Agenda of Rodney Local Board - 18 November 2020

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

Auckland Transport update November 2020

File No.: CP2020/16589

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to Rodney Local Board members on transport related matters in their area, including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and Auckland Transport’s Community Safety Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report covers:

· a summary of Auckland Transport projects and operations in the local board area

· a summary of the local board’s Transport Capital Fund and Community Safety Fund projects

· an update on the release of Auckland Transports annual report

· an update on the Future Connect programme

· a summary of general information items.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport update November 2020.

Horopaki

Context

3. Auckland Transport (AT) is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. We report on a monthly basis to local boards, as set out in our Local Board Engagement Plan. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play in the governance of Auckland on behalf of their local communities.

4. This report updates the local board on Auckland Transport projects and operations in the Rodney Local Board area, it summarises consultations and Traffic Control Committee decisions, and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) and Community Safety Fund (CSF).

5. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by the Governing Body and delivered by Auckland Transport. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme.

6. The CSF is a capital budget established by Auckland Transport for use by local boards to fund local road safety initiatives. The purpose of this fund is to allow elected members to address long-standing local road safety issues that are not regional priori

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Auckland Transport projects and operations in the local board area

7. The table below has a general summary of projects and activities of interest to the local board with their current status. Please note that all timings are indicative and are subject to change.

Item	Update
Coatesville-Riverhead Highway / Barrett Rd Intersection - Right turn pocket	Currently in scheme design.
Dairy Flat Highway / Coatesville-Riverhead Highway - Roundabout	Construction is expected to be completed in early November 2020.
Mahurangi Road, Snells Beach – Pedestrian Safety Improvements	In detailed design.
Matakana Road, intersection with Anderson and Rosemont Roads - metal safety crash barriers	Detailed design is complete. Progress on this project is on hold until available budgets are confirmed.
Matakana Link Road - a 1.35km link between State Highway One and Matakana Road	Construction is underway.
Rural Delineation Project – Improved delineation and signage on rural roads.	20 roads confirmed for treatment with improved signage and road markings around dangerous bends Work is expected to commence in February 2021 and to be completed by late April 2021.
Sandspit Road/Sharp Road/Mahurangi East Road, Sandspit - Intersection Improvements	Public consultation is complete. Responses to public feedback are complete. The next step is approval to close out and update the local board, external stakeholders and the public.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

8. Auckland Transport has updated the local board on the effect of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget allocation to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and the budget now available in 2020/2021.

9. The new allocation for the financial year 2020/2021 for the Rodney Local Board is $286,459.

10. Auckland Transport held a workshop with the local board on 9 September 2020 regarding the LBCTF.

11. There is a separate report on the agenda of this business meeting relating to using some of the LBCTF for footpath projects.

Community Safety Fund

12. The Community Safety Fund is funded from Auckland Transport’s safety budget and is dependent on the level of funding Auckland Transport receives from council.

13. Now that Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget is confirmed, Auckland Transport is reviewing all CSF projects. It is possible that projects are delayed or even stopped. When more detailed information is available it will be provided to the local board.

14. The below table has an update on the projects in the fund.

Priority	Project	Update
1	Motutara Road – Crossing	In detailed design.
2	Motutara Road - footpath extension	Removed from CSF following consultation.
3	Coatesville – speed calming	Updated scheme plan is being consulted on internally. Installation of electronic sign (cost and location) is being finalised with the contractor.
4	Matakana Road – signalised mid-block	In detailed design.
5	Matua / Tapu Road – intersection improvements	Detail design complete. Construction is dependent on budget availability.
6	Matua / Oraha Road – intersection improvements	In detailed design.
7	Rata Street - pedestrian crossing	In detailed design.
8	Kaipara College - pedestrian crossing	In detailed design.
9	Waitoki School – speed calming	Removed from CSF as per local board decision.
10	Whangateau - speed warning signs	Completed.
11	Kumeu – signalised mid bloc crossing	Completed.
12	Woodcocks Road – crossing	To be constructed this financial year.

Proposed speed limit changes

15. On Thursday 29 October 2020 the Auckland Transport Board of Directors approved a request to consult on proposed speed limit changes on 26 roads in Auckland’s west and north. This list includes roads in the Rodney Local Board area.

16. Please see Attachment A (to the agenda report) for a full list of proposed speed limit changes for the roads in the Rodney Local Board area which include roads in Warkworth, Matakana and the Tāwharanui Peninsula.

17. Public consultation on the proposed amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 will commence on 9 November 2020 and run until 17 January 2021 with hearings to be held on 4 February 2021.

Local Community Safe Speeds Initiative – Matakana Area (including Leigh, Omaha and Tāwharanui)

18. In early 2021 Auckland Transport will be looking to address speed-related crashes in Rodney with a community initiative as well as by ongoing infrastructure improvements and setting safe, appropriate speed limits.

19. The wider Matakana area has been chosen because of the very high number of speed-related car crashes resulting in death or serious injury on the local roads.

20. To inform this partnership work, Auckland Transports Community Transport team are looking for public feedback on their experiences on roads in the wider Matakana area. They have created a survey, which can be found here: https://aucklandtransport.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bPZvTlu1KbgTr2B

Traffic Control Committee decisions

21. Auckland Transport's resolution and approval process ensures the most appropriate controls and restrictions are put in place and can be legally enforced. The following decisions were made by the Traffic Control Committee in relation to regulatory processes relevant to the Rodney Local Board during October 2020.

Street Name	Suburb	Type of Report	Nature of Restriction	Committee Decision
Penguin Street	Leigh	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	No Stopping At All Times	Carried

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

23. Auckland Transport’s core role is in providing attractive alternatives to private vehicle travel, reducing the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the contracted public transport network.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The impact of information (or decisions) in this report are confined to Auckland Transport and does not impact on other parts of the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no local, sub-regional or regional impacts.

26. Please see below for a summary of items sent to the local board for their information or feedback.

Item	Date sent to local board
FYI: Clegg Place, Warkworth - Parking Restrictions	13/10/20
FYI: Mahurangi East Rd and Green Road (Dairy Flat) night works	15/10/20
FYI: Proposed Speed Limit Changes - 26 Roads	30/10/20
Update: Northwest Interim Bus Improvements	2/11/20

27. Auckland Transport attended workshops with the local board on 7 October 2020 to discuss the current AT work programme and 14 October 2020 to discuss the Argent Lane project.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. There are no financial implications in receiving this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. In response to Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget Auckland Transport’s capital and operating budgets have been reduced. Some projects we had planned for 2020/2021 may not be able to be delivered and we expect this will be disappointing to communities that we had already engaged with.

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

32. Auckland Transport will mitigate this risk by clearly communicating with the local board on the outcomes and new funding levels so that the local board may make the best use of their available funds.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. Auckland Transport will provide a further report to the Rodney Local Board at its December business meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Speed limit changes	13

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Halliwell, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Team Manager, Elected Member Relationship Manager Team

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

Auckland Transport - Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate Footpaths Report

File No.: CP2020/16580

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a resolution to approve the projects they wish Auckland Transport to deliver from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report covers:

· a summary of the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund

· timeline of the local board’s decision making with regards to the use of these funds

· a summary of Auckland Transports advice on projects that the local board wishes to progress

· advice on the financial implications of these decisions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate Footpaths Report.

b) request that Auckland Transport allocate $235,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital fund for the delivery of the Hudson Road footpath project, with the remaining balance of $398,000 to be allocated from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

c) request that Auckland Transport allocate $52,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund for completing the design for the Dairy Flat School footpath with the remaining balance of $440,000 to be allocated from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

d) request that Auckland Transport deliver the following footpath projects through the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate:

i) Alice Street (Riverhead) foothpath - allocate $474,000

ii) Coatesville Riverhead Hwy (Dairy Flat) foothpath - allocate $340,000

iii) Dairy Flat Highway (Dairy Flat) footpath - allocate $440,000

iv) Hudson Rd (Warkworth) footpath - allocate $398,000

v) Newton Road (Riverhead) footpath - allocate $763,000

vi) Omaha Drive (Omaha) footpath - allocate $645,000

vii) School Road (Wellsford) footpath - allocate $257,000.

Horopaki

Context

The Local Board Transport Capital Fund

3. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) is a capital budget established by the Governing Body to allow local boards to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme.

4. The LBTCF has historically been allocated to local boards for a period of time covering an electoral term. However, the 2020/2021 Emergency Budget has meant that currently funding is only able to be allocated on a year-by-year basis.

5. Local boards are the decision makers of the fund. Auckland Transport (AT) provides technical advice and administers the fund on behalf of the local board.

6. Projects must be safe, not impede network efficiency and be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

Summary of decision making on the Transport Capital Fund

7. The Rodney Local Board carried over a number of fund allocations from their 2016 – 2019 electoral term, this included a resolution (RD/2019/125) at its meeting on 19 September 2019 to approve $623,000 to construct of a footpath on Hudson Road between State Highway 1 and Albert Road, Warkworth.

8. In the 2019 – 2022 electoral term at the local board business meeting on 11 December 2019 the local board resolved (RD/2019/158) that Auckland Transport: “approve detailed design for construction of safety improvements on Dairy Flat Highway outside Dairy Flat School from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund, based on a rough cost estimate of $470,000”

9. Following this at its business meeting on 18 March 2020 the local board resolved (RD/2020/20) that Auckland Transport:

a) request the scope and rough order cost for piping and covering of the culvert alongside Coatesville Reserve, on the southern side of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, from Mahoenui Valley Road to Glenmore Road, Coatesville.

b) approve the construction of a missing section of footpath on the southern side of School Road, Wellsford, between the school entrance opposite 50 School Road and the existing footpath in Watson Place, Wellsford, based on a rough order of cost of $257,000 provided at a workshop on 26 February 2020.

c) request that detailed design and firm cost estimates be provided for construction of footpaths at the following locations based on rough order costs provided at a workshop on 26 February 2020:

i) Leigh Road, Whangateau, 570 Leigh Road to Ashton Road, based on a rough order of cost of $363,000

ii) Alice Street, Riverhead, entire road, based on a rough order of cost of $474,000

iii) Newton Road, Riverhead, from Cobblers Lane to Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, based on a rough order of cost of $763,000.

d) reconfirm the decision made by the previous Rodney Local Board at its meeting on 24 September 2019 (RD/2019/125) that it will commit funding from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund allocation for the 2019-2022 electoral term towards construction of a footpath on Omaha Drive, Omaha, from Broadlands Drive to the Omaha Golf Club, provisionally costed at $600,000.

10. However, following the approval of the Emergency Budget in July 2020 a reduced level of funding was outlined for the local board, with the Rodney Local Board receiving a new total of $286,459 for the 2020/21 financial year.

11. Given the funding uncertainty there were also a number of administrative changes to how the LBTCF was to be delivered, these included:

· with budgets uncertain for future years 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 local boards were only able to allocate a single financial years’ worth of LBTCF

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

12. To respond to the significant change in funding and administration the local board had a workshop with AT on 9 September 2020. Following advice from AT the local board requested that AT investigate delivering footpath projects developed for the LBTCF into the projects for delivery through the RLBTTR’s footpath programme.

The Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate

13. In May 2018, the local board recommended (Resolution number RD/2018/61) that the Governing Body approve a targeted rate to accelerate investment in transport in the Rodney Local Board area. The recommendation was accepted and the RLBTTR is currently scheduled to run for 10 years (2018 – 2028).

14. The local board is the decision makers for transport targeted rate. Auckland Council receives the rates payments, and Auckland Transport provides technical advice and administers the funds on behalf of the local board.

15. The local board has a project lead for its transport targeted rate which allows the member to pursue particular priorities and initiatives of the local board without the need to require staff to meet with the entire local board in a formal setting. The project lead is currently the Chairperson, Phelan Pirrie.

16. The RLBTTR is ring-fenced for transport projects in the Rodney Local Board area that are not included in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2018-2028. It was established on the basis that the fund is to support:

· new bus stops and bus services

· new park and ride community hub facilities

· new footpaths.

17. The rate was established on the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area will receive a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate that equated to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision.

18. As projects develop and firmer cost estimations are prepared, changes are required to the projects proposed within each subdivision to ensure proportionality is maintained. The Rodney Local Board monitors the performance of the projects and determines whether to re-prioritise its expenditure based on the stated purposes of the funds raised.

Summary of decision making on the Transport Targeted Rate

19. The RLBTTR was established with a number of projects identified for delivery. This included park and ride projects, bus services and associated infrastructure, and footpaths.

20. The first projects to be developed were the park and ride projects, new bus services and associated bus stops.

21. Following this a process was created to establish a delivery programme for the original unprioritised list of footpaths. This process was also to determine that these footpaths were not already being delivered by AT or proposed to be delivered through the LBTCF.

22. On 15 August 2019 the local board requested (RD/2019/101) that Auckland Transport:

a) use transport targeted rate funding to obtain rough order costings for the footpath segments identified to be delivered by the targeted rate.

b) request that Auckland Transport prepare a draft programme of works for the delivery of the footpath segments identified to be delivered by the targeted rate for discussion by the local board at a workshop after February 2020.

23. In March 2020 AT updated the local board that: “The footpath programme is currently 26 segments that are to be presented to the Rodney Local Board for their prioritisation and endorsement in March 2020. Preliminary costs have been prepared by AT staff of 19 segments and it is estimated at $19 million including staff costs. The local board is currently considering funding some of these segments through its Local Board Transport Capital Fund. Research on further details regarding adjacent or near-by works for advice back to the Rodney Local Board has yet to be completed.”

24. While the RLBTTR was not directly impacted by the Emergency Budget in July 2020, the local board’s overall funding envelope (including the LBTCF) was heavily impacted, as outlined above. This required the local board to reconsider the use of the RLBTTR funds to ensure it was best meeting the stated purposes of the rate.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

25. Following the Emergency Budget, the advice from AT was that there was a significant shortfall in the LBTCF between the proposed works listed and the available funds.

26. Following a workshop on 20 September 2020 the direction provided to AT by the local board was that an updated footpath list should be developed that allowed for some projects intended to be completed with the LBTCF to be completed using RLBTTR funds.

27. The projects originally resolved for delivery through the LBTCF included:

Project Name	Location
Hudson Rd footpath	Warkworth
Dairy Flat School improvements	Dairy Flat
School Rd footpath	Wellsford
Alice St footpath	Riverhead
Leigh Rd footpath	Whangateau
Newton Rd upgrade	Riverhead
Falls Rd footpath	Warkworth
Omaha Drive footpath	Omaha

28. It was noted that all projects on the LBTCF list (except for Hudson Rd) were also listed on the original footpath projects list for the RLBTTR in the original report in 2018.

29. Of these Auckland Transport considered the Dairy Flat School site as highest priority project based on it’s ranking in the AT footpath requests list.

30. The Hudson Rd footpath project also scored as high priority due to it linking the local area directly to the proposed Warkworth community transport hub. This project would provide a safe walking path from the residential area to the local board’s community transport hub.

31. This indicated that Dairy Flat School and Hudson Rd were the highest priorities for the available LBTCF funding.

32. It was noted that the local board had already delivered a number of footpaths from the RLBTTR list of sites using the LBTCF.

33. Following the workshop, a further discussion was had on the 15 October 2020 between the local board project lead, the LBTCF programme manager and the RLBTTR programme manager. As part of this discussion the footpath list was updated:

· to take into account footpaths already completed from other sources (such as the LBTCF, new housing developments, and by AT through the footpaths programme)

· by being divided into two “priorities” with priority one including projects that were costed and ready to progress and priority two including projects that needed further work to develop

· finally, there were further projects that could be considered as backup projects should a significant number of the projects in phase one or two be unfeasible for delivery.

34. The direction was given to AT to bring a report and resolution to the local board for the delivery of the priority one projects. A resolution to this effect is included in this report.

35. The footpaths in priority one include:

Project name	Location
Alice Street	Riverhead
Coatesville Riverhead Hwy	Dairy Flat
Dairy Flat Highway	Dairy Flat
Hudson Rd	Warkworth
Newton Road	Riverhead
Omaha Drive	Omaha
School Road	Wellsford

36. Footpath projects in priority two will be brought to the local board for approval at a future date once AT has completed the necessary investigation work.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37. The RLBTTR contributes to the Long-term Plan outcome of: “A green Auckland – By reducing our reliance on petrol, air pollution and green-house gas emissions.”

38. The RLBTTR also supports the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and council’s priorities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39. The appropriate council group inputs were sought by Auckland Transport in the formulation of this update report.

40. The proposed decision of receiving this update report has no impacts on the wider council group

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

Local impacts and local board views

41. The local board is the decision maker for the LBTCF and RLBTTR. Auckland Transport administers the funds on behalf of the local board. To support local board decision making there were the following workshops:

· 26 February 2020

· 9 September 2020

· 20 March 2020

· 20 September 2020

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43. The proposed decision of receiving this report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Overall Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate budget implications

44. The proposed footpaths for delivery are as follows:

Project name	Amount	Subdivision	Total
Newton Road (Riverhead)	$763,000	Kumeū	$1,237,000
Alice Street (Riverhead)	$474,000	Kumeū	$1,237,000
Coatesville Riverhead Hwy (Dairy Flat)	$340,000	Dairy Flat	$780,000
Dairy Flat Highway (Dairy Flat)	$440,000	Dairy Flat	$780,000
Hudson Rd (Warkworth)	$398,000	Warkworth	$1,043,000
Omaha Drive (Omaha)	$645,000	Warkworth	$1,043,000
School Road (Wellsford)	$257,000	Wellsford	$257,000

45. The total cost of these footpaths proposed for delivery is $3,317,000.

46. The below table outlines the total amounts of targeted rate collected and spent to date per subdivision:

Total collection and expenditure to date
Subdivision	Collected	Expended	Balance	Proposed Footpath Spend
Kumeū	$ 5,359,061	$ 2,557,696	$ 2,801,365	$1,237,000
Dairy Flat	$ 1,127,074	$ 442,629	$ 684,445	$780,000
Wellsford	$ 1,270,673	$ 355,022	$ 915,651	$1,043,000
Warkworth	$ 5,234,690	$ 879,510	$ 4,355,180	$257,000
TOTAL	$ 12,991,498	$ 4,234,857	$ 8,756,641	$3,317,000

47. Given the local board has the facility to borrow against future income from the targeted rate it is also important to understand a high-level estimate of future income per subdivision:

	Kumeū	Wellsford	Warkworth	Dairy Flat
No of SUIPs**	13,715	3,253	13,390	2,884
Per year at $150 per SUIP	$2,057,250	$487,950	$2,008,500	$432,600
Estimated income for remaining 7 years	$14,400,750	$3,415,650	$14,059,500	$3,028,200
Actual income from 2018	$5,359,061	$1,270,673	$5,234,690	$1,127,074
Total estimated income by subdivision	$19,759,811	$4,686,323	$19,294,190	$4,155,274

* These figures are from February 2020.

**SUIP: separately used or inhabited part of a property.

Total collection and expenditure to date
Subdivision	Currently Expended	Proposed Footpath Spend	Total	Estimated total subdivision income
Kumeū	$ 2,557,696	$1,237,000	$3,794,696	$19,759,811
Dairy Flat	$ 442,629	$780,000	$1,222,629	$4,155,274
Wellsford	$ 355,022	$1,043,000	$1,398,022	$19,294,190
Warkworth	$ 879,510	$257,000	$1,136,510	$4,686,323

48. In order to conform with the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area receives a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate that equated to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision, AT and the local board will have to actively monitor the spend in all project areas to ensure that spend is equitably distributed.

49. This might have implications for the allocation of future footpath projects, i.e. with the increased spending for the Warkworth area on park and rides, it might be necessary to have reduced spending on footpaths in the Warkworth sub-division.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50. Auckland Transport provides regular updates on the RLBTTR with separate decision reports on specific projects. This is to ensure that the local board is fully informed before making any decisions with regards to the fund.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. Following direction from the local board Auckland Transport will take appropriate steps to enact that direction from the local board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ben Halliwell, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Susan Barakat – Principle Engineer North/West

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Team Manager, Elected Member Relationship Manager Team

Neil Prendiville – Local Board Transport Capital Fund Manager

Richard Firth – Delivery Manager North/West

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate - November 2020

File No.: CP2020/16682

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Rodney Local Board on the work programme being delivered by Auckland Transport using the funding from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides general information about the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate including:

· a financial summary of the funds collected and expended

· a summary of expenditure against planned funding allocation

· an overview of the expenditure proportionately by subdivision

· a summary of expenditure by project type including expenditure on bus services, park and ride facilities, footpaths and bus stops

· an update on investigation and construction for projects.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate Quarterly Financial Report- November 2020.

Horopaki

Context

3. In May 2018, the Rodney Local board recommended (Resolution number RD/2018/61) that the Governing Body approve a targeted rate to accelerate investment in transport in the Rodney Local Board area. The recommendation was accepted and the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate (RLBTTR) is currently scheduled to run for 10 years (2018-2028).

4. Auckland Council receives the rates payments and Auckland Transport administers the fund on behalf of the local board.

5. The RLBTTR is ring-fenced for transport projects in the Rodney Local Board area that are not included in the Regional Transport Plan 2018-2028. It was established on the basis that the fund is to support

· new bus stops and bus services

· new park and ride community hub facilities

· new footpaths.

6. The targeted rate must be spent on these items and a material change to spending priorities may require further public consultation.

7. The rate was also established on the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area would receive a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate that equated to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision.

8. The Rodney Local Board monitors the performance of the projects and as the projects develop and firmer cost estimates are prepared it is expected that ongoing decision making is required to ensure that the projects proposed are delivering the best outcomes for the community and that proportionality is maintained between each subdivision.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Financial summary

9. The below table outlines the total amount of targeted rate collected to date.

Total amount collected to date (2018-June 2021)
Subdivision	FY 2018/19	FY2019/20	FY2020/21	TOTAL
Wellsford	$ 409,316	$ 424,435	$ 436,922	$ 1,270,673
Warkworth	$ 1,684,970	$ 1,749,130	$ 1,800,590	$ 5,234,690
Kumeū	$ 1,725,826	$ 1,790,282	$ 1,842,953	$ 5,359,061
Dairy Flat	$ 362,865	$ 376,565	$ 387,644	$ 1,127,074
TOTAL	$ 4,182,977	$ 4,340,412	$ 4,468,109	$ 12,991,498

10. The below table outlines the entire programme total amounts of targeted rate spent to date per subdivision.

Total expenditure to date
Subdivision	Collected	Expended	Balance
Wellsford	$ 1,270,673	$ 355,022	$ 915,651
Warkworth	$ 5,234,690	$ 879,510	$ 4,355,180
Kumeū	$ 5,359,061	$ 2,557,696	$ 2,801,365
Dairy Flat	$ 1,127,074	$ 442,629	$ 684,445
TOTAL	$ 12,991,498	$ 4,234,857	$ 8,756,641

* note the expended figures above are spent to date costs per subdivision including park and rides, footpaths, new bus stops and new bus services.

Proportional spending by subdivision

11. Current programme actuals spent and expected expenditure allocation by project per subdivision:

	Actuals Spent by Project				Total (Actual Expended and Allocated Fund)
Subdivision	Bus Stops	Park and Rides	Bus Route Services	Footpaths	Per Subdivision
Wellsford	$19,987	$ 0	$334,904	$131	$355,022
Warkworth	$ 0	$544,396	$334,904	$210	$ 5,879,510 (includes $5m allocated for future park and ride construction)
Kumeū	$339,776	$233,312	$1,984,450	$158	$ 2,557,696
Dairy Flat	$39,974	$0	$402,628	$26	$442,629
TOTAL	$399,737	$777,708	$3,056,887	$525	$9,234,857

12. Given the local board has the facility to borrow against future income from the targeted rate it is also important to understand a high-level estimate of future income per subdivision:

	Kumeu	Wellsford	Warkworth	Dairy Flat
No of SUIPs**	13,715	3,253	13,390	2,884
Per year at $150 per SUIP	$2,057,250	$487,950	$2,008,500	$432,600
Estimated income for remaining 7 years	$14,400,750	$3,415,650	$14,059,500	$3,028,200
Actual income from 2018	$5,359,061	$1,270,673	$5,234,690	$1,127,074
Total estimated income by subdivision	$19,759,811	$4,686,323	$19,294,190	$4,155,274

* These figures are from February 2020.

**SUIP: separately used or inhabited part of a property.

13. The current total expenditure and the estimated total income is highlighted before. Please note these are high level estimate to give the local board an indication of how the actual spend of the targeted rate is tracking against future income.

Total expenditure and estimated income
Subdivision	Currently Expended	Estimated total subdivision income
Kumeū	$ 2,557,696	$19,759,811
Dairy Flat	$ 442,629	$4,155,274
Wellsford	$ 355,022	$19,294,190
Warkworth	$ 879,510	$4,686,323

Expenditure by project type

14. The targeted rate is split into:

· service costs for ongoing activities – this includes the bus services, maintenance of facilities and any land rents

· project costs for building of infrastructure - this includes bus stops, footpaths, park and ride facilities.

15. The below table outlines the overall expenditure by services and projects.

Cost	Spent to date
Bus Services	$3,056,887
Park and ride facilities (Investigation and detailed design)	$777,708
Bus Stops	$399,737
Footpaths	$525
Rents (future costs when leasing land for park and ride)	$0
Total	$4,234,857

16. Auckland Transport is currently investigating if there are any operational costs for the new bus stops.

Expenditure on bus services

17. The below table outlines patronage numbers from the new bus services:

Service	Total Boardings (Mar19-Sep20)*	September 2020 Boardings*
Helensville to Silverdale Service Route 126	18,327	847
Westgate to Albany - Dairy Flat Service Route 128	83,198	4,858
Wellsford to Warkworth Service Route 998	39,427	2,216

*Note that October patronage figures were not released at the time of submitting this report.

18. The below table outlines the amount spent on bus services.

Service	Subdivision	Total Expenditure	September 2020 Expended
Helensville to Silverdale Bus Route 126	Kumeū	$ 1,984,450	$ 110,449
Westgate to Albany Bus Route 128	Dairy Flat	$ 402,628	$ 24,074
Wellsford to Warkworth Bus Route 998	Wellsford	$ 334,904	$ 17,579
Wellsford to Warkworth Bus Route 998	Warkworth	$ 334,904	$ 17,579
Total		$ 3,056,887	$ 169,680

Expenditure on Park and Ride Facilities

19. The below table outlines park and ride facilities that are under design.

Facility	Subdivision	Total Expended	Project Details
80 Great North Road, Warkworth (Design and project management costs)	Warkworth	$544,396	Estimated number of carparks, 131 Estimated construction costs: $5,000,000
37 Main Road, Kumeū (Design and project management costs)	Kumeū	$233,312	Estimated number of carparks: 40 Estimated construction costs: $1,560,000
Total		$ 777,708

*Total expended figures in the table above are actual costs spent to date. They include design and project management costs.

Expenditure on bus stops

20. No new bus stops were delivered since the July 2020 report.

21. The below table outlines historical amounts spent on new bus stops.

Cost	Spent to date
Project Delivery	$18,000
Construction	$381,736.58
Total	$399,737

Expenditure on footpaths

22. There are currently no footpath facilities that have been completed as part of the RLBTTR programme. There is a separate decision report on the agenda of this business meeting to progress the footpath element of this programme.

Update on investigation projects

23. There is currently one park and ride facility being investigated at Kumeū Showgrounds. The table below has an update on that project and investigation.

Facility

Subdivision

Update

Kumeū Showgrounds

Kumeū

Estimated number of carparks, 130

The consultant engagement contract is signed, and the consultant is onboard.

Investigation started on 30 September 2020.

Investigation work is currently progressing.

Update on design projects

24. The below table outlines park and ride facilities that are under design.

Facility

Subdivision

Update

80 Great North Road, Warkworth

Warkworth

Estimated number of carparks 131,

Estimated construction costs $5,000,000

The local board approved the construction request in July 2020.

Detailed design was completed as of 30 October 2020.

The resource consent application for construction work lodgement will be in November 2020.

Estimated construction start date is January 2020.

37 Main Road, Kumeū

Kumeū

Estimated number of carparks, 40

Estimated construction costs:

$1,560,000

Detailed design was completed as of 30 October 2020.

This project delivery will be on hold until the current investigation outcome at Kumeū Showgrounds is finalised.

Update on construction projects

25. Construction is planned to deliver the Warkworth community transport hub. The scheduled start date for this construction is January 2021.

Requests for projects / services

26. Please see attachment A (to the agenda report) for a summary of requests for projects or services for delivery through the targeted rate. Requests from the public are collated by Auckland Transport for consideration by the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate contributes to the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 outcome of: “A green Auckland – By reducing our reliance on petrol, air pollution and green-house gas emissions.”

28. The Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate also supports the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and council’s priorities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. The appropriate council group inputs were sought by Auckland Transport in the formulation of this update report.

30. The proposed decision of receiving this update report has no impacts on the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. Local board views were sought and have been included in the formulation of this update report

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. There are no financial implications in receiving this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. Auckland Transport providing regular updates on the RLBTTR, and separate decision reports on specific projects, is a mitigation to ensure the local board is fully informed before making any decisions with regards to the fund.

35. It should be noted that the planned construction costs for the community transport hub in the Warkworth subdivision at $5m meets 100 per cent of the entire planned amount for park and rides for all subdivisions as part of the targeted rate.

36. To conform with the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area receives a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate that equates to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision, AT and the local board will have to monitor the spend to ensure that spend is equitably distributed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. Auckland Transport will provide a further report to the Rodney Local Board at its March business meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Requests for projects and services	35

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Susan Barakat- Principal Engineer North/ West - Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Richard Firth – Delivery Manager North/West - Auckland Transport

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

New road name in the Te Arai South Holdings Limited subdivision at 816 Ocean View Road, Tomarata, Te Arai South

File No.: CP2020/15962

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve names for six new public roads in the Te Arai South Holdings Limited subdivision at 816 Ocean View Road, Tomarata, Te Arai South.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region.

3. The applicant, Te Arai South Holdings Limited, has submitted the following names for the new roads serving the subdivision at 816 Ocean View Road, Tomarata, Te Arai South.

Preferred Names
Te Ara o Te Urunga	Road one
Te Ara o Kiri Patuparaoa Anake	Road two
Te Ara Whenua Miharo Kotiti	Road three
Te Ara Poutama Whanake	Road four
Te Ara Oneone Whanake	Road five
Te Ara Ruruhau Tairua	Road six

4. No alternative names were supplies.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve six new road names in the Te Arai South Holdings Limited subdivision at 816 Ocean View Road, Tomarata, Te Arai South, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced in Attachments A, B and C to the agenda report:

i) ‘Te Ara o Te Urunga’ (Road one)

ii) ‘Te Ara o Kiri Patuparaoa Anake’ (Road two)

iii) ‘Te Ara Whenua Miharo Kotiti’ (Road three)

iv) ‘Te Ara Poutama Whanake’ (Road four)

v) ‘Te Ara Oneone Whanake’ (Road five)

vi) ‘Te Ara Ruruhau Tairua’ (Road six)

Horopaki

Context

5. The staged subdivision at Te Arai South has been approved and the council reference is SUB60339778-A.

6. A condition of the subdivision consent was to suggest to council names for the new roads

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

7. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

8. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature

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

· the use of Māori names is actively encouraged.

9. The applicant has submitted the following names for consideration. A detailed explanation of each name and the history it reflects can be found in Attachment C - “Proposed Road Naming – Te Arai South Subdivision.”

Proposed Names

Te Ara o Te Urunga

Te Ara o Kiri Patuparaoa Anake

Te Ara Whenua Miharo Kotiti

Te Ara Poutama Whanake

Te Ara Oneone Whanake

Te Ara Ruruhau Tairua

10. The land within the precinct forms part of the Treaty settlement between the Crown and Ngati Manuhuri. The land was purchased by Ngati Manuhuri as part of the commercial redress component of their settlement. The land is within the rohe of Ngati Manuhuri. Appropriate use and development of the precinct land represents a significant opportunity for Ngati Manuhuri, including in partnership with others, to advance its economic, cultural and social wellbeing.

11. Staff acknowledge that where possible the use of Māori names is encouraged in the Auckland Plan.

12. Land Information New Zealand has confirmed that the proposed road names are unique and acceptable.

13. The applicant has not put forward any alternative names due to the significance of those chosen.

14. The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines and the staff recommendation is to approve the applicant’s choices.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on any council groups.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. The naming of roads is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome “A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity. To aid local board decision making, the “Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines” includes;

· the objective of recognising ancestral linkages to areas of land by engagement with mana whenua and the allocation of road names as appropriate and a principle that Māori road names are actively encouraged.

19. Given the close association that Ngati Manuhuri has with the subject land the proposed road names have not been circulated to any other Mana Whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

21. The road naming process does not raise any other financial implications for the council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed Road Naming - Te Arai South	41
b ⇩	Te Arai South Scheme Plan 1	45
c ⇩	Te Arai South Scheme Plan 2	47
d ⇩	Te Arai South Locality Map	49

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Angove - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

Road name correction of spelling for Kaspar Street, Warkworth

File No.: CP2020/15272

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the correction of the spelling of ‘Kaspar Street’ to ‘Kasper Street’, Warkworth.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. An application has been made by descendants of the Kasper family to correct the spelling of the road name that was named after them.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the correction to the road name from ‘Kaspar Street’ to ‘Kasper Street’ and as referenced in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

4. The applicants, Adam and Angie Kasper, have submitted the application and the following are extracts which give some background and explain the situation.

· “The Kasper family were known around Warkworth-Mahurangi district as they operated sailing ships trading coastal New Zealand.”

· “The Family first settled at Pine Grove which was recently purchased back into The Kasper family. Pine grove is walking distance to Scotts Landing which these families have a lot of history with alongside the Parker family on the Mahurangi Peninsula.”

· “I have lost previous correspondence regarding the street renaming as it was on another now dead computer. The last contact I had with council it was requested that I contact NZ post the check if there is any other ‘Kasper’ or similar street names in the greater Auckland district. There is no other ‘Kasper Street’ or similar spelt streets in the greater Auckland district, so NZ post do not have an issue with the renaming”.

· “It was also asked that I get signatures from the residents of Kaspar Street, Warkworth which I did and had no objections to the name change and several residents knew the Kasper name and association with the district.”

5. There is a similar road name, ‘Captain Kasper Rise’, at Snells Beach, which has the same family name origin. It seems that when this road name was proposed it was supported given that Kaspar Street was of a different spelling. However even with the same spelling the two roads are only short roads and would be over 10 kilometers apart. Furthermore, they are in different suburbs with different post codes.

6. The applicant had originally been advised to check with NZ Post who confirmed that they did not have any objection to the name.

7. Kaspar Street was shown on a survey plan dated 1936 making the road name over 80 years old.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. This application does not seek at about renaming of a road but merely a correction of the spelling. The name has been in use for over 80 years and has remained wrongly spelt for all that time.

9. Requesting the local board to approve this report provides a suitable and safe way of notifying all GIS and mapping agencies of the correction.

10. As road name signs remind us of local history it is important that names are spelt correctly.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on any council groups.

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

Local impacts and local board views

13. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14. The matter addressed in this report has no impact on Māori values or outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

15. Auckland Transport maintain road signs so they will be requested to arrange that signage be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the corrected road name.

16. The road naming process does not raise any other financial implications for the council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kaspar Street Locality Map	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Frank Lovering – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16304

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including plan changes. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.^{^[1]}

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. The critical themes from submissions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

10. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.^{^[2]}

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

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

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

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

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

17. The Section 32 Report and details of the plan change are available from the council’s website at PlanChange53. The council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· the Section 32 Report that accompanies the plan change

· submissions

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

Themes from submissions received

18. Key submission themes are listed below.

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

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

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

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

19. Submissions were made by four people/organisations:

Table 1: Submissions received on Plan Change 53

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

20. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from the council’s website: PlanChange53.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Auckland Transport and Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED) will review relevant submissions and provide expert input to the hearing report.

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

29. On 17 July 2020, a memo was sent to all local boards outlining the proposed changes, the rationale for them and the likely plan change timeframes.^{^[3]}

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

34. No iwi authorities made a formal submission.

35. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.^{^[4]} The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.^{^[5]}

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy – Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/15012

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

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

· Single House Zone

· Large Lot Zone

· Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone

· Mixed Housing Suburban Zone

· Mixed Housing Urban Zone

· Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone

· Special Character Areas Overlay - Residential

· Rural Production Zone

· Mixed Rural Zone

· Rural Coastal Zone

· Rural Conservation Zone

· Countryside Living Zone

· Waitākere Foothills Zone

· Waitākere Ranges Zone.

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

13. The notified plan change and section 32 document providing the rationale for the council plan change are available on the council’s website at:

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

14. Public submissions will be loaded onto the council’s website once the notification period has closed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. This plan change affects all local boards.

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

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

· the mechanism for the Rodney Local Board to express its views and preferences

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

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

31. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).^{^[8]} This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Barry Mosley - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16023

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. That the Rodney Local Board appoints a local board member to:

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

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

· Unitec Residential Development

· Papakainga development in Point Chevalier

· Britomart Station Eastern End Upgrade

· Papakura to Pukekohe Rail Electrification

· Northern Pathway – Westhaven to Akoranga shared pathway

· Papakura to Drury South State Highway 1 Improvements.

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

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

· the public good aspects of the application

· its potential contribution to job creation and economic activity

· the potential significance of any environmental effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urban Development Act 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· there are significant implications for the Parks Network Plans for the same location

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

Urban Development Act 2020

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Powers available to Kāinga Ora	73
b ⇩	The Specified Development Project process	75

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2020

Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Standard

File No.: CP2020/16585

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Sixty-one per cent of C40 cities^{^[9]} require green building certifications for all new facilities. For CF to manage its assets efficiently and sustainably, our practices need to go beyond building code compliance. Green building and infrastructure tools provide the framework to align CF asset management with international best practice to deliver better asset value and outcomes for Aucklanders.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

· The Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

· Te Aranga Design Principles

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

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

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

Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

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

3.0 Mārae Development

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

4.0 Te Reo Māori

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

5.0 Māori Identity and Culture

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

6.0 Māori Business, Tourism and Employment

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

7.0 Realising Rangatahi Potential

Rangatahi potential included via two pathways:

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

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

8.0 Kaitiakitanga

Supports kaitiakitanga outcomes in two ways:

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

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

9.0 Effective Māori Participation

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

10.0 An Empowered Organisation

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

Te Aranga Design Principles

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. A four per cent^{^[10]} cost increase is forecast for 30 capital projects to be certified under the Standard over the next ten years. This increase totals $14.5 million on top of the existing allocated budgets for these 30 projects. Funding will be sought through the Long-term Plan climate lane corporate emissions package, at a future Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Policy	83

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toto Vu-Duc - Manager Community Leases

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9] 2014 C40 Green Building City Market Briefs Compendium. C40 is a global network of leadership cities taking action to address climate change. Auckland is a member of this network.

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

Chairperson	Phelan Pirrie
Deputy Chairperson	Beth Houlbrooke
Members	Brent Bailey
	Steve Garner
	Danielle Hancock
	Tim Holdgate
	Louise Johnston
	Vicki Kenny
	Colin Smith

Board Member	Organisation	Position
Brent Bailey	Royal NZ Yacht Squadron	Member
Steven Garner	Warkworth Tennis and Squash Club Sandspit Yacht Club Warkworth Gamefish Club	President Member Member
Louise Johnston	Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society	Treasurer
Vicki Kenny	International Working Holidays Ltd Nannies Abroad Ltd Waitemata Riding Club National Party Helensville Electorate	Director/Owner/CEO Director/Owner/CEO Member Treasurer
Danielle Hancock	Kaukapakapa Residents and Ratepayers Association Pest Free Kaukapakapa New Zealand Biosecurity Services Limited	Member Pest Free Coordinator Operations Manager
Tim Holdgate	Landowners Contractors Protection Association	Vice Chairman
Beth Houlbrooke	Kawau Island Boat Club ACT New Zealand	Member Contractor
Phelan Pirrie	Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade Grow West Ltd North West Country Incorporated	Officer in Charge Director Manager
Colin Smith

Author	Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor - Rodney
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager