Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

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

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions relating to the code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 October 2020, as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Kaipātiki Project / Kāinga Ora update

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Tracey Cudby from Kāinga Ora, and Janet Cole from the Kaipātiki Project, and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Kainga Ora / Kaipatiki Project presentation................................................. 219

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 15 October 2020	9
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board minutes attachments - 15 October 2020	23

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

New community lease to Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust at Kell Park, Kell Drive (R257 Dairy Flat Highway), Albany

File No.: CP2020/15454

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To grant a new community lease to Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust for the Plunket clinic at Kell Park, Kell Drive (R257 Dairy Flat Highway), Albany.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Incorporated (Plunket) seeks a new community lease to continue occupation and operation of their clinic located at Kell Drive, Albany.

3. The current lease on Kell Park at Kell Drive, Albany, expired on 31 July 2019. The lease remains operative on a month-by-month basis until a new lease is formalised.

4. On 1 January 2018, the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Incorporated assigned its leases to a new national entity, the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust. The assignments were consented to by Auckland Council. A new lease will be under the name of the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust.

5. Under the Local Government Act 2002, Auckland Council must publicly notify its intention to grant a new community lease if the term is longer than six-months duration. Public notification was completed through advertisements in the North Harbour News and the Auckland Council website for one calendar month. No submissions were received.

6. This report recommends the Upper Harbour Local Board grant a new community lease to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust for the Plunket clinic.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) grant a new community lease to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust for the tenant-owned building located over part of Kell Park, Kell Drive, Albany (70m² more or less) legally described as Lot 2 Deposited Plan 91102, held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002 (refer to Attachment A to the agenda report) subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – 10 (ten) years, with one 10 (ten) year right of renewal

ii) rent – $1 plus GST per annum, if requested

iii) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council Community Outcomes Guidelines 2012.

b) approve the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust Community Outcomes Plan (refer to Attachment B to the agenda report) be attached as a schedule to the lease document.

Horopaki

Context

7. This report considers community leasing matters with respect to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust occupation of part of land at Kell Drive, Albany.

8. The Upper Harbour Local Board is the allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Land and buildings

9. The Royal New Zealand Plunket has a community lease for their building that occupies part of Kell Park at Kell Drive, Albany. The land is legally described as Lot 2 Deposited Plan 91102, held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

10. The area proposed to be leased to Plunket consists of approximately 70m2 (more or less) which is for the footprint of the building (refer Attachment A).

11. Plunket is a national not-for-profit organisation and New Zealand's largest provider of support services for the development, health and wellbeing of tamariki and whānau.

12. Plunket is committed to providing universal access to services for all children and families regardless of ethnicity or location through its Well Child Tamariki Ora service and the range of community services offered to families. This is at the heart of Plunket and is essential to provide a positive environment for parents.

13. The Albany Plunket clinic is open on Wednesday and Thursday and by appointment. Plunket Line support line is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to provide guidance and advice to parents and caregivers.

Public notification and iwi engagement

14. As the land is owned under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, section 138 of the Act requires that before a lease of longer than six months is granted, council must consult the community on the proposal.

15. Under section 81 of the Local Government Act 2002, iwi engagement is also required and will be undertaken with iwi identified as having an interest in land in the Upper Harbour Local Board geographical area.

16. The proposed new community lease to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust was publicly notified in the North Harbour News on 13 August 2020 and the Auckland Council website with a submission deadline for 14 September 2020. No submissions were received.

17. Council staff have negotiated a Community Outcomes Plan (refer Attachment B) with the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust. This is to be attached as a schedule to the lease agreement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. There is no impact on greenhouse gas emissions as the proposed new lease to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust does not introduce any new source of emissions.

19. Climate change is unlikely to impact the Plunket clinic, due to its locality, during the term of the proposed lease because the site is not within a 1-in-100 years flood zone or by river or surface flooding. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. A new community lease to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust has no identified impacts 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

21. The recommendations in this report fall within the local board’s allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sports and community facilities.

22. The council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 provide that established groups owning their own buildings can have a lease term of 10 years with a right of renewal of 10 years for a total term of 20 years.

23. The recommendations support the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020 outcome: ‘Empowered, connected and resilient Upper Harbour communities’.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan and local board plans.

25. An aim of community leasing is to increase targeted support for Māori community development. This proposal seeks to improve access to facilities for all Aucklanders, including Māori living in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

26. Iwi engagement was achieved through written communication on 14 August 2020 to iwi who have a key interest in the site located at Kell Park, Kell Drive, Albany.

27. No submissions were received from iwi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. Costs for public notification of the intention to grant a new community lease and any subsequent deed of lease are borne by Auckland Council.

29. The Lead Financial Advisor was consulted. No concerns were raised regarding the grant of a new lease to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The granting of a new community lease to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust for their clinic on Kell Park allows them to continue to provide services to their local communities.

31. Should the Upper Harbour Local Board resolve not to grant new community leases to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust, this decision will materially affect the group’s ability to undertake its core activities. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Subject to the grant of a new community lease, staff will work with the group to finalise the lease agreements.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan - Royal Plunket NZ Trust Albany clinic at Kell Park, Albany	35
b ⇩	Community Outcomes Plan - Royal Plunket NZ Trust, Albany clinic	37

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Deepal Chand - Community Lease Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

Landowner approval applications to build private stairs from 65 and 69 Ferry Parade on Ferry Parade Reserve, Pahiki, Herald Island

File No.: CP2020/16614

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To grant landowner approval for two separate applications to build private stairs from properties located at 65 and 69 Ferry Parade, through Ferry Parade Reserve, Herald Island, to enable access to future jetties to be located in the common marine and coastal area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The applicants, Boyd Cox (part owner of 65 Ferry Parade) and Waine Wolfe (part owner of 69 Ferry Parade), submitted separate landowner approval applications to place stairs on Ferry Parade Reserve at Herald Island. Stairs over the reserve would provide private access to future jetties from the applicants’ respective properties subject to obtaining all relevant regulatory consents. The applications are considered in this report individually, noting the impacts on the reserve differ in extent in each case.

3. At resource consent stage, an in-depth geotechnical report and assessment of environmental effects would be reviewed as part of the regulatory process. Landowner approval is sought for the stairs only as the proposed jetties would be constructed within the common marine and coastal area, not over the reserve.

4. Ferry Parade Reserve is legally described as Lot 254 DP 31409 and was vested in the Crown as a foreshore reserve on subdivision in 1943. It is a classified local purpose (foreshore) reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and held in fee simple by Auckland Council.

5. The council, as the administering body with the consent of the Minister, may grant a third party the right to occupy part of a reserve by the grant of an easement under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977. Relevant to these applications, section 48(1)(f) provides for easements where the purpose is:

to provide or facilitate access… of any other land not forming part of the reserve or for any other purpose connected with any such land.

6. These parts of the Ferry Parade Reserve are only accessible from the water or through adjacent private properties due to its topography and location. The public cannot access the reserve at these points as it is a steep cliff face and not walkable.

7. This report recommends that the Upper Harbour Local Board grant landowner approval and subsequent easement to the applicants. The staff recommendation is based on the proposed net benefit to part of the reserve that is inaccessible to the public. The proposed benefits are the enhancement of the reserves amenity and conservation values by additional native planting, and weed and pest control, which would foster and promote the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment in an area that is otherwise difficult for council to maintain.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) grant landowner approval and subsequent easement under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 for the applicant Boyd Cox, from 65 Ferry Parade, to construct private stairs over Ferry Parade Reserve (refer Attachment A to the agenda report).

b) grant landowner approval and subsequent easement under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 for the applicant Waine Wolfe, from 69 Ferry Parade, to construct private stairs over Ferry Parade Reserve (refer Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

Background

8. Two separate landowner approval applications were received for access over Ferry Parade Reserve for the construction of stairs from 65 and 69 Ferry Parade, Herald Island, to access proposed jetties within the common marine and coastal area (CMCA).

9. Ferry Parade is a classified local purpose (foreshore) reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and held in fee simple by Auckland Council. Section 48(1)(f) provides for the granting of easements where the purpose is:

to provide or facilitate access… of any other land not forming part of the reserve or for any other purpose connected with any such land.

10. Public access is not available at both locations due to the narrow reserve and steep terrain. Due to the inaccessibility for public access or recreation, these types of reserves are held under the act for the protection, maintenance and enhancement of their conservation values. Council owns many similar coastal reserves.

11. Council geomaps indicates that the reserve is approximately 3m wide. The reserve is identified as a significant ecological area in the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part (AUP:OP). There are no historic heritage or sites of significance to mana whenua mapped over the proposed areas.

12. Ferry Parade Reserve is one of 74 reserves included in the 2007 Waitematā Harbour Foreshore Reserve Management Plan. The management plan sets out the council’s policies and objectives for the management of the reserves contained within it, including proposals for new structures to ensure they are designed to not compromise natural character and ecology.

13. The applicants have raised queries about the status of other stairs and jetties that have been constructed along this reserve. Staff reviewed all records held online and in archives on the nearest properties containing these structures. This search did not reveal any record of formal landowner approval issued for any of these structures within the reserve. It appears these structures on the reserve have never had formal landowner approval (only resource consent or coastal permit) and are therefore considered encroachments on the reserve. Experience shows that encroachments are expensive and time-consuming to address. There is no budget to address these; however, the presence of these encroachments has been recorded.

65 Ferry Parade application

14. Number 65 Ferry Parade is indicated in Attachment A figure 1 and has existing timber stairs sitting as an encroachment on the reserve (figure 2). No records of landowner approval were found in council archives. The existing stairs are very steep and of indeterminate age. The proposal places the new stairs over the footprint of the existing, so no removal of vegetation is required.

15. The new stairs would be prefabricated timber stairs with steel stringers and craned into position from a barge in the water. The reserve would be completely bridged with anchor points in 65 Ferry Parade and at the proposed jetty in the CMCA as indicated in Attachment A figure 3. The physical impacts on the reserve would therefore be limited to any relating to a structure sitting above the land rather than being attached to the land.

16. The proposal involves works within the significant ecological area. An ecology report was submitted by the applicant which stated that the part of the reserve adjacent to 65 Ferry Parade is predominantly comprised of pest plants, bare ground and few native species. No removal of native species is proposed. A copy of the ecology report can be found in Attachment B.

69 Ferry Parade application

17. The applicant has requested to construct stairs on Ferry Parade Reserve to enable access to a proposed jetty in the CMCA. The position has been chosen as indicated in Attachment A figures 1, 4 and 5 to avoid the Pōhutukawa. The reserve is very steep and there is no public access or use of the land.

18. The proposal states stairs over the reserve would be 1.8m wide and would be supported on wooden piles requiring minimal earthworks. There are two piles proposed in the reserve with the remainder in the CMCA as shown in Attachment A figure 4.

19. The proposal involves clearance of vegetation and earthworks within the significant ecological area. A separate ecological report was submitted by the applicant which identified mixed native scrub vegetation and exotic plants on this part of the reserve. The ecology report stated the proposed native restoration planting will provide positive ecological effects by buffering and in-fill of cliff vegetation. A copy of the ecology report is included in Attachment C.

20. A site photo is shown in Attachment A figure 5 showing the location of stairs within the vegetation viewed from the CMCA. The proposed planting and planned weed control would improve the native biodiversity values. There is a Pōhutukawa tree that would require minor trimming under arborist supervision to allow the steps to be used without impediment. A Restoration Planting and Weed Management Plan has been drafted and will be submitted with resource consent for the stairs and jetty if landowner approval is granted.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Reserves Act 1977 decision making process:

21. The local board, as administering body of the reserve, is required to apply the relevant statutory tests under the act to the decisions to approve or decline the applications. These tests are set out below.

22. A lease or licence for this use of the reserve is not an option under section 61 of the act which sets out the criteria the council must apply when considering whether to grant a lease or licence on a local purpose reserve. A proposal must be deemed necessary or desirable for the proper and beneficial management, administration, and control of the reserve and for the use of the reserve for the purpose specified in its classification.

23. While the proposed planting and weed control is beneficial for the reserve, the stairs are for the sole benefit of the adjacent property owners and cannot be said to be necessary or desirable for the reserve. The statutory test for the grant of a lease or licence would not be met.

24. Section 48 of the act, however, provides an exception to the requirement that the administering body exercise its powers for the management and control of the reserve only for the purpose of its classification, for easements in certain circumstances.

25. The statutory tests for the local board to apply when exercising discretion to grant an easement, the section 48 requirements, the reserve management plan objectives and policies, and find the proposal to be consistent with^{^[1]}:

· the functions and purposes of the act

· classification and purposes for which the reserve is held.

Functions and purposes of the Act

26. The purpose of the act found in section 3 in relation to the Ferry Parade Reserve includes:

· fostering and promoting the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, and protection from unnecessary development

· ensuring as far as possible, the preservation of representative samples of landscape which, in the aggregate, originally gave New Zealand its own recognisable character.

Classification and purposes for which the reserve is held

27. The Ferry Parade reserve is held as a local purpose (foreshore) reserve under the act. Foreshore is a term that is used to describe land located between the high and low tide. Foreshore as a descriptor is a misnomer as the reserve is not actually positioned in the CMCA. Due to its location and primary purposes for which it is held, this reserve can practically be seen to be held for the same intent and purpose as a local purpose (esplanade) reserve.

28. Esplanade reserve purposes are set out in section 229 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The purposes vary as the RMA contemplates not all esplanade reserves will be held for one purpose. In summary, there are three overarching purposes that esplanade reserves are held which may include one or more of the following:

· protection of the conservation values (includes ‘maintaining and enhancing’)

· public access

· to enable public recreation in the reserve.

29. Where there is no viable public access or ability for the public to recreate, the purpose of such a reserve can be seen to be for the protection of its conservation values (as set out in section 229).

Waitematā Harbour Foreshore Reserve Management Plan 2007

30. The Waitematā Harbour Foreshore Reserve Management Plan 2007 is a statutory document required under the act which sets out council’s policies and objectives for the management of the reserves contained within it. Council is required to act in accordance with those policies and objectives.

31. The management plan is designed to guide management of the 74 reserves included and the sensitive coastal environment in which they exist. The relevant decision-making criteria for the stairs applications is set out in the following paragraphs.

32. Policy 3.3 of the management plan (page 69) outlines the criteria that structures in reserves must meet and this includes:

· the need for the structure to be within the reserve, in terms of the structure serving the purpose for which the reserve is classified under the Reserves Act 1977

· the need for the structure to be sited in the location identified

· the maintenance of the reserves character

· the contribution of the structure to the quality and experience of the reserve

· the public benefit obtained by the structure

· the minor impact on the immediate neighbourhood

· an ability to meet the objectives and policies of this plan

· effects on landscape when viewed from the harbour.

33. Policy 3.7 requires council ‘ensure that where possible, new or upgraded/ renewed structures including roads, furniture and buildings, are set back from the coastal edge’.

34. Policy 4.2 is ‘to prevent private coastal structures in reserves unless they are subject to an existing easement or lease’.

35. Staff advise the applications meet the criteria in the management plan in some regards as the maintenance and character of the reserve which would be enhanced and the effects from the harbour could be improved with increased native vegetation. There would be negligible impact on the immediate neighbourhood as the reserve is inaccessible by public and note multiple properties along this stretch of reserve have similar structures encroaching on the reserve.

36. In its decision-making, the local board is required to weigh up the positive impacts against the other relevant criteria listed above and find the decision is not inconsistent with the management plan.

Obligations for approved private structures

37. If either or both applications were approved, council would require an agreement with the applicant that they bear the costs for the ongoing obligations to maintain the stairs to a safe standard, removal at the expiry of the resource consent and remediation of the land where necessary as part of the conditions of landowner approval. Council’s reasonable costs for legal fees for time spent in order to legalise this arrangement would also be required.

38. An easement is an agreement setting out the respective responsibilities in relation to a grant of rights over the burdened land (the reserve). An easement would be registered against the title of both the burdened land and the benefited land (applicant’s). In this scenario, an easement would ensure the maintenance and removal/reinstatement obligations are clear to anyone searching the titles, including subsequent purchasers/ owners.

Specialists comments/consultation

39. The Parks and Places Specialist confirmed there were no current plans to develop this area of the reserve as it is inaccessible for any walkways.

40. The Facilities Manager advised there were no concerns from an operational perspective as these proposals would not cause future maintenance issues for council if they were appropriately documented to ensure the applicants would bear the responsibility for the stairs maintenance, removal at the end of their consented life, and any required reinstatement of the reserve at that date.

41. The Senior Urban Forest Specialist raised no concerns with the current proposals. Detailed mitigation planting and maintenance plans would be included as a condition of the landowner consent and reviewed by this specialist.

42. The Senior Coastal Specialist advised that the proposals would have negligible impacts on coastal erosion and coastal flooding provided that construction methods minimise disturbance to the reserve. There were also no concerns from a geotechnical perspective at this stage. In-depth reports would be submitted as part of the regulatory process and reviewed by the relevant council specialists.

Options

43. The Upper Harbour Local Board may resolve to approve one or both of the applications. Alternatively, the board may decide to decline one or both of the applications.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. Stairs over the reserve will have no direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions as the proposal does not introduce any new source of emissions.

45. The stairs are proposed to be constructed to standards allowing for use in an area prone to coastal inundation. The suitability of the materials and design would be supported by coastal and geotechnical reports submitted at the resource consent stage. These would be reviewed by relevant council specialists to ensure that potential climate change effects are addressed, amongst other potential environmental effects.

46. There would be an increase in native vegetation as both applicants have proposed planting suitable to coastal conditions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47. The proposed landowner approval has no identified impact on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48. A workshop was held on 16 July 2020 where the proposed works were presented to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

49. The application aligns with the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020, ‘Outcome 4: Our unique natural environment is protected and enhanced’ by increasing planting, weed and pest management in a part of a local purpose foreshore reserve that is difficult to reach for maintenance purposes.

50. The Upper Harbour Local Board Greenways Plan September 2019 acknowledges the constrained access along coastal margins due to steep to moderate slopes. Focus Area 5 – Whenuapai and Herald Island outlines the opportunity ‘to improve access to the coastal trail and to protect and improve ecological quality of the coastal margin’. While it is not possible to improve access to the coastal trail here, planting and weed control is proposed to improve the ecological quality of the reserve in the proposed areas.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

51. There are no sites of value or significance to mana whenua identified in the AUP:OP layers in relation to the application.

52. The proposals were presented to the North West Mana Whenua Forum on 5 August 2020. A site visit was undertaken with the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara representative on 6 October 2020 to view both properties and the proposed locations of the stairs. The proposals were supported subject to the following conditions:

· all regulatory consents being acquired

· accidental discovery protocols

· planting and weed control maintenance (five years)

· sediment control

· registration of an easement

· a geotechnical report to be submitted as part of the resource consent would cover access stairs over the reserve and construction of the jetties in the CMCA, which is outside of reserve.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53. There are no financial operational implications for the local board and the maintenance costs would be the full responsibility of the applicants for the reserve at each location. The costs to council involved in registering an easement would be required to be met by the applicants.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Risk type	Risk	Mitigation
Physical	Coastal erosion from construction and placement of stairs on or near the cliff.	Coastal and geotechnical reports would be submitted as part of regulatory processes. Additional planting will reinforce stability of the cliff.
Setting a precedent	Approval would set a precedent for future applications for properties adjoining council’s coastal reserves.	Any future application would be put to the same legal tests and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Not all esplanade reserves are used and held for the exact same purposes. It is important that any decision is carefully scrutinised and weighed up against the relevant decision-making criteria.
Ecological values (SEA)	Placement of stairs will detract from ecological and visual values of an esplanade reserve in a significant ecological area.	Ecological mitigation is proposed with the addition of suitable coastal plants and appropriate weed control.
Maintenance obligations	Planting, weed control and stair maintenance may not be done.	An easement would be registered against the applicant(s) title(s) setting out obligations of the owner and any future owner to maintain the stairs. Planting and weed control would have a five-year maintenance period and a condition would be placed on the landowner approval letter requiring this.
Health and safety	The structure/stairs could be accessed via the general public via the water.	Reports and plans required under regulatory consents would ensure that any structure is designed and constructed to a safe standard.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. If the local board approve one or both of the proposals, landowner approval will be issued for the life of the resource consent, subject to registration of an easement against the title.

55. Subject to the local board’s approval, the decision would then be communicated to the applicant(s) with a formal landowner approval letter for the access stairs. Conditions will be placed on the landowner approval regarding but not limited to:

· health and safety conditions

· all regulatory consents being acquired

· accidental discovery protocols

· planting and weed control maintenance (five years)

· sediment control

· reinstatement of land at the end of the structures’ consented life

· registration of an easement

· a geotechnical report to be submitted as part of the resource consent which will cover access stairs over the reserve and construction of jetty in the CMCA, which is outside of reserve.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Figures relating to 65 and 69 Ferry Parade	47
b ⇩	Ecology report - 65 Ferry Parade	51
c ⇩	Ecology report - 69 Ferry Parade	59

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Alayna Fiatau - Land Use Advisor

Raewyn Sendles – Senior Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

Auckland Transport monthly update - November 2020

File No.: CP2020/16432

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update on traffic-related matters in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report highlights Auckland Transport’s activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area and contains information about the following:

· the Auckland Walk Challenge

· Commuter Calculator Campaign

· Auckland Freight Plan

· Road Safety Programme for Auckland.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the monthly update report from Auckland Transport for November 2020.

Horopaki

Context

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The Auckland Walk Challenge

4. The Auckland Walk Challenge is a walking challenge for anyone in Auckland focused on trying to get people out and about walking more. The event has commenced and runs from 1 November to 30 November 2020.

Commuter Calculator Campaign

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

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

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

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

9. The campaign started on Monday 2 October 2020 and AT hopes it will encourage thousands of people to try the Commuter Calculator and find out that using the bus, train or ferry is a good option for their daily commute.

10. It will continue running through to early December 2020. AT will reprise the campaign early in the New Year.

Auckland Freight Plan

11. AT has developed a useful online tool that enables customers to compare the cost and time taken to travel by car. As Auckland’s population continues to grow, so too does the demand for goods and services. However, it has become increasingly difficult to deliver goods to customers. Managing competing network demands with the safe, sustainable distribution of freight is a critical challenge for Auckland.

12. In 2017/2018, 76.3 million tonnes of freight were moved within, to, from and through Auckland.

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

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

Road Safety Programme for Auckland

15. During the formulation of the Emergency Budget for Auckland Council and the council-controlled organisations for 2020/2021, AT was requested to prioritise the Road Safety Programme for Auckland on the basis of obtaining the highest reduction in death and serious injury (DSI) possible for the funding available.

16. In making this request, council also supported the provision of an additional $27 million as part of the Emergency Budget to mitigate the impacts of road trauma that is all too frequently visited upon Aucklanders. This brings the total budget for road safety for Auckland in the 2020/2021 financial year to $63.75 million (as compared to the pre-COVID19 budget of $107 million).

Vision Zero

17. In October 2019, the AT Board adopted the Transport Safety Vision Zero Strategy and Action Plan for Tamaki Makaurau. This was in response to the alarming rates of DSI that were being experienced on Auckland’s roads, peaking at 64 deaths in 2017. Vision Zero is a human-centred approach to transport safety, which holds that humans are vulnerable and that they make mistakes, but the overall transport system must be designed, constructed and operated in a manner that these mistakes do not result in DSI. It focuses on four key pillars, being:

· safe road use

· safe vehicles

· safe roads

· safe speeds.

18. The Vision Zero approach to road safety has been very effective in reducing DSI in developed nations such as the UK, Australia and Sweden where the Vision Zero approach originated.

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

20. A broad partnership approach to transport safety in Tamaki Makaurau has been adopted through the implementation of the Tamaki Makaurau Transport Safety Governance Group, with representation from AT, Auckland Council, Waka Kotahi, the Ministry of Transport, NZ Police, Accident Compensation Corporation and Auckland Regional Public Health.

Formulation of the programme

21. The 2020/2021 programme has been formulated under the following broad categories consistent with the PBC and focused on optimising DSI reduction.

· Speed management projects – in support of tranche 1 of the Speed Management Bylaw and investigation to support tranche 2

· High risk rural – both intersections and corridors

· High risk urban – both intersections and corridors

· Vulnerable road users – pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists

· Various other safety programmes – Safer Communities, Minor Improvements, Safe Schools and Community Safety Fund projects.

22. It should be noted that a $36.75 million portion of the 2020/2021 road safety programme funds existing road safety commitments from the previous financial year, and the additional $27 million of road safety programme funding has been allocated to new projects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. AT 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.

24. AT’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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

Future Connect

26. Future Connect will be AT’s long-term plan for Auckland’s future integrated transport system. It maps Auckland’s strategic networks, the most critical links of our current and future transport system and will ultimately set a 30-year vision for all modes:

· public transport

· general traffic

· freight

· cycling

· walking.

27. Strategic networks have been investigated to surface critical problems, opportunities and focus areas. This will help inform the development of the Regional Land Transport Plan (AT’s 10-year investment programme) and will guide future planning and investment.

28. Future Connect was introduced to local board chairpersons at the 14 September 2020 Chairs Forum. The project team provided a more detailed project overview and answered questions at a workshop with the local board on 5 November 2020.

29. The local board’s feedback will be fed into the process that is finalising a consultation document for February 2021. The board will also have an opportunity to give feedback on this consultation document once it is available.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. There are no specific impacts on Māori for this reporting period. AT is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsive or effective to Māori. AT’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines its commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. AT also recognises mataawaka and their representative bodies and its desire to foster a relationship with them.

31. This plan is available on the AT website at: https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. The decision to receive this monthly update report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. Auckland Council adopted its Emergency Budget 2020/2021 at the end of July 2020. AT’s capital and operating budgets have been reduced through this process and some projects planned for 2020/2021 may not be able to be delivered.

34. Both the Community Safety Fund and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) are impacted by these budget reductions.

35. AT attended workshops in August 2020 to discuss how to get the best value from their 2020/2021 LBTCF allocation. Community safety projects will continue in design and will be delivered once funds become available.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. AT will provide a further update report to the Upper Harbour Local Board at the next earliest opportunity.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marilyn Nicholls – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

Panuku Auckland Development - Upper Harbour Local Board six-monthly report: 1 March to 31 August 2020

File No.: CP2020/14402

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area and the region for the six months from 1 March to 31 August 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report is a record of events in the Upper Harbour Local Board area during the stated time period. Council-controlled organisations (CCOs) are legally required to prepare six-monthly and annual reports containing financial and other information about their performance. By clearly reporting the record of events, this report enables the council and Panuku to meet its legislative reporting obligations and also satisfy New Zealand Stock Exchange obligations. No decisions are to be made from this report.

3. The Auckland Plan sets out, among other things, reporting requirements (statutory or otherwise), audit and risk reporting requirements, attendance at council meetings, and the process for buying, managing and selling assets.

4. Panuku collaborates with other CCOs, government and non-governmental organisations as appropriate to obtain positive outcomes for Auckland.

5. Panuku is charged with balancing its obligation to deliver returns for council while ensuring that regeneration projects are good quality, strategic and better for the environment.

6. The activities of Panuku cover four broad areas:

· urban regeneration of particular neighbourhoods, as determined by Auckland Council

· review of and, where appropriate, redevelopment of council non-service property

· management of council property assets including commercial, residential, and marina infrastructure

· other property related services such as service property optimisation (e.g. redevelopment incorporating a service delivery function), strategic property advice, acquisitions and disposals.

7. The Auckland Council group (the council group) is made up of Auckland Council, and five substantive CCOs of which Panuku is one. Panuku delivers core activities and plays a major role in achieving the council group’s strategic outcomes for Tāmaki Makaurau. The governance manual for substantive CCOs sets out the council’s expectations for CCOs including Panuku, and the key policies that guide its activities.

8. Panuku has supported Auckland Council throughout its response to COVID-19 and continues to do so.

9. Throughout alert level 4 lockdown, Panuku’s primary focus was to support its tenants and find organisation-wide savings.

10. Panuku’s capital programme delivery was impacted by the alert level 4 lockdown. However, this resumed on the return to alert level 3, with only minor delays across the capital programme as a result.

11. Like Auckland Council, Panuku has made savings with the majority of staff earning over $100,000, the executive leaders, and the board, taking voluntary salary reductions.

12. To respond to the changing property market and the impacts of the Auckland Council group, Panuku confirmed a new organisational structure to deliver its programme.

13. Panuku has supported Auckland Council through the Emergency Budget 2020/2021. The capital envelope for this financial year will allow delivery of a credible urban regeneration programme in neighbourhoods across the region.

14. As part of Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget 2020-2021, Panuku agreed to accelerate the sale of land at Hobsonville.

15. Panuku Development Auckland currently manages eight commercial and residential interests in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

16. No properties were purchased in the Upper Harbour Local Board area during the six month reporting period.

17. No properties were sold in the Upper Harbour Local Board area during the six month reporting period.

18. One property in the Upper Harbour Local Board area is currently under review as part of Panuku’s rationalisation process.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Panuku Auckland Development - Upper Harbour Local Board six-monthly report: 1 March to 31 August 2020.

Horopaki

Context

19. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland, from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

20. The Auckland Plan is the roadmap to deliver on Auckland’s vision to be a world-class city and Panuku plays a significant role in achieving the ‘Homes and Places’ and ‘Belonging and Participation’ outcomes.

21. Panuku leads urban redevelopment in Manukau, Onehunga, Wynyard Quarter, the waterfront, Northcote, Avondale, Takapuna, Henderson, old Papatoetoe, Ormiston, Panmure, Pukekohe, the city centre and redevelopment of the Haumaru portfolio.

22. Panuku manages around $3 billion of council’s non-service property portfolio which is continuously reviewed to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio, or release land or property that can be better used by others. ‘Non-service properties’ are council-owned properties that are not used to deliver council or CCO services.

23. As of 31 August 2020, the Panuku-managed non-service property portfolio comprises 1674 properties containing 998 leases. This includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. Panuku is contributing commercial input into approximately 50 region-wide council-driven renewal and housing supply initiatives.

25. Panuku works with partners and stakeholders over the course of a project. It also champions best practice project delivery to achieve best value outcomes within defined cost, time and quality parameters

26. Following is a high-level update on activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Hobsonville

27. At the request of Auckland Council, Panuku agreed to accelerate the sale of land at Hobsonville as part of the Emergency Budget 2020-2021.

Properties managed in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

28. Panuku currently manages five commercial and three residential interests within the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Strategic asset optimisation

Service property optimisation

29. Service property optimisation is a self-funding development approach targeting sub-optimal service assets, approved in 2015. The process involves an agreement between Community Services, Panuku and local boards and is led by Panuku. It is designed to equal or enhance levels of service to the local community in a reconfigured form while delivering on strategic outcomes such as housing or urban regeneration, with no impact on existing rate assumptions.

30. Using service property optimisation, underperforming assets will have increased utility and efficiency, lower maintenance and operating costs, as well as improved service delivery benefiting from the co-location of other complementary services or commercial activities. Optimisation will free up a range of under-capitalised development opportunities such as air space, full sites, or part sites.

31. Using service property optimisation as a redevelopment and funding tool, the local board can maximise efficiencies from service assets while maintaining levels of service through the release of some or all of that property for sale or development.

32. Local boards are allocated decision-making for the disposal of local service property and reinvestment of sale proceeds under the service property optimisation approach.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

33. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of council’s non-service assets, including the identification of properties from within the council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. This contributes towards Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget asset recycling target, as well as outcomes identified in the long-term plan by providing the council with efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

34. Panuku has a focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes for properties no longer required for a council service use. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades.

Process

35. Once identified as no longer delivering the council service use for which it was acquired, property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with council departments and CCOs, the local board, mana whenua and the relevant ward councillor The Finance and Performance Committee has the delegation to approve recommendations for disposal.

36. Panuku works closely with Auckland Council business units, Auckland Council’s Finance team and Auckland Transport to identify and progress potential surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

Acquisitions and disposals

37. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. Panuku purchases property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other services. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

38. All land acquisition committee resolutions contain a confidentiality clause due to the commercially sensitive nature of ongoing transactions, and thus cannot be reported on while in process.

39. Twenty-one properties have had purchase agreements signed this financial year for open space purposes around the region at a value of $42.6 million, and six properties have been purchased for stormwater purposes at a value of $19 million.

Acquisitions

40. Panuku undertakes acquisitions for Auckland Council’s Parks team and Healthy Waters under delegation from council’s Chief Executive. Panuku does not unilaterally decide which properties to buy and when, but rather follows a directive to manage the commercial transactions following committee approval to purchase a particular property. A prerequisite of the committee resolution is reporting to the local board.

41. Panuku has purchased one property for open space across Auckland, in Flat Bush between March 2020 and August 2020 at a cost of $3.3 million.

42. No properties have been purchased in the Upper Harbour Local Board area during the reporting period for open space.

Disposals

43. In the current reporting period from March 2020 to August 2020, the Panuku disposals team has entered into four sale and purchase agreements with an estimated value of $5.4 million of unconditional net sales proceeds.

44. Panuku 2020/21 disposals target is $24 million for the year. The disposals target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

45. No properties have been sold in the Upper Harbour Local Board area during the reporting period.

Under review

46. Properties currently under review in the Upper Harbour Local Board area are listed in the following table. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the Governing Body:

Property	Details
R 33A Tauhinu Road, Greenhithe	A narrow 114m² drainage reserve/unformed accessway that was originally vested upon subdivision with the Crown in 1925 in accordance with the Land Act 1924. The reserve status was revoked in 1994. It is not required for open space purposes. The site was included in Schedule A of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. At its 16 July 2020 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal.

Property

Details

R 33A Tauhinu Road, Greenhithe

A narrow 114m² drainage reserve/unformed accessway that was originally vested upon subdivision with the Crown in 1925 in accordance with the Land Act 1924. The reserve status was revoked in 1994.

It is not required for open space purposes.

The site was included in Schedule A of the Auckland Council Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. At its 16 July 2020 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal.

Housing for Older People - Haumaru Housing

47. The council owns 1452 units located in 63 villages across Auckland which provide rental housing to low income older people in Auckland.

48. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involved Auckland Council partnering with a third-party organisation, The Selwyn Foundation, to deliver social rental housing services for older people across Auckland.

49. The joint venture business, named Haumaru Housing, took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio under a long-term lease arrangement from 1 July 2017.

50. Haumaru Housing was granted community housing provider (CHP) status in April 2017. Having CHP registration enables Haumaru to access the government’s income-related rent subsidy (IRRS) scheme.

51. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a new multi-year residential development programme.

52. The following Haumaru Housing villages are located within the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Village	Address	Number of units
Windsor Court	482a East Coast Road, Mairangi Bay	18

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

53. The Panuku urban regeneration programmes support the regeneration of existing town centres while also addressing climate mitigation and adaptation.

54. Mitigation of climate change involves reducing the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Auckland’s neighbourhoods are transport-oriented communities that utilise existing infrastructure and transport links and Panuku seeks to make local walking and cycling safe and viable alternatives to the private vehicle. Panuku has also adopted a Homestar-6 minimum standard to ensure a reduction in energy, water and landfill waste. Panuku is working to adopt similar standards for the public realm and commercial developments, whilst also taking guidance from precinct sustainability rating tools like Green Star Communities.

55. Adaptation to climate change involves planning for the changes to climate and associated impacts that are already happening or are projected to happen, including sea-level rise, hotter temperatures, extreme weather events, flooding and droughts. Climate change is likely to subject the Upper Harbour Local Board area to hotter temperatures and more frequent flooding and drought. Panuku seeks to future-proof communities by:

· specifying that infrastructure and developments are designed to cope with warmer temperatures and extreme weather events

· the use of green infrastructure and water sensitive design to increase flood resilience and provide ecological and biodiversity benefits

· the provision of increased shade and shelter for storm events and hotter days

· initiatives to build community resilience.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

56. The views of the council group are incorporated on a project-by-project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

57. Any local or sub-regional impacts related to local activities are considered on a project-by-project basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

58. Panuku works collaboratively with mana whenua on a range of projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the area and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

59. Panuku continues to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

60. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

61. There are no risks associated with receiving this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

62. The next six-monthly update is scheduled for March 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Perin Gerrand - Engagement Coordinator
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/15036

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek 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 should the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.^{^[2]}

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

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

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

Horopaki

Context

6. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.^{^[3]}

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 closes on 9 November 2020.

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

· 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

· wellbeing 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, wellbeing of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori world-view).

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 (RMA) 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 should it not pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for the Upper Harbour 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).^{^[4]} 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

Tony Reidy – Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16303

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board 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 should 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.^{^[5]}

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:

· 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

· 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

· 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 wellbeing of communities. At the same time, it seeks to mitigate adverse effects on amenity values, communities, the natural environment, historic heritage and sites and places of significance to mana whenua. The proposed plan change does not alter these objectives and policies.

7. The critical themes from submissions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

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

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

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

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

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

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

19. Submissions were made by four people/organisations:

Table 1: Submissions received on Plan Change 53

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Auckland Transport and 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

· wellbeing 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.^{^[7]}

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, wellbeing of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori world-view).

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 do not, however, 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 (RMA), which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.^{^[8]} The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.^{^[9]}

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

· the mechanism for the Upper Harbour 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

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Standard

File No.: CP2020/16582

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on the Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard (the standard) and proposed regional policy (refer Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· all growth projects over $5 million and renewal projects over $2 million 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 Upper Harbour 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 accounted for roughly 68 per cent of the council’s carbon footprint in 2019, as can be seen in Figure 1 below:

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

· organisational certification under ISO 14001 Environmental Management System.

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

14. The pilot proved to be a valuable exercise in developing a performance improvement plan. It also proved that certification across the Community Facilities portfolio would be cost prohibitive, as the ‘performance rating required triannual, ongoing recertification.

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

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

17. Sixty-one per cent of C40 cities^{^[10]} require green building certifications for all new facilities. For Community Facilities to manage its assets efficiently and sustainably, its practices need to go beyond building code compliance. Green building and infrastructure tools provide the framework to align Community Facilities asset management with international best practice to deliver better asset value and outcomes for Aucklanders.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

19. Climate adaptation is also supported through the use of these sustainable asset certification processes. These frameworks encourage sustainable design features to promote resilience to climate changes 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 $5 million and renewal projects over $2 million 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 onsite 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 of 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 3 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 dtandard’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 Community Facilities capital design work.

6.0 Māori Business, Tourism and Employment

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

7.0 Realising Rangatahi Potential

Rangatahi potential included via two pathways:

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

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

8.0 Kaitiakitanga

Supports kaitiakitanga outcomes in two ways:

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

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

9.0 Effective Māori Participation

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

10.0 An Empowered Organisation

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

Te Aranga Design Principles

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. A 4 per cent^{^[11]} cost increase is forecast for 30 capital projects to be certified under the standard over the next 10 years. This increase totals $14.5 million on top of the existing allocated budgets for these 30 projects. Funding will be sought through the long-term plan climate lane corporate emissions package at a future Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Policy	109

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

Approval for a new road name within a subdivision at 11 Leveloff Road, Paremoremo

File No.: CP2020/16635

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a new name for a private road within the subdivision being undertaken by the Leveloff Family Trust #2 (the applicant) at 11 Leveloff Road, Paremoremo.

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 has submitted the following names in order of preference for consideration by the local board:

· Trig Station Rise or Way (preferred)

· Verde Rise or Way

· Fantail Rise or Way.

4. The names have been assessed and are considered suitable in terms of the council’s road naming guidelines.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the road name ‘Trig Station Rise or Way’ or ‘Verde Rise or Way’ or ‘Fantail Rise or Way’ for the new private road within the subdivision being undertaken by the Leveloff Family Trust #2 at 11 Leveloff Road, Paremoremo.

Horopaki

Context

5. The 14-lot subdivision (council reference number SUB60332104) was approved on 19 December 2014.

6. In accordance with the national addressing standard, the private road requires a name as it serves more than five lots.

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 the result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer will be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road names for local board approval.

8. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect one of the following local themes, with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

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

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

9. The applicant has chosen a suite of names that are considered to appropriately recognise existing features in the area as listed in the following table:

Proposed names	Meaning
Trig Station Rise or Way (preferred)	Refers to a permanently fixed survey point located in the immediate area
Verde Rise or Way (alternate)	The colour green recognising the bush-covered environment of the subdivision
Fantail Rise or Way (alternate)	Recognising a bird in abundance in the area

10. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) have reviewed the proposed names and confirmed they are suitable as there are no duplications within the wider Auckland region that could cause confusion for emergency services and deliveries.

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14. 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 include:

· 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

· an agreed process to enable mana whenua to provide timely feedback on all proposed road names in a manner they consider appropriate.

15. On the applicant’s behalf, the council has consulted with 12 local iwi groups identified as possibly having an interest in the proposal; two responses were received as follows:

· Te Kawerau ā Maki advised they do not support Trig Station, Verde or Fantail as they do not reflect the unique Māori historical and cultural heritage of Paremoremo or Tāmaki Makaurau.

· The Ngāti Paoa Trust Board noted that the application is in the Rohe of Te Kawarau a Maki and accordingly tautoko (supported) their response.

16. Te Kawerau ā Maki did not offer any alternate names for consideration and no other mana whenua groups have commented on the applicant’s suggested names.

17. The applicant has been advised the results of the mana whenua consultation and have confirmed that they wish to proceed with their preferred names as they consider they meet the broader criteria of the council’s road naming guidelines.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20. 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

21. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand which are then recorded on its New Zealand-wide land information database. This includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Scheme plan - 11 Leveloff Road, Paremoremo	115
b ⇩	Locality map - 11 Leveloff Road, Paremoremo	117

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants Round Two 2020/2021 grant allocations

File No.: CP2020/15450

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide information on applications in the Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021 to enable a decision to fund, part fund or decline each application.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in the Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021 (refer Attachment B).

3. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2020/2021 on 21 May 2020 (refer Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $237,383 for the 2020/2021 financial year. A total of $81,766.33 has been allocated to the Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Grants round one and Local Grants round one 2020/2021. This leaves a total of $155,616.67 to be allocated to one local grant round and two quick response rounds.

5. Fourteen applications were received for Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021, requesting a total of $51,612.50.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in 2020/2021 Upper Harbour Quick Response round two as follows:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR2117-202	Kaipātiki Project Incorporated	Environment	Towards the project and marketing management, travel, volunteer support, and administration costs to deliver EcoFest North 2021 between 1 February and 30 April 2021	$4400	Eligible
QR2117-215	Great Families Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the weekly after school badminton and basketball programmes, including coaches fees	$3000	Eligible
QR2117-206	East Coast Bays' and Districts Cricket Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase and installation of cricket net fencing	$3000	Eligible
QR2117-201	Meadowood Community House	Community	Towards barbeque, music, entertainment, and community activities for the Christmas event at Meadowood Community House in December 2020	$1500	Eligible
QR2117-205	Milford Tennis Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the maintenance costs for Milford Tennis Club	$500	Eligible
QR2117-207	Greenhithe Group Riding for the Disabled Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards horse care, including horse farrier, horse feed, and veterinary costs	$5000	Eligible
QR2117-208	Westlake Boys High School Rowing Society Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards transport costs from Hobsonville to Westlake Boys High School	$5000	Eligible
QR2117-209	Flock Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the production of 20 stories for the ‘Travelling Apple Cart’, including the costs of facilitation, editing, marketing, and the artist's fee between December 2020 and May 2021	$5000	Eligible
QR2117-214	Badminton New Zealand Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire and the purchase of shuttlecocks between January and October 2021	$5000	Eligible
QR2117-203	Albany Badminton Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of new shuttlecocks for Albany Badminton Club	$4400	Eligible
QR2117-211	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards volunteer supervision, triage support, and phone bills for Youthline phoneline services in the Upper Harbour area	$4000	Eligible
QR2117-204	Road Safety Education Limited	Community	Support towards the company's operational costs to manage the delivery of the Road Safety Programme in the Upper Harbour area	$2820	Eligible
QR2117-213	Blue Light Ventures Incorporated	Community	Towards printing and production costs of the ‘Street Smart’ life skills resource handbook for 855 year 13 students at Rangitoto College, Albany Senior High, and Vanguard Military Schools	$2992.50	Eligible
QR2117-212	Presbyterian Support Services (Northern)	Community	Towards the costs of seven Upper Harbour locals to participate in the ‘No Excuses Violence Prevention’ programme between January and December 2021	$5000	Eligible
Total				$51,612.50

Horopaki

Context

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

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

8. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2020/2021 on 21 May 2020 (refer Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include:

· local food production and food waste reduction

· increasing access to single-occupancy transport options

· home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation

· local tree planting and streamside revegetation

· educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

13. Three applicants applying to the Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021 indicated that their project responds to community climate action.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

17. The local board is requested to note that section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states:

We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.

18. A summary of each application received through the Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021 (Attachment B) is provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

20. Three applicants applying to Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021 indicated that their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

22. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $237,383 for the 2020/2021 financial year. A total of $81,766.33 has been allocated to the Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Grants round one and Local Grants round one 2020/2021. This leaves a total of $155,616.67 to be allocated to one local grant round and two quick response rounds.

23. Fourteen applications were received for Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021, requesting a total of $51,612.50.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocation of funding for the Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021, grants staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021	125
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants round two 2020/2021 grant applications	129

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Erin Shin - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 November 2020

PDF Creator

[1] The Court of Appeal has recently considered the decision making required for easements under s48 and has provided guidance in Opua Coastal Preservation Incorporated v Far North District Council [2018] NZCA 262 at [95].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[10] 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.

[11] 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	Margaret Miles, QSM, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Members	Anna Atkinson
	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	Brian Neeson, JP

Author	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager