusionary zoning, that may not be successful at this time, is significant. The density and comprehensive residential development provisions within the Queenstown District Plan present a policy context quite different from equivalent provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan. This difference significantly affects the viability of introducing equivalent voluntary inclusionary zoning provisions into the Auckland Unitary Plan. In addition, Auckland has significantly more Community Housing Partners (CHPs), with 21 currently working across the region in addition to Kāinga Ora’s Auckland Housing Programme. This could add considerable complexity to the implementation of a similar programme in Auckland, and is not recommended.

Productivity Commission

57. The Productivity Commission completed a number of reports of relevance to affordable housing, in particular, Using Land for Housing in 2015. This report argued that inclusionary zoning policies tackle the symptoms, rather than the causes, of a lack of affordable homes.

58. International evidence was presented to suggest inclusionary zoning policies have little impact on the overall supply of lower-priced housing, and can have undesirable effects including uncertainty and delays, higher prices for non-targeted homes, and significant administrative costs. Evidence suggested inclusionary zoning was most successful when accompanied by a wider suite of tools, including government funding.

Central government

59. Based on engagement with central government, and a review of recent shifts in policy, including the NPS-UD, current government investment is focusing on the comprehensive Auckland Housing Programme led by Kāinga Ora, the introduction of Progressive Home Ownership, and the range of grants and shared equity products available.

60. The NPS-UD will also allow for additional height and development capacity, without any associated mandatory or voluntary inclusionary zoning provisions. The NPS-UD seeks to enable well-functioning urban environments, with planning decisions that improve housing affordability by supporting competitive land and development markets, through the increase of the supply of housing. The NPS-UD also requires planning decisions relating to urban environments to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), along with the need for urban environments to support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and be resilient to current and future effects of climate change.

61. A remit to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) earlier this year was proposed by Hamilton and Christchurch City Councils, calling for LGNZ to advocate for the Government to assist councils in delivering affordable housing by introducing legislation that would fully enable councils to address housing affordability in their communities through a range of value uplift and capture tools, establishing a working group on affordable housing, and developing an affordable housing National Policy Statement. The remit was passed with 85 per cent support of the sector, including Auckland Council.

Value Capture

62. The rezoning of land and the provision of infrastructure can significantly increase the value of land, generating unearned income for landowners. The Mayoral Housing Taskforce Report (2017) considered the role of value capture in relation to infrastructure provision in areas that benefit from infrastructure investment. However, the council does not have the authority to capture some of this increase in value to contribute to community benefits (e.g. the provision of affordable housing). Legislative reform would be required.

63. The recently released report, ‘New Directions for Resource Management in New Zealand’ (June 2020) focuses on future resource management reform and makes a number of key recommendations that would support a more efficient resource management structure and systems through legislative change. The report also suggests options for the capture of the increase in land values upon rezoning or infrastructure delivery.

64. There may be merit in further exploring a value capture approach to ensure current and future beneficiaries contribute some of the ‘unearned’ uplift in land or property value to pay for social good, which could include affordable housing.

65. With forthcoming resource management reform, significant change is expected in the tools and mechanisms available to councils to undertake strategic planning and support housing markets that meet the needs of those in the intermediate sector.

Targeted Rates

66. The report, ‘New Directions for Resource Management in New Zealand’, states at para 147, ‘The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 does not currently allow councils to rate on the basis of an increase in land values, so progressing this further would require an extension to rating powers’. So while recently rezoned land could not have a targeted rate set to capture value uplift and fund the council’s activities relating to affordable housing, there may be scope to set a targeted rate on all rateable land to fund such activities.

67. For this to be successful, further analysis of the housing market would be required to understand the impact of any change in policy, and the point at which this would be most effective in terms of balancing overall housing delivery with the support for affordable homes.

68. If the council included a commitment to invest in affordable housing in its long-term plan then a targeted rate could potentially be used to fund this, subject to the consideration of the matters in s101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, which includes amongst other matters:

· the community outcomes to which the activity to be funded primarily contributes

· the extent to which the affected ratepayers benefit from the activity(s) to be funded or drive the cost of providing these services

· the overall impact on affordability.

69. The benefits of a comprehensive targeted rate for affordable housing include the following:

· levied over a specified timeframe

· secure/predictable revenue stream

· charged in advance of delivery of affordable housing

· charges spread across all ratepayers rather than tied to development activity

· option to rate on a uniform or variable basis.

70. Council would need to work with CHPs to set in place a framework for investing revenue from any targeted rate into an affordable housing programme that delivers a pool of affordable housing across Auckland. Existing partnerships and programmes with CHPs could form the basis for this. The scheme design for a comprehensive targeted rate would need to be subject to ongoing monitoring and reporting of the housing market, and be self-limiting, and subject to a fixed time frame.

71. There are again, significant costs and risks related to introducing a targeted rate for affordable housing. There would be an additional rates burden impacting all households, a shift in terms of Auckland Council’s role in affordable housing activity, and any scheme would require a clear and costed business case and delivery framework.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

72. Securing affordable housing in locations that have good accessibility to employment and education has significant benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Auckland Unitary Plan has created significantly more opportunities for affordable housing in these locations, however the affordability of housing remains a significant issue. Advocating to central government to put in place a more supportive framework for inclusionary zoning is an important means of addressing this issue.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

73. This report is part of the ongoing work programme led by the Community and Social Policy department. Different council groups will have a role in the implementation of the affordable housing work programme.

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

Local impacts and local board views

74. Lack of affordable housing is impacting across all local board areas to varying degrees. The work programme provides an Auckland-wide approach that will deliver benefits broadly.

75. Research commissioned to support this advice provides insights into the changes in the intermediate housing market at a local board level and can inform local decision making.

76. Local Board engagement will occur in the context of future projects that may be taken forward in specific locations.

77. The council will continue to provide advice and support local boards on affordable or Māori housing initiatives and local responses.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

78. Māori earn lower incomes on average, have lower rates of homeownership than average, are more likely to live in crowded homes than average, and are over-represented in the intermediate housing market.

79. High rent and discrimination in the rental market can mean more Māori are marginalised in high poverty neighbourhoods in poor-quality, cold, damp and/or mouldy housing. The majority of Māori are missing out on the positive benefits of homeownership including the ability to accumulate wealth and transfer this to future generations.

80. Advocating to central government to put in place a more supportive framework for inclusionary zoning is an important means of addressing this issue. The wider forward work programme, including responses to the Kāinga Strategic Action Plan, can also support Māori in need of affordable, appropriate housing and mana whenua and mataawaka trusts and organisations wanting to develop housing for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

81. The wider Affordable Housing work programme has been approved and is ongoing and identified as a priority for council, with support from the Plans and Places department. Regular reporting through the political working group and Planning Committee will be supported by robust data collection and monitoring. Any significant change to the work programme will be agreed and funded through existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

82. The risks associated with taking forward a plan change to introduce inclusionary zoning, and the introduction of a targeted rate are discussed above.

83. By continuing to work with central government, and advocating for policy and/or regulatory changes to increase the delivery of affordable housing, the risks associated with a plan change, or targeted rate will be significantly lessened. Forthcoming resource management reform may provide local government with a greater range of options for enabling and securing affordable housing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

84. Staff will continue to work with the political working group to progress affordable housing matters, including the review of future relevant mechanisms as they become available. Ongoing progress will be reported to the Auckland Council and Government Joint Work Programme on Housing and Urban Development quarterly. Six monthly updates will be provided to the committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Clare Wall Shaw - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 November 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan Schedule 10 and Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) Appendix 1G - Notable Tree Schedule Review.

File No.: CP2020/15461

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a recommendation to the Planning Committee in relation to reviewing and making changes to the notable tree schedules in the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (‘AUP’) Tree Schedules (Schedule 10) and the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) (Appendix 1G) provide protection for Auckland’s notable trees. Tree schedules are highly dynamic in nature meaning they change over time. Subdivision, development, consents for removal/alteration as well as emergency works affect the listings in the schedule. A long-term approach is required to ensure the integrity and reliability of these schedules and the continued protection and management of Auckland’s notable trees. This requires a substantial commitment by council to ensuring the protection of any notable trees or groups of trees which meet the AUP notable tree criteria.

3. The key options available to council for notable tree management and protection are:

· Option 1: Prepare a plan change to add existing nominations which merit inclusion to Schedule 10 and correct any new errors/inconsistencies that have been identified.

· Option 2: Prepare a plan change which in addition to Option 1 calls for further nominations from the public to expand Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G.

· Option 3: Undertake, over a five-year time period, a full review of existing Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G.

· Option 4: Hybrid approach which incorporates aspects of Options 1 and 3 by preparing a plan change to add nominated trees to Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G and correct newly identified errors/inconsistencies, while also commencing an incremental review of Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G.

· Option 5: Status quo, rely on the existing Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G and continue to monitor their effectiveness

4. When considering the timing for a full review of Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G the most appropriate and beneficial option available is the hybrid approach (Option 4). However, this work is currently unfunded. As such, the report recommends Option 5, the status quo, together with continuing to request that the Government considers changes to New Zealand’s resource management system to enable the council to reinstate some form of general tree protection.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) note the hybrid approach discussed at Option 4 is the most cost effective way to undertake the review of existing Schedule 10 of the Auckland Unitary Plan and Appendix 1G of the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section)

b) agree that it is not financially viable to review or make changes to the notable tree schedules in the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) at this point in time

c) agree that future submissions on resource management reform should continue to request that the Government considers changes to enable the council to reinstate some form of general tree protection.

Horopaki

Context

5. At its meeting on 21 July 2020, the Environment and Climate Change Committee requested a memorandum on the resourcing and timeframes associated with adding trees to Schedule 10. The Environment and Climate Change Committee also requested updates be made to the council website to alert people to the fact that the nomination of a tree for protection does not automatically protect the tree. This was in response to concerns raised by the community about the loss of trees or groups of trees in the region and the lack of protection for identified significant trees. An interim amendment has been made to this wording to alert members of the public to the delays between their nominations being received and a change being made to Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G. (Attachment A)

6. Council staff reported their findings to the Planning Committee and Environment and Climate Change Committee in a memo dated 7 August 2020. It was reported that the estimated cost of adding a tree to Schedule 10 was $1484 and the process would take between 34 to 42 months. (Attachment B).

7. At the 21 July 2020 Environment and Climate Change Committee meeting, it was resolved (Resolution ECC/2020/30) that a report on the full review of the notable trees schedule be reported back to the Planning Committee (Attachment C).

8. The council’s main regulatory technique for managing and protecting trees is the AUP. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) within the AUP contains a number of objectives and policies relating to the natural environment, including trees. It recognises the importance of Auckland’s distinctive natural heritage and the numerous elements that contribute to it, with trees being an integral component. The AUP is supported by a suite of non-regulatory council and private initiatives under Auckland’s Urban Ngahere Strategy that contribute to the management and protection of trees. Some examples include: Local Board Plans, the Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy and the “Million Trees programme”.

9. The Resource Management Act (RMA) amendments in 2012 prevented the use of general (or blanket) tree protection in urban areas. One of council’s regulatory focuses since then has been on managing and protecting scheduled trees through Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G.

10. Prior to the creation of the AUP, each legacy council had its own schedule of notable trees. These varied in number and extent according to the local area. These were evaluated using different sets of criteria (depending on the council involved) at the time that they were included in the legacy district plans. The Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) Appendix 1G Schedule of trees has 41 line items and these remained in the HGI plan whilst the other legacy district plan tree schedules were consolidated into the AUP. Many of the legacy schedules had not been updated for some time when they were incorporated into the AUP.

11. As part of the development of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) these schedules were consolidated. Consequently, there are now almost 3000 individual line items representing 6-7000 trees or groups of trees regionally. Through the PAUP process, 519 submissions were received seeking additions to the Schedule. Since the AUP became Operative in Part in 2016, several nominations for trees to be added to the Schedule have also been received. Due to resource constraints these nominations have not been evaluated and remain in a database held by the Plans and Places department.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Auckland Unitary Plan

12. The AUP protects and retains notable trees with significant historical, botanical or amenity values. Trees or groups of trees in Schedule 10 were evaluated using a set of criteria based on historical association, scientific importance or rarity, contribution to ecosystem services, cultural association or accessibility and intrinsic value. These factors are considered in the context of human health, public safety, property, amenity values and biosecurity.

13. Tree schedules are highly dynamic and are not as easily maintained as other AUP schedules which are static (e.g. Outstanding Natural Landscapes Overlay Schedule, Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule) meaning that they fall out of date over time. This is because subdivision, development and consents for removal/alteration as well as emergency works affect the description of listings on the Schedule. The health of trees can also naturally deteriorate. Given the number of listings contained in the Schedule, errors will continue to be identified and further updates will therefore be required. To update Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G requires a plan change. These changes cannot be addressed through any other process.

14. 519 submissions were received seeking additions to the PAUP schedule and 60 submissions sought deletions. The AUP Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) directed all submitters seeking additions or deletions to Schedule 10 to provide evidence of the affected landowners they had contacted and evidence to support their submission. Few submitters provided enough information to support the addition or deletion of a tree (or trees) on another person’s property. Consequently, few submissions successfully added trees to Schedule 10. The submissions to the PAUP seeking additions do, however, remain in a database. A further 68 nominations received since 2016 are also held creating a total of 587 nominations. As at 8 October 2020 no nominations have been received to add trees to HGI District Plan Appendix 1G.

15. Council provides the opportunity for people to nominate trees using a form on the website. This has led to an expectation from the community that council intends to evaluate and proceed with a plan change to add nominated trees to the Schedule. The website explains that while trees can be nominated, nomination does not immediately cause a plan change to add the tree to Schedule 10 to be commenced.

Hauraki Gulf Islands Schedule of Trees

16. Auckland Council has until at least mid-2023 to commence a complete review of the HGI plan before the process of incorporating it into the AUP begins. Currently the Inner Islands Section of the HGI District Plan, Appendix 1G Schedule of Trees, has 41 line items, the Outer Islands Section does not contain any scheduled trees. If the review of Appendix 1G determines that it needs to be updated, a plan change is required.

Plan Change 29

17. Since the AUP became operative in part, Schedule 10 has been amended once via Proposed Plan Change 29 (PC29). PC29 amended errors and inconsistencies in the Schedule 10 text and maps. This only included correcting errors such as mapping (e.g. tree identification mapped at the wrong location), incorrect information in the Schedule (e.g. address and/or legal description is incorrect, the number of trees is missing/incorrect, the botanical and/or common names are incorrect or do not align), or items missing from Schedule 10 or included in error.

18. PC29 did not add to or re-evaluate existing trees on the schedule. PC29 sought to ensure that the current Schedule 10 is correct and up to date and to improve the overall usability of the Schedule.

19. At the time PC29 was presented to council it was proposed that nominations for additions to/removals from Schedule 10 would not form part of the plan change process. Any submissions for additions to/removals from the Schedule would be considered as a separate matter at a later date. It was not considered appropriate to add to or remove from the Schedule concurrently with the fixing of errors and inconsistencies.

20. PC29 was notified on 15 August 2019 and the hearing was held on 16 September 2020. At the time of writing this report, the decision has not yet been released.

RMA reforms and general tree protection

21. Prior to 2012, general (or blanket) tree protection rules meant that property owners had to apply for a resource consent to remove large native and exotic trees in most parts of Auckland. An amendment to the RMA removed the use of general tree protection in urban areas, this resulted in a limited ability for the council to apply rules for the removal of urban trees, other than by specifically identifying them on a schedule.

22. Within urban areas the RMA does enable the council to protect ‘significant ecological areas’ and other ‘groups’ of trees. This is on the basis that the protection is through regional rather than district rules that are based on regional functions such as natural hazard management or the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity. District plan tree protection in urban areas can only occur through notable tree schedules that specifically describe and identify trees.

23. Currently Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G protect a small number of trees in comparison to the protection that general tree protection could provide. The RMA reform Panel report ‘New Directions for Resource Management in New Zealand’, released in June 2020, has not addressed the matter of general tree protection and whether any new legislative system should specifically apply general tree protection district rules.

Urban Ngahere Strategy

24. The Urban Ngahere Strategy is the central policy vehicle for managing and growing Auckland’s urban forest. It provides a framework for managing the ngahere. Trees listed in Schedule 10 make up 1 to 1.5 per cent of the total urban forest cover.

25. Auckland Council has a range of regulatory tools to protect the urban ngahere, such as rules relating to Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs), Schedule 10, and rules to limit the extent of vegetation removal in sensitive environments, like streams and coastlines. These regulatory tools apply to trees and vegetation on private properties. However, since amendments to the RMA came into effect in 2012, the council has had to depend more on non-regulatory tools such as Local Board Plans, Greenway Plans, the Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy and the “Million Trees programme”.

26. In the context of the urban ngahere, the potential loss of scheduled trees would not be a major ecological issue because of the low percentage of total forest cover (paragraph 24) and the presence of additional regulatory tools which protect the urban ngahere (paragraph 25).

AUP Review

27. As a local authority, section 79 (1) and (4) of the RMA requires that Auckland Council ‘commence the review’ of the AUP before November 2026. The notification date for the reviewed AUP must be before April 2029, which is ten years following the gazettal of the National Planning Standards (section 17(7)(a) of the Standards).

28. The Plans and Places department is currently engaged in the preparation of the RMA section 25 five-year monitoring report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the AUP, and that is an important pre-cursor to the review of the AUP.

29. It is important that council has a comprehensive understanding of the contents of each of its schedules before the review commences. Given that many of the notable trees were part of legacy planning documents, council may have limited information associated with some of the listings. Unfortunately, many of the records are poor and the information held becomes increasingly out of date.

Options available for Schedule 10 review and additions

30. Five options are identified for the review of Schedule 10. A summary of the options is included as Attachment D.

Option 1 – prepare plan change to respond to existing nominations and known errors/inconsistencies

31. The most cost-effective way to add trees to the Schedule of Notable Trees contained in the AUP would be to notify a region-wide plan change after evaluating the existing nominations. There are currently 587 public nominations.

32. It is difficult to quantify the cost of this option because there are many contributing factors. For the purpose of this exercise it has been necessary to make some assumptions. These are outlined in Attachment B. Based on the information provided in Attachment E, coupled with the assumptions applied to the data, the current cost to evaluate and where appropriate schedule 587 trees is estimated to be $871,000, the estimated average cost of scheduling a single tree is currently $1484.00. This includes ongoing Schedule maintenance costs for up to 12 months. This reflects the process steps and expertise required to support the plan change process necessary to enable the addition of trees into Schedule 10.

33. It is estimated that the process of adding trees to Schedule 10 and making the plan change operative would take between 34 to 42 months. It would be both cost and time efficient if additions to Schedule 10 occurred by evaluating large batches of tree nominations at the same time rather than individually.

34. A significant amount of time has passed since the existing PAUP nominations were received. Implementing this option may require consultation with the original nominators. The time and cost associated with this has not been factored into the costs outlined above. People may still nominate trees, and this has led to an expectation from the community that council intends to evaluate and proceed with a plan change to add trees to the Schedule. There is a reputational risk if council does not proceed with evaluation of the existing nominations and also possible continued loss of significant trees that currently have no protection. This option could address any known mapping issues and also correct any identified errors.

35. The benefits of Option 1 would be that it addresses the existing nominations council has and will lead to the protection of additional trees that meet the notable tree criteria in the AUP.

36. The Plans and Places department does not have the resources available to undertake this option.

Option 2 – call for nominations from the public alongside implementing Option 1

37. Option 2 builds on Option 1 as the plan change would commence after calling for nominations from the public. This is likely to lead to numerous new nominations.

38. The benefit of this approach would be the protection of additional trees that meet the notable tree criteria in the AUP. The costs of this approach are difficult to calculate, however it is likely to be over $3 million in anticipation of hundreds (or potentially thousands) of trees being nominated and needing to be assessed for inclusion on the schedule.

39. The Plans and Places department does not have the resource available to undertake this option.

Option 3 – Full review of existing Schedule 10 of the AUP and Appendix 1G of the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section)

40. This option would focus on reviewing scheduled listings with the purpose of gaining reliable and up to date information about the trees or groups of trees that are listed.

41. Each legacy council used their own evaluation criteria when scheduling trees in their respective areas. Since these trees were scheduled there have been a number of changes to the scoring methods used to evaluate trees or groups of trees for scheduling. If the decision were made to re-evaluate the schedule and appendix there is a potential risk that the number of currently scheduled trees would be reduced. This is due to the dynamic nature of trees, meaning a number of the trees that previously met legacy council criterion would not meet the criteria under the AUP.

42. This review would go beyond the desktop assessment used in PC29, and include having arborists visits all trees to complete the review. PC29 was a “simple” errors-based plan change and it has taken approximately two years to complete the systematic checking of a very large number of ‘line items’ in Schedule 10 and is yet to be made operative.

43. Given that Schedule 10 contains some 6000 to 7000 notable trees. It is estimated that the costs and the time required for a full review of the Schedule (including research, negotiated access, site visits for assessments, data checking, mapping, notifications, submissions, hearings and then appeals) would be substantial. The estimated cost of this review is approximately $1,67 million (refer to Attachment D) and would take approximately five years. The five year timeframe is based on reviewing 20 per cent of scheduled trees each year.

44. The benefit of this approach is that is it addresses the lack of knowledge/understanding of currently scheduled items and helps to ensure the resource is protected and maintained. This option also puts council in a better position once it commences the review of the AUP.

45. The Plans and Places department does not have the resource available to undertake this option.

Option 4 – Hybrid approach (incorporates aspects of Options 1 and 3)

46. A hybrid approach would involve the following:

a) Evaluate the existing 587 nominations, and a plan change to add those that have merit to Schedule 10 (Option 1).

b) Correct newly identified errors/inconsistencies (not identified in PC29) via a plan change to ensure the integrity of Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G is maintained (Option 2).

c) Incremental monitoring process of existing Schedule 10 listings to ensure council has reliable and up to date information when it commences the review of the AUP (Option 4). This could include monitoring of 20% of Schedule 10 each year for five years, finishing in 2026. This would require two full time arborists to be available to assist with this work.

47. This hybrid approach is the most cost-effective of Options 1-4, however it would require approximately $2.54 million (Option 2 - $871,000 and Option 4 - $1.67 million) that is currently unbudgeted.

48. The Plans and Places department does not have the resource available to undertake this option.

Option 5 – Status quo

49. The status quo option would rely on Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G for the continued management and protection of scheduled trees. Apart from PC29, no plan changes would be made to the AUP at this point in time. The effectiveness of the current approach would be monitored, and if appropriate, changes made at a later date (likely to be a part of the review of the AUP).

50. The benefit of the status quo option is that there would be no additional cost to the council other than the ongoing business costs associated with administering the current rules. This approach would allow time for the current provisions to be implemented, so that a robust analysis of their effectiveness can be undertaken (at a future date) as part of the council’s overall AUP monitoring programme.

51. The costs of the status quo include a potential reduction in Auckland’s actual tree coverage. However, this could potentially be offset by the various non-regulatory approaches set out in the Urban Ngahere Strategy.

52. By not maintaining and updating Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G and its corresponding mapped overlay, the information held becomes increasingly out of date. This can also cause the integrity and public appreciation of the schedule to be reduced.

53. Given the Plans and Places department’s current resources (which have been significantly reduced due to the impact of Covid-19) and other priorities such as responding to the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and National Policy Statement on Urban Development, this is the only viable option at this point in time.

54. The status quo could be supported by continuing to request that the Government considers changes to New Zealand’s resource management system to enable the council to reinstate some form of general tree protection. The main benefit of general tree protection as a regulatory technique is that it provides for retention of all trees that meet a height/girth threshold, representing a large proportion of trees across the region.

55. The costs of general tree protection include the additional expense to property owners (or the council if it waived resource consent fees) through the processing of consents and monitoring. A resource consent would be required for removal or significant alteration of those trees, allowing for mitigation planting (in the case of tree removals), and the ability to enforce rules rather than relying on public goodwill in terms of tree retention. It also promotes a precautionary approach to removal of, or significant alteration to, trees when particular information about their qualities is unknown.

Conclusion

56. Of the five options considered in this report, Option 4 has considerable merit, however the Plans and Places department does not have the resources available to undertake this work. The status quo (i.e. not reviewing Schedule 10 and Appendix G or existing tree nominations and continuing to request that the Government considers changes to New Zealand’s resource management system to enable the council to reinstate some form of general tree protection) is therefore the only financially viable option at this point in time.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

57. Notable trees form 1 to 1.5 per cent of Auckland’s urban canopy cover. It is acknowledged that they make a positive contribution to Auckland’s climate, for example increasing carbon sequestration and reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. An increase in notable trees would have further positive effects on Auckland’s climate by protecting additional trees from removal, however general tree protection (if re-introduced by the Government) would likely have a far more positive impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

58. Maintaining the status quo will not have any impact on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

59. The important role of local boards in tree protection is recognised, particularly at the non-regulatory community level.

60. There are two council grants available to assist with the ongoing maintenance of notable trees on private property. These are individual local board grants and the Regional Historic Heritage grant. The funding criteria for the local board grants is at each board’s discretion and may not include scheduled trees as a priority for awarding a grant. These grants are traditionally oversubscribed.

61. Local boards have not been consulted on the options discussed in this report, however it is highly likely that most local boards would want to see additional trees scheduled within their local board area if funds were available.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. The protection of trees is an issue important to many Māori. No specific consultation has been undertaken with Māori in relation to this report, however, based on past consultation with Mana Whenua, it is highly likely Mana Whenua would want to see additional trees scheduled within their rohe if funds were available.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

63. The status quo option for managing and protecting Auckland’s notable trees can be managed within existing council budgets. The four additional options discussed in this report would require additional funds.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

64. There are risks associated with not addressing the existing notable tree nominations and retaining inconsistencies in Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G and not improving the information held in council’s databases. There is the possibility that incorrect assumptions be made about the protection of notable trees and that trees may be inadvertently removed. This presents a risk for the integrity of the AUP and the council’s reputation given the amount of time that has passed since tree nominations have been received.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. The next steps involve:

· continuing to request that the Government considers changes to New Zealand’s resource management system to enable the council to reinstate some form of general tree protection

· undertaking a review of Schedule 10 and Appendix 1G when resources permit (i.e. most likely as part of the full review of the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) and Auckland Unitary Plan).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Current updated Auckland Council webpage	61
b ⇩	Memo - The current costs of adding trees to the Auckland Unitary Plan’s Notable Tree Schedule (Schedule 10)	63
c ⇩	Environment and Climate Change Committee resolution ECC/2020/30	67
d ⇩	Summary of options for notable trees	69
e ⇩	Process, timeframes and costs of additions to Schedule 10 and a full review of Schedule 10	71

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Teuila Young - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 November 2020

Waiheke Area Plan - allocation of non regulatory decision-making to the Waiheke Local Board

File No.: CP2020/15537

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend to the Governing Body that the Waiheke Local Board be allocated the decision-making authority for the Waiheke Area Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The responsibility for area plans currently sits with the Planning Committee. In June 2018 the committee approved the development of two area plans for Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Island with local working parties established to oversee the preparation of each plan.

3. The Waiheke Area Plan is nearing completion and the Waiheke Local Board is proposing a resolution at its next meeting on 28 October 2020 to request the Governing Body allocate decision-making on the area plan to the local board. A copy of the resolution will be provided at the Planning Committee meeting.

4. The Planning Committee cannot delegate its functions, such as approving an area plan, to a local board directly. Only the Governing Body can do that under s17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (the Act).

5. The allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities must be in accordance with the principles set out in s17(2) of the Act and after considering the views and preferences of the local board.

6. The request by the Waiheke Local Board satisfies the general principle that a non-regulatory decision can be made by the Waiheke Local Board as that decision-making will not impede or affect the well-being of communities across Auckland, nor will it impact on any coordinated or strategic approach across Auckland. It is also consistent with the trial devolution of decision-making responsibilities to the Waiheke Local Board under the Waiheke Governance Project. Area plans were identified as an activity that could be covered by the pilot.

7. The recommendation does not have climate change or financial implication. The relevant council-controlled organisations have been closely involved in the development of the area plan. Iwi have also been involved and consulted on the development of the area plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) recommend to the Governing Body that it delegates authority to the Waiheke Local Board to make decisions on and to formally adopt the Waiheke Area Plan on the recommendations of the Waiheke Area Plan working party.

Horopaki

Context

8. The responsibility for area plans sits with the Planning Committee. In June 2018, the Planning Committee approved the development of two area plans (for Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Island). The area plan would inform the integration of the Hauraki Gulf Islands into the Auckland Unitary Plan. Working parties were established to oversee the preparation of each plan. Each working party consists of the members of the local board, the Waitematā Ward Councillor and a representative of the Independent Maori Statutory Board. The working parties were re-established by resolution of the Planning Committee in December 2019, following the local government elections.

9. Community feedback on the draft Waiheke Area Plan was sought from 13 July to 19 August 2020. Feedback is currently being processed and assessed. A key initiative for the local board over the 2020/2021 financial year is to finalise the Waiheke Area Plan.

10. The Waiheke Local Board is proposing a resolution at its next meeting on 28 October 2020 to request that the Governing Body allocate decision-making on the Waiheke Area Plan to the local board.

11. This report is written in advance of that meeting and assumes the resolution is passed. A copy of the board’s meeting minutes will be provided at the November 2020 Planning Committee meeting.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The responsibility for area plans currently sits with the Planning Committee. However, it cannot delegate its functions, such as approving an area plan to a local board directly. Only the Governing Body can do that.

13. Under s17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (the Act), the Governing Body may delegate to local boards, decision-making responsibilities it had otherwise allocated to itself.

14. The allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities, such as area plans, must be in accordance with the principles set out in s17(2) of the Act and after considering the views and preferences of the local board.

15. The local board’s preference will be evident from its 28 October 2020 resolution.

16. The principles contained in s17(2) are:

(a) decision-making responsibility for a non-regulatory activity of the Auckland Council should be exercised by its local boards unless paragraph (b) applies:

(b) decision-making responsibility for a non-regulatory activity of the Auckland Council should be exercised by its governing body if the nature of the activity is such that decision making on an Auckland-wide basis will better promote the well-being of the communities across Auckland because -

(i) the impact of the decision will extend beyond a single local board area; or

(ii) effective decision making will require alignment or integration with other decisions that are the responsibility of the governing body; or

(iii) the benefits of a consistent or coordinated approach across Auckland will outweigh the benefits of reflecting the diverse needs and preferences of the communities within each local board area.

17. The request by the Waiheke Local Board satisfies the general principle that a non-regulatory decision can be made by the Waiheke Local Board as that decision-making will not impede or affect the well-being of communities across Auckland, nor will it impact on any coordinated approach across Auckland. This is because:

i) as a network of islands, land within the Waiheke Local Board area is not physically connected to the other local board areas and the impact of the decision will not extend beyond its boundaries

ii) effective decision-making is not compromised as the actions arising from the area plan are not binding on the Governing Body and will need to be integrated with future decisions of the Governing Body

iii) it is consistent with the purposes of the Waiheke Governance Pilot which is trialing an increased level of devolved decision-making to the Waiheke Local Board. The pilot recognises the board’s desire for greater decision-making autonomy. Local area plans were identified as an activity that would be covered by the pilot. To date, the board has been delegated authority to make land use and development decisions at Matiatia and to endorse the Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan.

18. Any recommendation from the Planning Committee would be considered by the Governing Body at its 26 November 2020 meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. The draft Waiheke Area Plan addresses how the islands can adapt to the challenges presented by natural hazards and climate change. The key moves and actions included in the draft Waiheke Area Plan are:

Key moves

1. Avoid development in high risk areas subject to land instability, flooding, coastal inundation or other hazards to reduce risks to life, property and the environment.

2. Help prepare communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

3. Embrace new innovative and sustainable technologies.

Actions

*No.*	*Action*	*Lead Agency*	*Partners*
1	Develop a low carbon action plan for the islands to encourage adoption of sustainability practices and to building on local community based programmes.	LB	AC
2	Support local renewable energy initiatives.	LB
3	Strengthen land use planning and building provisions to reduce the level of exposure to natural hazards by influencing where and how development occurs.	AC
4	Promote the restoration of the coastal edge.	LB
5	Investigate the realignment or the retreat of coastal edge structures and infrastructure where space is available to better accommodate and reduce the impacts of coastal hazards and projected sea level rise.	LB	AT AC
6	Maintain and enhance dune systems and unarmoured esplanade reserve edges on Waiheke Island’s northern beaches to act as buffers to coastal hazards.	AC/LB	Mana whenua Community groups

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. The recommended allocation of decision-making to the Waiheke Local Board will not have any impacts or implications on the wider council group.

21. In developing the area plan, staff from the Plans and Places department have worked closely with internal specialists from with the relevant council departments, and council-controlled organisations - namely Auckland Transport, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development and Watercare.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. The request for the allocation of decision-making to the Governing Body is a Waiheke Local Board initiative. As previously noted, the 28 October 2020 local board resolution will be made available at the Planning Committee meeting.

23. No other local boards are affected as any decision on allocation of decision-making responsibilities to local boards is considered on a case by case basis as set out in Part 3 of the Emergency Budget 2020/2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. After an initial consultation with the 11 iwi whose rohe intersect within the local board area, three iwi organisations, Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, Ngāti Paoa Trust Board and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki advised they wish to be involved in preparing the area plan. Discussions with iwi and information from strategic plans and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki’s Cultural Values Assessment formed a valuable understanding of local iwi values and concerns.

25. Governance issues relating to the decision-making were not canvassed. However, responsibility for decision-making is not considered to have implications for iwi or Māori more generally.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. If the recommendation made in this report is accepted by the Planning Committee there are no financial costs or implications for the Governing Body. Actions contained in the final version of the Waiheke Area Plan that are unfunded are not binding on the Governing Body and will be subject to future funding decisions.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. There is a minor risk that delegating decision-making on the Waiheke Area Plan to the Waiheke Local Board sets a precedent for future area plans with strategic implications that extend beyond a single local board area. This risk is mitigated by the requirement for the Governing Body to adhere to the principles set out in section 17(2) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (see paragraph 16 above).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. The Governing Body would consider any resolution by the Planning Committee on this matter at its next meeting on 26 November 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michele Perwick - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	83
b ⇨	Workshop, 30 September 2020, National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Auckland Council response (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Memorandum - Northwest Interim Bus Improvements – Project Update (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Memorandum - Summary of Environment Court decision on Rural Subdivision provisions (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Memorandum - Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021 (GPS2021) (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – October 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Memorandum - Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy Monitoring Report release (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Memorandum - Auckland’s Heritage Counts 2020 Report (Under Separate Cover)

Planning Committee

05 November 2020

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

Forward Work Programme 2020

Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2020
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Unitary Plan Monitoring including Climate response (led by Plans and Places)
Auckland Unitary Plan Monitoring Report Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under section 35 of the Resource Management Act to provide a comprehensive monitoring report five years from date the Auckland Unitary Plan became ‘operative in part’ (i.e. by November 2021). This work will consist of interim monitoring reports ahead of November 2021. Examples of monitoring topics include urban growth and form, quality built environment, historic heritage, indigenous biodiversity, Maori economic, social and cultural development, natural hazards (including flooding) and climate change. This work may result in plan changes being recommended ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.	Decisions required: Interim reports seeking committee feedback and decisions on possible plan changes ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.								W
	Enabling Rainwater Tanks Plan Change	Decisions required: committee delegated authority to approve notification of the plan change PLA/2020/47								C
	Mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations – staff to report back to Planning Committee with options (April 2021)	Decisions required: committee to consider options and recommendations
Strategic approach to post-Covid Auckland
Strategic response to Covid-19 Chief Planning Office	Progress the COVID-19 strategic response discussion – workstreams and workshop date tbc	Decision required: to be confirmed
Auckland Plan 2050
Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Six monthly implementation update	Decision required Approving minor updates to the Plan to keep it up to date			C						C
	Annual scorecard	Decision required: depends on outcomes of scorecard
	Further work arising from the deep-dive	Decision required: depends on outcomes of deep-dive
Resource Management Act framework reform
Resource Management Act Framework Chief Planning Office	Resource Management Act comprehensive reform - Further consideration of later stages of reform and recommendations.	Decision required: awaiting confirmation of implications of recommendations
Urban Growth and Housing
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Chief Planning Office	The NPS UD was gazetted by the government on 20 July 2020 and comes into force on 20 August 2020 with ongoing timeframes for implementation. The purpose of the NPS UD is to require councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations	Decision required: consider the significant policy and implementation issues that are presented by the NPS UD									W
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office	Ongoing Kainga Ora implementation issues and relationship management	Decision required: to be confirmed								M
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office		Decision required: to be confirmed								M
Crown Auckland Council Joint Work Programme Chief Planning Office	Quarterly update on the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Work Programme on Urban Growth and Housing.	Decision required: Receive update on JWP and any proposed changes to the workstreams following the Political Governance meeting in February 2020.								M
Affordable Housing Chief Planning Office	To progress the resolution (PLA /2019/17) on Auckland Council’s role and position on affordable housing in phases: Progress report and approach to advice	Decision required: receive Affordable Housing progress update and insights Forward work programmed approved PLA/2020/65									C		C
											C		C
	Research findings	Decision required: consider research and implications
	Consider options	Decision required:
Transport Strategy Programme (led by Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO in conjunction with others)
ATAP Refresh	Including climate lens and monitoring. Terms of reference to be decided. Indicative timing only	Decision required: tbc Terms of Reference endorsed at Emergency Committee 14 May 2020 EME/2020/62					C						C (tbc)
Future Connect and Regional Land Transport Plan	Including climate lens and monitoring. Provide direction for RLTP 2021-2031. Phase 1 of this process, being run by AT, is called ‘Future Connect’ and involves definition of focus areas for planning and investment and ranking of issues. AT’s focus is the period 2028-2031 and future priorities.	Decision required: Much of the committee work in relation to the RLTP, which will follow Future Connect will take place in early 2021. Provision is made here for a possible direction-setting workshop towards the end of 2020.									W
Congestion Question	Congestion question project final report. Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: project updates and reporting											C (tbc)
City Centre to Mangere light rail	Subject to Cabinet consideration. Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: subject to Cabinet consideration									W
Additional Harbour Crossing	The business case is being finalised. The team is planning to provide a progress update to committee when complete. The business case is a joint piece of work between Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council.	Decision required: consideration of business case											C
Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)	Status update to be confirmed	Decision required: to be confirmed
Regional parking strategy review	AT has started work on updating some parts of its 2015 parking strategy. Timing is uncertain but the indicative completion date is mid-2020. Concurrently, Transport Strategy has initiated a research project looking beyond operational issues, analysing statutory (and potential) mechanisms pertaining to supply and management of parking. The purpose is to support our climate action planning, inform the AT parking strategy refresh and to inform any Unitary Plan review.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Public Transport Operating Mechanism review	Following direction from the Mayor and Chair, Transport Strategy will be working with MoT and AT as part of the PTOM review process. Next steps to be confirmed September 2020.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Hamilton to Auckland High Speed Rail business case	Status update to be confirmed.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Infrastructure
Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy work programme	Engagement with Ministers and engagement with the work underway ahead of report back to Cabinet (previously scheduled for May 2020). Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Infrastructure Strategy Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	30 Year Infrastructure Strategy – strategic insights and direction (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee – forms part of LTP)	Decision required: timeframe and decisions to be confirmed in line with LTP
Auckland Unitary Plan oversight
Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule Plans and Places	Environment and Climate Change Committee noted (resolution ECC/2020/30) that staff will consider the timing of a full review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees in the context of resourcing constraints and priorities and report back to Planning Committee.	Decision required: consider a full review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule											C
Making Plan Changes Operative Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under the Resource Management Act to make plan council and private changes operative once the decision on the plan change is made and any appeals are resolved.	Decision required: Make plan changes operative.


Private Plan Changes Plans and Places	Private plan change requests not dealt with under staff delegation. These will be brought to committee as and when required.	Decision required: Accept/adopt/reject/deal with the request as a resource consent application.
Plan Change – Residential Plans and Places	Monitoring of the Auckland Unitary Plan has indicated that some improvements can be made to the provisions for residential development.	Decision required: Provide direction on the scope and timing of a potential plan change.						W				W (tbc)
Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space	Scoping report identifying opportunities to offer unutilised areas of road reserve and unformed legal roads back to Māori former landowners	Decision required: Consider recommended approach.												C

Completed

Lead Department	Area of work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
CPO	Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities second Bill	Approval process for council’s submission	Political working group established to develop and approve submission by Planning Committee 5 December 2019 PLA/2019/92
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	Submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/9
Urban Growth and Housing	Submission on the Urban Development Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/10
CPO	Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/15
Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring	Receive an update on the Auckland Plan 2050 and the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress report	Updates received by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/16
Auckland Design Office	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adoption	Consider and adopt refreshed City Centre Masterplan	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adopted by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/17, PLA/2020/18, PLA/2020/19
Financial Strategy and Planning	Submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/20
DPO	Shovel-ready projects for Central Government	Agreement on list for submission to central government	Process agreed at Emergency Committee 9 April 2020 EME/2020/13
CPO	Submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 16 April 2020 EME/2020/23
	Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan	Consider and approve the final structure plan	Final structure plan approved by Governing Body 30 April 2020 GB/2020/38
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund	Approval of council approach and submission	Endorsed first round of funding and approved process for developing the second round at Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/55
		Approval of second round funding bids to NZTA	Approved Council and AT proposed list of projects for further development and refining, and authority delegated to approve the final submission, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/30
CPO	Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021-2031, and draft National Rail Plan	Approve council submission on GPS and Draft national rail plan	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/56
Plans and Places	National Environmental Standards on Air Quality – council submission	Approve council submission	Council’s draft submission endorsed, and authority delegated to approve final submission, Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/31
Chief Planning Office	Resource Management Act Framework Fast-track consenting legislative change	Approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/32
Plans and Places	Strategic Land Use Frameworks for Dairy Flat and Kumeu Huapai Future Urban Areas	Approval to prepare strategic land use frameworks for Wainui Silverdale Dairy Flat and Kumeu-Huapai.	Approved preparation of spatial land use frameworks, and established a Political Working Party to approve the draft spatial land use frameworks, at Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/37
Plans and Places	Plan Change - Whenuapai	Approve next steps.	Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/44
Plans and Places	Plans Change – Events on Public Space Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.	Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.	Notification of plan change approved at Planning Committee 3 September 2020 PLA/2020/68

[2] Ministry of Health (MoH). (1997). The Health and Wellbeing of Older People and Kaumātua. The Public Health Issues.

[4] Note: Until May 2015 affordable homes were defined as being at or below $485,000. Since June 2015 that has increased to at or below $550,000. As of 1 July 2017, the price cap had increased to $650,000.

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

Date	Workshops
29/09/2020	Confidential: Auckland Light Rail
30/09/2020	National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Auckland Council response
30/09/2020	Confidential: Auckland Transport – Future Connect
21/10/2020	Confidential: Auckland Unitary Plan – Possible Residential Plan Change

Date	Memorandum
5/10/2020	Northwest Interim Bus Improvements – Project Update
5/10/2020	Summary of Environment Court decision on Rural Subdivision provisions
5/10/2020	Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021 (GPS2021)
8/10/2020	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – October 2020
9/10/2020	Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy Monitoring Report release
19/10/2020	Auckland’s Heritage Counts 2020 Report

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