|
Waitematā
Local Board
03 November
2020
|
|
Western
Springs Lakeside Te Wai Ōrea - pine tree removal and native forest
restoration
File No.: CP2020/16021
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To seek a
decision in respect of the Western Springs’ pine
trees that meets the objectives of protecting the existing ecology,
enabling access to the forest, and complying with health and safety
obligations.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The Waitematā Local
Board has advised Auckland Council staff that the local
board seeks to achieve the following objectives in relation to the
forest:
a) To
protect the existing ecology
b) To
enable access to the forest
c) To
comply with health and safety obligations
3. The Tree Consultancy Company
(TCC) was engaged to undertake an independent assessment of
the pines and to provide advice on alternatives to full stand
removal.
4. A copy of TCC’s final
report has been made available on the Western Springs Project Team
website.
5. TCC also commissioned reports (which have also been
made available on the website) from:
a) Annabelle
Coates, Bioresearches (Babbage Consultants), Christchurch, to provide
an independent assessment of the proposed methods, specifically with
regard to the ecological values of the site, and impacts on those
ecological values of the management methods; and
b) Professor
Rien Visser and Campbell Harvey, University of Canterbury, School of Forestry,
to advise on the “felling and extraction that would meet the
physical, ecological and social objectives of the local board”.
6. Having reviewed these expert reports, staff have identified
four options in respect of the management of the Western
Springs forest:
· Option
One: Proceed with the consented works to remove all pine trees in the stand
using the lower impact methodologies identified by Professor Visser to the extent possible within
the existing resource consent.
· Option
Two: Phased
whole stand removal (dividing the stand into three geographic areas and
removing trees in 3 stages over number of years).
· Option
Three: Select
removal of only the 57 tolerable, not tolerable and not acceptable risk
trees.
· Option
Four: Keep the forest
closed (removal of 1 ‘not acceptable’ tree).
7. Staff do not
recommend options two and four. This is because the costs and delay
associated with option two are not outweighed by the additional benefits of
this option. Option four is not recommended because it does
not meet the local board’s objective of enabling public access to
the forest.
8. Given the community concerns
regarding full stand removal, staff have carefully considered whether to
recommend option 3. However, due to the risks
associated with obtaining a variation to the existing consent (and
subsequent potential consents), potential budget implications (including via
potential LDI funding) and potential for future park closures, which would
further impact on public access, staff do not recommend this option.
9. Having assessed option one
against the other three options and based on the summary risk
rating, which considers health, safety and wellbeing, community impact, ecological
and environmental, legal and financial risk, staff recommend
option one.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Waitematā Local
Board:
a) receive
and consider this report;
b) note
that staff do not recommend options two and four;
c) approve
option one (proceed with the consented works to remove all pine trees in the
stand using the lower impact methodologies identified by Professor Visser to
the extend possible within the existing resource consent).
|
Horopaki
Context
10. In
the early 1920s, an extensive stand of Monterey or radiata pine
(Pinus radiata) was planted on the northern slopes of Western Springs
Lakeside Park.
11. The 1995 Western Springs
Lakeside Management Plan identified that the area should be returned to native podocarp-broadleaf forest.
12. Since 2005 Auckland Council has
been monitoring this stand of approximately 95-year-old pine trees in Western
Springs Lakeside Te Wai Ōrea.
13. Over the past 30 years the
stand has reduced from approximately 700 trees in 1988, to 198 standing trees
of which 31 are dead, as at 9 October 2020.
14. In October 2015, the
Waitematā Local Board resolved to approve the Western Springs Native Bush
Restoration Project and the recommended work programme for pine tree
management, to commence in the third quarter of financial year 2015/2016,
following community engagement (Resolution number WTM/2015/161).
15. The stand was closed to the
public in April 2018 due to the risk of harm to pedestrians resulting
from falling trees and concerns for the safety of members of the public
and council’s workers.
Resource consent process 2018-2019
16. In early June 2018, a resource
consent application was submitted for the removal of the pine trees to enable
the Western Springs Native Bush Restoration Project to be implemented.
17. The application was publicly
notified, with the hearing held in December 2018. The hearing was adjourned,
and further information was filed in early 2019. The hearing was formally
closed on 15 April 2019.
18. A resource consent was
granted on 21 May 2019 and appealed to the Environment Court in June
2019.
19. Court
assisted mediation took place over several months. As part of the
mediation between the parties to the appeal, expert arborists
and ecologists took part in an expert conference:
· Ecologists
Joint Witness Statement 26 July 2019
· Arborists
Joint Witness Statement 22 August 2019
· Arborists
and Ecologists Joint Witness Statement 28 August 2019
20. The Arborists Joint Witness
Statement 22 August 2019 visually assessed 17 trees within the stand and
recorded agreement among the experts that:
· tree
numbers had reduced from an estimated 700 in 1988 to 177 standing,
live trees.
· as
tree density reduces to the extent that remaining live trees lose
the protection
afforded by other trees, the remaining
trees have an increased likelihood of failure.
· there
are five types of targets that could potentially be affected by trees if they
were to fall in an uncontrolled way:
o 10
dwellings/studios on West View Road.
o key
infrastructure, including wastewater sewer, footbridge,
powerlines and
o zoo
fence.
o other
structures, e.g. fences, walls, garden sheds, zoo buildings, stadium
o grandstand and
stormwater pipes.
o anywhere
people may be present including backyards, in the forest (on and off track),
stadium open space and depot area.
o the native understorey.
21. They
agree that:
· some
trees need to be removed.
· further
assessment of many trees through the stand is required, in addition to further
assessment of some of the 177 trees.
· natural
attrition and tree failure are likely to continue within the stand.
· canopy
health of some trees is likely to deteriorate and the extent to which this
occurs depends on the timeframe.
22. Some key aspects of
the Ecologists Joint Witness Statement 26 July 2019 and the Arborists and
Ecologists Joint Witness Statement 28 August 2019 as they relate to full
stand removal are listed below:
· Whole
stand removal will provide greater certainty of ecological outcomes through
management.
· The
adverse effects caused by whole stand removal will be “short-lived”
and will allow rapid growth of native vegetation and faster transition to a
native forest ecosystem.
· Against
these advantages, the ecologists also agreed, however, that whole stand removal
would cause a high magnitude of disturbance and that the sudden transition from
pine forest to high light/open shrubland could have consequences to the
fauna.
· It
should be noted that whilst the ecologists agreed on the substance of the
advantages and disadvantages of whole stand removal, they differed on the
weighting and significance of them.
· Agreement
that the consent conditions are appropriate.
23. As a result of the mediation,
the parties agreed to dispose of the appeal by consent and agreed that the
resource consent should be granted subject to strengthened conditions to avoid,
remedy, and mitigate any potential adverse effects.
24. On 27 September 2019, the
Environment Court formalised the settlement and ordered that the resource
consent was granted.
Events
following Environment Court settlement
25. In January 2020, the
Waitematā Local Board requested that the decision to proceed with the
removal of the whole stand of pine trees under the resource consent be brought
before the local board.
26. Staff presented a report at the
local board business meeting on 17 March 2020, seeking approval to commence
work at the earliest opportunity to remove the pine trees and progress the restoration
project.
27. At that meeting the local board
resolved to:
a) endorse the objective of the Western Springs Native
Bush Restoration project to restore the area to native bush and achieve the
long-term aspiration of returning the area to native podocarp forest and
achieving improved habitat, ecological and ecosystem health at Western Springs
Lakeside Park.
b) acknowledge council’s obligations under the
Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 for the safety of council staff, contractors
and members of the public entering the area around the pines and note the
concerns relating to the safety of the pines.
c) note the views of the community, including the
petition received, mana whenua, key stakeholders and the advice provided in
relation to the removal of the whole stand of pine trees at Western Springs
Lakeside Park.
d) agree to delay the implementation of the resource
consent.
e) request staff to report to the local board on
alternate methods for tree felling including tree sectioning.
Resolution
numbers WTM/2020/50 and WTM/2020/53
28. Although progress in response
to the March resolution was delayed by the first COVID 19 lockdown,
council staff provided a summary of the various methodologies available for
removal of the pines at a workshop on 23 July 2020 and began preparing a
report for the 18 August 2020 business meeting.
29. On 7 August
2020, following a request from the Friends of Western Springs Forest
(FoWSF), a decision was taken by the Chair to delay the report until the
September business meeting.
30. Following a meeting on 7
September 2020 between staff, local board members and members of the
community (including members of the FoWSF) council
staff considered that additional information on the staged
or selected removal of pines would better enable the Waitematā
Local Board to fairly assess the advantages and disadvantages of each
reasonably practicable option.
31. Accordingly, the board, in
consultation with staff, asked for a further report assessing the risk of
all pine trees and exploring the alternative options to full
stand removal, including staged or select removal.
32. The board advised staff
that the local board was seeking to achieve the following objectives in
relation to the forest:
a) To protect the existing ecology
b) To enable public access to the forest
c) To comply with health and safety obligations
33. Council staff subsequently
engaged the Tree Consultancy Company (TCC) to undertake an independent tree
risk assessment of the pines and to provide advice on what an option other than
full stand removal might look like.
34. TCC also commissioned reports
from:
a) Bioresearches (Babbage
Consultants) to provide an independent assessment of the proposed methods,
specifically with regard to the ecological values of the site, and impacts on
those ecological values by the management methods; and
b) Professor Rien Visser and
Campbell Harvey, University of Canterbury to advise on the “felling and
extraction that would meet the physical, ecological and social objectives of
the local board”.
35. TCC, Bioresearches and
Professor Visser were all provided with copies of previous reports on the
forest and were asked to consider these reports as part of
their review. Details of the information before each expert is set
out in the bibliographies of each of their reports.
Independent tree assessment
TCC Report
findings
36. Between 21 September
and 8 October 2020, TCC assessed each of the
198 standing pine trees in the Western Springs Forest using a
VALID tree risk-benefit assessment.
37. In completing their VALID risk
assessment of the
198 pine trees, TCC identified the formal walking
track and its occupants during normal operation as the main target. They
also considered that additional targets included private properties, zoo
structures (e.g. fences and buildings) and exposed wastewater
infrastructure.
38. A preliminary report was provided to the
local board at a workshop on 13 October 2020 and the local board
had an opportunity to ask Dr Andrew Benson and Mr Sean
McBride of TCC questions
on the preliminary report. The final report from
TCC was provided to the local board on 20 October 2020.
39. As stated in their final report, TCC
have (in accordance with VALID) assessed the current risk of the 198
trees as follows:
a) 141 ‘Acceptable’ risks (71%)
b) 6 ‘Tolerable’ risks (3%)
c) 50 ‘Not tolerable’ risks (25%)
d) 1 ‘Not acceptable’ risks (1%)
40. Council staff
have subsequently assessed TCC’s risk
findings against the Council Risk Framework. Please see the
risks and mitigations section below for a
discussion of this analysis.
Bioresearches report
41. Annabelle Coates of
Bioresearches undertook a site visit of the forest on 1 October 2020 and
provided a summary of the likely effects on the flora and fauna of full stand
removal in comparison with a staged or select removal approach (see
Bioresearches report at pages 6-8).
Professor Visser report
42. Professor Visser visited the site
on 24-25 September 2020 and provided a report on the
“felling and extraction that would meet the physical, ecological and
social objectives of the local board”.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
43. Since the last report to the local board (17 March 2020) council
staff have carefully considered the independent expert reports from the TCC,
Professor Visser and Bioresearches. Staff have also considered how each
option meets the local board's objectives, which are:
a) To
protect the existing ecology
b) To enable
access to the forest
c) To comply
with health and safety obligations
44. Council staff have identified four options for the local
board to consider:
· Option
One: Proceed with the consented works to remove all pine trees in the
stand using the lower impact methodologies identified by Professor
Visser to the extent possible within the existing resource
consent.
· Option
Two: Phased whole stand removal (dividing the stand into three
geographic areas and removing trees in 3 stages over number of
years).
· Option
Three: Select removal of only the 57 tolerable, not
tolerable and not acceptable risk trees.
· Option
Four: Keep the forest closed (removal of
1 ‘not acceptable’ tree).
Consideration of options
45. Table One below considers these four options and provides
a high-level comparative analysis of several impacts
and effects, including those described by TCC, Prof. Visser and
Bioresearches with a focus on the local board's three objectives:
|
Table 1: Summary of comparative analysis of
effects and impacts of options
|
|
|
Option 1
|
Option 2
|
Option 3
|
Option 4
|
|
|
Whole stand removal using low impact
forestry equipment to the extent possible within consent
|
Whole stand removal (dividing stand into three
geographic areas and removing trees in 3 stages
over several years)
|
Select removal of the 57 tolerable, not tolerable and not
acceptable risk trees with balance remaining
|
Keep forest closed (1 ‘not acceptable’
tree removed)
|
|
Ecology: potential mitigation required to protect understorey
|
Moderate
|
Low
|
Low
|
Low
|
|
Ecology: risks to fauna
|
Low
|
Low
|
Low
|
Low
|
|
Public access
|
Estimated public access by May 2021
Forest remains closed until works completed as per resource
consent.
|
Timing for full access ~4-5 years
Potential gradual access as the phases are completed.
Access contingent on further risk
assessment (e.g. after trees removed and following extreme weather
events).
|
Estimated public access by May 2022
Enabled with mitigations once 57 trees removed (possible
future periodic closure).
Access contingent on further risk assessment (e.g. after
trees removed and following extreme weather events)
Future closures may be required.
|
Full access may not be likely for ~10 years
Access for weeding or maintenance work require risk
assessment and health and safety mitigations to reduce risk to
acceptable level
|
|
Summary Risk Rating (See table)
|
Low
|
High
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
|
Resource consent
|
Consented
|
Not consented – new notified consent
required
(consent time est. minimum 11 months)
|
Not consented - likely variation to
existing consent required
(consent time est. minimum 6 months)
Further consents may be required later based on tree assessments and
risks. These may require LDI funding as they will be unbudgeted.
|
Not consented
- Non notified resource consent to remove single
tree required
|
|
Cost (includes existing consent costs)
|
$1,156,898
|
$1,476,300- $1,626,300
The one-off future costs exceed the current budget and LDI
funding may be required.
|
$1,262,000
There will be an annual shortfall of $13,000. This can be funded from
the arboricultural regional budget. Unexpected legal fees may
require LDI funding.
|
$408,200
|
|
Aesthetics/ Amenity
|
High initial impact
|
High impact at each stage but spread over stages
|
Moderate
|
Low
|
|
Delivery of native bush restoration
|
Yes
|
Over time
|
Potentially over time
|
No
|
Option 1: Whole stand removal (in one stage through consented works)
46. This option involves proceeding with the consented works
to remove all pine trees in the stand to deliver the Western Springs
Native Bush Restoration Project using the lower impact methodologies
identified by Professor Visser to the extent possible within
the existing resource consent.
47. Advantages:
a) As noted by Bioresearches, the overall level of
ecological effects for whole stand removal, staged removal and select removal
is low.1
b) The option eliminates the health and
safety risks to people and property associated with the pine
trees.
c) This option is consented and the
consent will allow changes to the type of machinery used
to extract the trees from site and if deemed
necessary, a modified alignment of the access
track. Staff can work closely with the
council’s regulatory monitoring team to ensure that a variation
to the consent is not required.
d) It allows for the consented works to happen
during the current financial year.
e) It enables public access to the forest in a
timely manner.
f) Following the works, native
replanting can occur allowing for the completion of the Western
Springs Native Bush Restoration Project in a timely manner. This
aligns with the original objective of the 1995 Western Springs Management
Plan.
g) Weed and animal control can occur following completion
of works and throughout the site.
h) The cost is relatively
predictable and largely budgeted for.
48. Disadvantages:
a) The magnitude of effect on vegetation is high
and the overall effect on the vegetation will be
“moderate” as compared to “low”.2
b) The amenity/visual impact of the tree removal
would be immediate and significant.
c) High initial cost.
Option 2: Whole stand, staged removal over three zoned
phases
49. This option involves full stand removal in three
stages by dividing the stand into three felling zones as per Professor
Visser’s proposal. The felling of trees would be in three stages
phased over an estimated 4-5 years.
50. Advantages:
a) If there is three or more months between stages, the
impact on the vegetation will be moderate.3
b) If the planted vegetation is of different ages this
may buffer against effects of climatic disturbance, such as drought.4
c) Ultimately results in complete removal of all the pine
trees, and health and safety risk posed by trees will be
eliminated at the completion of the three stages. The risks will
be able to be gradually reduced and eliminated and zones may be
opened if the phases can be fenced off.
d) Native replanting can occur in the completed
stages allowing for the completion of the Western Springs Native
Bush Restoration Project.
e) Costs can be spread
over several financial years.
f) The amenity/visual impact of the tree removal
would more gradual and therefore not be as immediate as option 1.
51. Disadvantages:
a) As stated by Bioresearches, while the
“[f]auna will continue to utilise unimpacted vegetation [it] will
still be displaced when it is cleared. Potentially displaced multiple
times.”5
b) Based on the expert advice from Bioresearches this
option will not reduce the overall level of ecological effects.6
c) Every entry will result in further soil and native
vegetation disturbance.7
d) This option will increase the risk of
windfall, as new edge trees will be exposed to wind.8
e) The identified risks will remain for a longer
period and until the three phases are completed. This means ongoing risk
management measures and assessments will be required.
f) Given the dispersed locations of
the 57 tolerable, not tolerable
and not acceptable risk trees, the
forest could only be gradually opened by
zone once all trees within that zone are
felled and could not be fully reopened to public
access until the three stages are complete.
g) Due to the potential for changes in the adverse
effects, and the extension of the scope of the existing consent, this option
would require a new notified resource consent enabling the removals
to take place in a staged manner. This process
would likely take a significant amount of time, could result in
an appeal(s) to the Environment Court and could add further
substantial costs (~$400k).
Option 3: Select removal of 57 trees only
52. Option 3: select removal, involves the select
removal of the 57 tolerable, not tolerable
and not acceptable risk trees only.
53. Advantages:
a) The ecological impact on the flora and
fauna is assessed as low.
b) The amenity/visual impact of the tree removal will not
be as immediately significant as for options 1 and 2.
c) There is reduced risk due to removal of trees
identified as higher risk (i.e. not acceptable, not tolerable,
tolerable).
d) Subject to regular and ongoing monitoring and expert assessment
after storm events or other significant changes to forest, public
access on the track through
forest returned after 57 trees removed.
54. Disadvantages:
a) Remaining trees may fall over naturally and may
damage existing native understorey. 9
b) If further trees need to be removed periodically, each
extraction will likely impact the soil and understorey.10
c) After removal of the 57 trees,
there is significant uncertainty about risks in the
remaining trees due to new wind exposure and the potential uncertainty
with human behaviour. Therefore, ongoing specialist investigations and
risk assessments will be required after 57 trees removed and after storm events
or significant changes to the environment before permitting any access. There
may be unbudgeted costs associated with these ongoing assessments and/or
forest closures that may require LDI funding.
d) This
option will likely require a notified variation to the
existing resource consent. This process would likely be
less timely and costly than the process for the initial
consent and the process for obtaining a new consent for option
2. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty about
timing and cost of a variation process.
e) Where further pine tree removals are
required in future, these may require additional
consents and may result in unbudgeted costs that may require LDI
funding.
f) As noted by Bioresearches,
“[u]ltimate time period for establishing native
canopy much longer due to lack of access.”11, therefore this option will delay the
delivery of the Native Bush Restoration Project.
g) Access
to the rest of the forest will be limited and contingent on risk assessments
being undertaken and suitable mitigation measures and reasonably practicable
steps to reduce the risks to an acceptable level. If no access can be granted
for pest and weed control, then there is the “potential for weeds to
overtake native vegetation in parts”.12
h) Unless
access to the forest can be granted for planting, then the “Ultimate time
period for establishing native canopy much longer, potentially decades, due to
lack of access”13
this option will significantly delay the delivery of the Native Bush
Restoration Project.
Option 4: Keep forest closed (removal of 1 ‘not
acceptable’ tree)
55. Option 4 involves the select removal of only the 1 tree
identified by TCC as “not acceptable”, with continued forest
closure.
56. This option may also require the identification
and the removal of further trees along the perimeter (or
elsewhere within the stand) to ensure protection of other
targets including the zoo.
57. Advantages:
a) Understorey will be mostly
maintained, and there will be lower impacts on flora and
fauna.
b) Option
with the least impact on the amenity/visual value of the pine
trees.
c) Low
cost to remove one tree only.
d) Any consenting costs are
likely to be minimal.
58. Disadvantages:
a) Council may need to remove any trees at the perimeter
of the forest which pose a “tolerable” or “not tolerable”
risk.
b) This option will not enable public access to
the pine stand while the stand remains closed.
c) Access will be limited and contingent
on risk assessments being undertaken and suitable mitigation measures and
reasonably practicable steps to reduce the risks to an acceptable
level. If no access can be granted for pest and weed control, then there
is the “potential for weeds to overtake native vegetation in
parts”.14
d) Unless
access to the forest can be granted for planting, then the “Ultimate time
period for establishing native canopy much longer, potentially decades, due to
lack of access”15 and this
option will significantly delay the delivery of the Native Bush Restoration
Project.
Recommended
option/s
59. Staff do not recommend options two and four. This is
because:
a) The costs and delay associated with option two are not
outweighed by the additional benefits of this option.
b) Option four does not meet the board’s
objective of enabling public access to the forest.
60. The advantage of option one is that it enables public
access, removes the health and safety risk and there is a high degree
of certainty around costs and consenting. Against that, the overall effect
on the vegetation will be “moderate” as compared to “low”.
We also know that members of the community do not support this option.
61. The advantage of option three is that it enables public
access to the path, the ecological impact on the flora and fauna is assessed as
low and the option may be viewed by the local community as a more
measured response to the risk posed by the trees. However, the
methodology for these removals has not been fully developed and council will
likely need to obtain a variation to the existing consent which may add
further time and cost to the process. The ongoing assessments and
potential subsequent removal of trees required under this option will also
add costs on an ongoing basis. There is also the potential for future park
closures which will impact on public access.
62. Having considered all of these matters, based on the summary risk
rating, which considers health, safety and wellbeing, community impact,
ecological and environmental, legal and financial
risk, staff recommend option one.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
63. Auckland is currently in drought. On 1 September 2020, Gavin
Donaldson (Council Arborist) observed the following since his earlier
assessment of the forest on 14 and 15 August 2019:
There appears to have been an increase in dead trees
throughout the stand, particularly at the stadium end and adjacent to the
properties that back onto West View Road. There has been some ongoing storm
damage failure of live branches and thinning of the crowns on live trees
throughout the stand. Overall, my impression is that the stand has an increase
in standing dead trees from a year ago, and the crowns of the live trees have
a more sparse appearance with an increase in deadwood and branch
die-back.
64. It is also relevant that TCC have noted the following in their
report:16
… the
underlying physiology of the pine trees (isohydricity) as well as their
increasing height (hydraulic limitation to growth) are working in tandem to
create a chronic condition which will continue to inhibit the natural processes
associated with growth. Some have referred to this as a ‘mortality
spiral’ (Manion, 1981). As the trees continue to age, and as water
availability decreases (e.g. increasingly prolonged periods of drought),
increasing numbers of trees will decline.
65. The Western Springs Native Bush Restoration Project will remove a
stand of mature, senescening pine trees and replace them with a
diverse mixture of native species, ultimately leading to a podocarp-broadleaf
forest with native understorey.
66. The following information relating to the project’s impact on
emissions (climate change mitigation) has been summarised from advice provided
by council’s ecological expert in the consent mediation process. This
highlighted that:
a) mature pine trees are known to store a lot of carbon
but sequester relatively little
b) atmospheric carbon – only enough to maintain
metabolic processes. Once felled, the stored carbon from roots will mostly
enter the soil carbon pool through decomposition
c) where logs /trees are left to decay, most of the
stored carbon will be very slowly
released
back to the atmosphere, again through the decomposition process
d) the native species used in the restoration planting
will sequester nominal amounts of carbon for the first ten years or so, but
over the medium term (30-40 years) the amount of carbon stored in native
species can exceed that stored in Pinus radiata.
67. New Zealand research suggests that areas planted in native species
such as manuka, kanuka, karamu and kohuhu could sequester 200 tons of
carbon per hectare of planting over a 20-year period. Western Springs forest
area is approximately 3.2 hectares so could potentially sequester approximately
620 tons of carbon over 20 years.
68. This project also contributes to Auckland’s Urban Ngahere
Strategy, and the native forest will provide several additional ecosystem
services including improving air and water quality, reducing the impact of the
urban heat island effect, and providing habitat for native fauna.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
69. Auckland Zoo, Auckland Stadiums, the Museum for Transport and
Technology (MOTAT) and Auckland Council’s Parks Sport and Recreation Department were consulted
before, during and after the resource consent process
and were supportive of the removal of the pine trees and subsequent
restoration of the native forest.
70. Auckland Zoo, Auckland Stadiums and MOTAT all have
representatives on the Western Springs Community Liaison Group.
71. Auckland Zoo have, for some time, indicated concerns
around pine trees adjacent to parts of their property and
the risk to their staff, animals, infrastructure
and fencing/biosecurity.
72. They have also expressed considerable interest in being able to
contribute to native biodiversity enhancement and
monitoring within the forest as well
as the opportunities to engage with the local community,
schools and volunteers, once it is safe to carry out restoration works
in the forest.
73. Auckland Zoo and Western Springs Stadium have been kept up to
date with developments as they occur through
direct communications and the Community Liaison Group.
74. Both the zoo and stadium were advised of the independent tree
assessment work being undertaken, by email on
14 October 2020. A copy of the preliminary TCC report was
included in the email.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
75. The
Western Springs Native Bush Restoration project was consulted on as part of the
development of the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan, as a priority project of the local
board. Consultation was undertaken between 23 January 2015 to 16 March
2015.
76. In
general, there was strong support for environmental projects, which included
the Western Springs Native Bush Restoration project. Of the 73 responses
received, 89 percent supported the Western Springs proposal.
77. Council
subsequently engaged with the community, mana whenua and key stakeholders
in
the
following ways:
· presentation of the
project at Mana Whenua Parks Forum in November 2017
· discussions with MOTAT,
Auckland Zoo and Western Springs Stadium in December 2017
· project information
listed on Our Auckland and Facebook in April 2018
· a letter outlining the
project, including frequently asked questions, was delivered to all immediate
neighbours in April 2018.
78. Auckland
Zoo, Auckland Stadiums and MOTAT were all supportive of the consented,
full stand removal of the pine trees and subsequent restoration of
native forest.
79. Further
engagement with the public was undertaken through the publicly notified
resource consent application in 2018 and 2019. There were 46 individual
responses from the public on the resource consent application. 41
responses opposed the removal of the pine trees; two supported the
removal of the pine trees; two partially supported the removal of the pine
trees and one response was neutral.
80. The Tree
Council’s (a non-profit organisation that aims to protect, conserve and
improve the tree cover in the Auckland region) support for the project has been
public since their submission on the consent application back
in 2018:
· they are
supportive of the pine removal and the restoration project
· they
consider the consenting process delivered a more protective methodology for
removal that will have a far less damaging impact on the understorey than the
original proposal
· they
have expressed concerns that the longer time goes on before the removal of the
pines is completed, the more weed and pest infestation there will be into the
understorey that will compromise its ecological values.
81. The local
board has heard the views of part of the community represented by the Society
for Protection of Western Springs Forest Incorporated and Friends of Western
Springs Forest through public input, presentations, deputations
and direct correspondence. Those groups do not support whole stand removal
and prefer selective removal of pines only where necessary,
and believe that the project should be ecologically led.
82. A meeting
was held on 1 October 2020 between the local board and immediate residents and
members of the community who had not previously shared their views with the
local board. These participants expressed views which were consistent
with the local board’s objectives.
83. In
addition to the feedback provided by Aucklanders at the meetings with the local
board, the following feedback has been recently been provided:
a) One immediate resident provided written feedback but
did not attend the meeting. The resident expressed support
for the removal of the pine trees for public safety,
however also noted their concern about the impact of the
project on nearby residents.
b) The local board and / or
council staff received around five emails from Aucklanders, on
behalf of ‘Wendy and the Friends of Western Springs
Forest’, expressing support for the forest and Western
Springs to become a location for University research and
education. These Aucklanders also requested a baseline
study of the native understorey before any future tree removal
work.
c) One email was sent to the westernsprings inbox by an
Aucklander who opposed the removal of any pine trees due to
cost.
84. Specific consultation has
not been undertaken in respect of each
of the detailed options outlined above, which have
been developed based on the technical advice from
experts regarding the risks posed by the trees and the ecological impacts
of various methods of tree removal. However, through the
community engagement outlined above, the local board has
obtained information
regarding the views and preferences of those
interested in or affected by any decision in relation to
the pine stand. In this respect it is noted that members of the
community generally:
a) Value the pine stand and do not want pine trees to be
removed where such removals are not necessary;
b) Value public access to the forest;
c) Value the existing native understorey and want to
protect that understorey and the unique ecology of the site;
d) Value the contribution the pines make to the visual
amenity of the area.
85. These
views and preferences must be considered by elected members in the course
of their decision-making process.
86. The potential
for impacts on residents of the consented works, particularly the
potential impacts of noise and vibration during the tree removal works, have
been recognised and addressed through the resource consent conditions.
Mitigation measures are set out in the Construction Noise and Vibration
Management Plan which forms part of the approved resource consent
documentation.
Public communication plan and community
engagement
87. If the
local board proceeds with the recommended option (Option 1) the following
engagement plan will be followed:
a) A dedicated webpage for the project will be
established on Auckland Council’s website. This will contain daily
project information for the initial part of the works and thereafter on a
weekly basis. It will also include access to all the updated plans.
b) Prior to the works commencing, an email database of
submitters, interested stakeholders and residents will be established and
notifications and project updates will be sent daily for the initial part of
the works and thereafter weekly.
c) A community liaison contact will be a readily
accessible point of contact and available from 8am to 8pm on each workday for
the duration of the project.
d) There will be letter drops to residents prior to the
commencement of works.
88. As
options 2 and 3 will require a resource consent variation or a new resource
consent, further community engagement may take place through this
process.
89. The
dedicated webpage for the project will continue to provide relevant updates to the
community.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
90. In
November 2017 council presented the Western Springs Native Bush
Restoration project at the Mana Whenua Parks Forum.
91. Representatives
of six iwi attended the hui and supported the proposal to remove the pines and
restore the area to native bush.
92. In June
2018, project information was sent to nine iwi who were not able to attend the
original hui. Seven iwi responded that either they supported the
project or deferred to another iwi. Two iwi did not attend the hui or
respond to the June 2018 letter.
93. A meeting
with representatives
from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei,
the Waitematā Local Board and key council officers
was initially planned for August 2020. This was postponed due to
COVID 19 Alert Level 3 and rescheduled. At the request
of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, the meeting
was further postponed until the results of the independent assessment
of the pine trees had been received for 29 October 2020.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
94. The
financial implications of each option are described below.
95. Option
1:
a) The overall project budget of existing consented
works was estimated at $760,000, including contingency.
b) This will be fully funded from Community
Facilities’ regional arboriculture budget and will be included as a line
item in the local board’s work programme but will not impact their work
programme budget.
Option 2:
a) Option 2 would require a new notified
resource consent. This process could result in an appeal(s) to the
Environment Court and could add further substantial costs. A
conservative estimate of between $100,000 - $250,000 has
been applied to this high-level costing.
b) The one-off future costs of Option 2 exceed the regional
budget by between $236,000-$386,300. $45,000 can be funded from the
arboriculture regional budget.
c) An additional estimated $191,000- $341,300
would need to be sourced from LDI funding for this option.
d) Existing signage and fencing would be utilised.
Option 3:
a) Option 3 would likely require a variation to
the existing resource consent. Depending on its complexity
this variation is estimated to cost $100,000. This
estimate would be covered by the existing budget, however additional potentially
substantial costs incurred in
the event of an appeal(s) to the Environment
Court would be unbudgeted and may
require LDI funding.
b) The conditions of the consent including consultant
services and community liaison group chair are estimated and based on
historical cost.
c) The ongoing annual costs
estimated will be partly covered by Community
Facilities’ budget, with an annual shortfall of $13,000 and which
would be met by the arboriculture regional budget.
d) Future costs of potential subsequent risk assessments,
resource consents for further tree removals and the cost of forest closures are
highly uncertain and therefore add risk. The costs may be high, may not be
budgeted for and may require LDI funding.
e) Existing signage would be utilised.
Option 4:
a) Ongoing costs over 15 years will be covered
by Community
Facilities’ budget and an annual shortfall of
$10,000 will be covered by the regional arboriculture budget.
b) Existing signage and fencing would be utilised.
Table Three below provides an
estimated high-level cost breakdown for
the four options:
|
Description Previous
costings of existing consented works
|
Estimated cost
|
|
Consent (sunk
cost)
|
$400,000
|
|
This cost does not
include costs for hearings, mediation, expert witnesses etc
|
|
|
Conditions of consent
including consultant services, and community liaison group chair
|
$250,000
|
|
Arboricultural contractor
|
$370,000
|
|
Restoration –
plants and planting
|
$80,000
|
|
Contingency (AC usually
considers 10% total project costs)
|
$70,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$1,170,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option 1
:Description Whole
stand removal (UC consented works)
|
Estimated cost
|
|
Consent (sunk
cost)
|
$400,000
|
|
This cost does not
include costs for hearings, mediation, expert witnesses etc
|
|
|
Conditions of consent
including consultant services, and community liaison group chair (estimated
based on historical cost)
|
$250,000
|
|
Forestry contractor
including extraction equipment
|
$436,898
|
|
Restoration –
plants and planting and maintenance of forest 15 years
|
$80,000
|
|
Contingency
|
$70,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$1,236,898
|
|
|
|
|
For option 1, the one-off
costs are estimated at $1,156,898 and $80,000 ongoing costs over 15
years (roughly $5.5k per annum).
|
|
|
|
The ongoing annual costs
estimated will be covered by BAU budget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option 2: Description
Phase removal in 3 stages Whole stand removal (dividing the stand into three geographic
areas and removing trees in 3 stages over number of years)
|
Estimated cost
|
|
Consent (sunk
cost)
|
$400,000
|
|
This cost does not
include costs for hearings, mediation, expert witnesses etc
|
|
|
Conditions of consent
including consultant services, and community liaison group chair (estimated
based on historical cost)
|
$250,000
|
|
New Consent (Estimated
based on dependent on complexity of consent)
|
$100-250,000
|
|
Forest contractor 3
stage removal as identified in the UC Harvest Plan, where each zone is fully
completed.
|
|
|
Year 1 Felling Zone
1
|
$156,000
|
|
Year 2 Felling Zone
2
|
$249,900
|
|
Year 3 Felling Zone
3
|
$169,000
|
|
Total
|
$574,900
|
|
Restoration –
plants and planting and maintenance of forest 15 years
|
$80,000
|
|
Contingency
|
$71,400
|
|
TOTAL
|
$1,476,300-
$1,626,300
|
|
|
|
|
For option 2, the one-off
costs are estimated at $1,476,300 - $1,626,300 and $80,000 ongoing costs over
15 years (roughly $5.5k per annum).
|
|
The one-off future costs
exceed the current budget of $760,000 by $236,300 - $386,300.
|
|
$45,000 can be funded
from the arboriculture regional budget. The remaining costs of between
$191,300-$341,300 will need to be sourced from LDI funding.
|
|
The ongoing annual costs
estimated will be covered by BAU budget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description: Option 3
Select Removal Select
removal of the 57 tolerable, not tolerable and not acceptable risk trees with
balance remaining.
|
Estimated cost
|
|
Consent (sunk
cost)
|
$400,000
|
|
This cost does not
include costs for hearings, mediation, expert witnesses etc
|
|
|
Conditions of consent
including consultant services, and community liaison group chair (estimated
based on historical cost)
|
$250,000
|
|
Variation to existing
consent (Estimated based on dependent on complexity of variation)
|
$100,000
|
|
Arboricultural contractor;
includes forestry extraction equipment
|
$160,000
|
|
Select removal of
estimated 10 trees for removal per annum (for 15 year period)
|
$141,000
|
|
Reinspection program
(after weather events and at 12 month intervals for 15
year period)
|
$61,000
|
|
Restoration –
plants and planting and maintenance of forest 15 years
|
$80,000
|
|
Contingency
|
$70,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$1,262,000
|
|
|
|
|
For option 3, the one-off
costs are estimated at $980,000 and $282,000 ongoing costs over 15 years
(roughly $18.5k per annum).
|
|
The one-off future costs
of $580,000 is within the current budget of $760,000.
|
|
The ongoing annual costs
estimated will be partly covered by BAU budget, with an annual shortfall of
$13,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description: Option
4 Keep forest
closed (1 ‘not acceptable’ tree removed)
|
Estimated cost
|
|
Consent (sunk
cost)
|
$400,000
|
|
This cost does not
include costs for hearings, mediation, expert witnesses etc
|
|
|
Conditions of consent
including consultant services, and community liaison group chair
|
Not required
|
|
Select removal of
estimated 10 trees for removal per annum (for 15 year period)
|
$141,000
|
|
Restoration –
plants and planting and maintenance of forest 15 years
|
$80,000
|
|
Contingency
|
Not
applicable
|
|
TOTAL
|
$408,200
|
|
|
|
|
For option 4, the one-off
costs are estimated at $400,000 and $221,000 ongoing costs over 15 years
(roughly $15k per annum).
|
|
The ongoing annual costs
estimated will be partly covered by BAU budget, with an annual shortfall of
$10,000.
|
|
Existing signage and fencing
may be utilised.
|
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
96. Council
as the owner of the land, is the risk owner and is responsible
for managing the risks identified as well as following and implementing council’s approach
to risk management.
97. The risk
team have considered the tree risk assessment information and advice provided
by TCC in the context of council’s risk framework and
approach to managing risks generally and in relation to health and safety
risks and assessed the risks based on the council’s impact
thresholds and appetite for the relevant risk categories.
98. There
are several categories of risks to council that are relevant to the
options including:
· customer
and community experience (restricted or no access to western springs
forest)
· financial
· environmental
· regulatory and
legal
· health,
safety and wellbeing.
99. Evaluation
of the risks has been completed taking account of:
· The tree
risk assessment information in the report provided by TCC, which includes
inherent risks of tree failure and the probability/likelihood of harm to a
person.
· The most
likely outcome/impact scenarios for each option based on the wider impacts
under the enterprise risk framework.
· The
inherent and residual risks for each option with reasonably practicable steps
to mitigate the risk.
· Auckland
Council’s risk appetite statements (contained in the enterprise risk
framework).
· Council’s
duty of care to the public to manage risk and legal compliance obligations
relating to health and safety of the public, council staff and
contractors.
Application of the VALID
tree risk assessment outputs to enterprise risk
100. The advice contained
in the TCC report on the risk of individual trees and overall risk ratings has
been assessed and concluded independently by qualified tree risk assessors
using the VALID assessment methodology.
101. The methodology used
is recognised as being in line with ISO 31000 Risk Assessment Standards and a
methodology that is recognised by the tree management sector for assessing tree
risk.
102. This expert
assessment and advice on the extent of the risks is considered robust and is
accepted. All relevant matters for tree risk assessment have been
factored into the assessment and resulted in the risk “output” or
conclusion of acceptable, tolerable, not tolerable or not acceptable.
103. The definition
of the four categories of risk are:
a) Acceptable risks – tree risks are
assessed to be at a level that do not need to be reduced based on VALID
methodology.
b) Tolerable risks – tree risks are
assessed to be at a level where there is a current residual risk
of harm but the risks do not need to be reduced. An increased
frequency of assessment is recommended.
c) Not tolerable risks – the risks are
not as low as tolerable risks and the duty holder needs to reduce the risk to
acceptable level.
d) Not acceptable is defined in the VALID
methodology as “a risk that needs to be reduced to an acceptable
level.” These must be removed first as highest priority as they
are the highest risk.
Enterprise Risk
Assessment
104. The recent findings
of the Trisha Butterworth inquiry by Coroner Bains involving Ms
Butterworth’s death due to a tree failure reinforces the obligations on
councils to ensure that the management of public health and safety risks should
be an overriding concern.
105. Council has set
general appetite statements which includes an appetite statement for health and
safety risks. This is intended to guide decisions relating to health and
safety risks. Council is not willing to accept risks that may result in
death or injury and must take all reasonably practicable steps to eliminate or
reduce health and safety risks. This means that the outputs from the VALID
assessment by TCC that have identified trees that are
“tolerable, or not tolerable or unacceptable” are
a risk that are beyond council’s appetite and all reasonably practicable
steps must be taken.
106. If a member of the
public or property was harmed due to tree failure, the legal test of
whether council has met its obligations is
different depending on if a claim is made in negligence or
under the Health and Safety at Work Act. However, in practice the
question would be: has council taken all reasonable steps to manage
the risks or eliminate the risks to health and safety, taking into
account the known information including the independent TCC assessment
outcomes?
107. TCC has advised that
the trees assessed as “not tolerable” and
“not acceptable” require action to reduce the risk.
These risks are therefore outside council’s tolerance and
it considers that all reasonably practicable steps should be taken to eliminate
the risk.
108. On the face of the
TCC outputs, the trees that have been assessed by TCC as
“tolerable” could potentially be left if council determines it
is willing to undertake mitigations such as stringent monitoring and signage to
manage the risk.
109. However, risk
management measures such as further risk assessment and ongoing expert
monitoring, and administrative controls such as warning signs would not
eliminate the risk. Due to the evolving and uncertain status of the risks
and continued decline of the forest further assessment may determine that the
tolerable risk trees may also need to be removed to effectively mitigate the
known risks.
110. The advice from TCC
is that the potential future risk of the tolerable trees is uncertain
and may adversely change due to the removal of some of the trees. Further risk
assessment of the currently tolerable trees would therefore have to
be undertaken after the not tolerable and not acceptable risk trees
are removed to determine if access could be opened up to the
public.
111. On
balance, council staff consider that the trees assessed by TCC as
tolerable, not tolerable, and not acceptable all pose a real health
and safety risk to the public that should be if possible, eliminated or
mitigated so far as reasonably practicable.
112. Reasonably
practicable is defined in the Health and Safety at Work Act and
requires council to consider what can be done (i.e. what is possible
in the circumstances for ensuring health and safety) and whether it is
reasonable in the circumstances to do what is possible to eliminate the
risk.
113. A copy of
the enterprise risk assessment summary is in Attachment
A. A table summarising the key
risks identified and residual ratings for each risk
against each option is in Attachment A on page
10 and a heat map showing the inherent and residual ratings of the health
and safety risks for each option under consideration is on page 14.
114. Overall, and on
balance the risk assessment supports option 1 as the preferred
option.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
115. Following the local board’s decision
staff will take steps to implement that decision.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Attachment A - Western Springs Forest Enterprise Risk
Assessment of Options
|
27
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community
Facilities
Emma Mosely - Chief Risk Officer
|
|
Authorisers
|
Claudia Wyss - Director Customer
& Community Services
Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager
|
|
Waitematā
Local Board
03 November
2020
|
|
Adoption of the Waitematā Local
Board Plan 2020
File No.: CP2020/15752
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
adopt the final Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires that each local board
complete a local board plan for adoption every three years and uses the special
consultative procedure (SCP) to engage with their communities.
3. The
consultation period for the SCP ran from 13 July to 13 August 2020.
4. The
local board has considered all submissions and feedback received from the
consultation period. Substantive changes and minor edits for clarification are
proposed.
5. The
Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020, which includes
the proposed changes, is attached to this report.
6. Pending adoption of the plan photographs, maps
and other design features will be added for final publication.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Waitematā Local
Board:
a) adopt the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020 as set out in Attachment
A of the agenda report
b) delegate
authority to the Chair and/or other nominated member(s) of the Waitematā
Local Board to approve any minor edits
that may be necessary to the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020
prior to publication.
|
Horopaki
Context
7. The Local Government
(Auckland Council) Act 2009 states that each local board must:
· adopt
their local board plan by 31 October of the year following an election
· use
the special consultative procedure (SCP) to engage with their
communities.
8. Local
board plans are strategic documents developed every three years. They set a
direction for local boards and reflect community priorities and preferences. They provide a guide for local board activity, funding and
investment decisions. They also influence local board input into regional
strategies and plans, including annual budgets.
9. The
plans inform the development of the council’s 10-year budget. They also
form the basis for development of the annual local board agreement for the
following three financial years and subsequent work programmes.
10. The
implementation of COVID-19 alert levels forced a delay to the consultation
period planned in June and July 2020 to be rescheduled to July and August 2020.
11. Every effort has been made to adopt the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020 in October, however the unavoidable change to
the dates of the consultation period has required a small extension of time.
This is to ensure the local board had sufficient time to consider the
submissions received.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Consideration of submissions and feedback
12. The
Waitematā Local Board has considered the
submissions and feedback received.
13. Public
feedback on the draft plan was positive. The majority of submitters were
supportive of the plan, its direction and themes covered.
14. Around
240 of the 331 pieces of feedback provided demographic information. Of those,
there was a high proportion of feedback from submitters younger than 25 years
old, which in some cases may have skewed the overall results. For
example, there was strong support to increase the focus on older children,
teenagers and young adults, as well as requests to include play equipment for
older children in local parks.
15. In
general, feedback received this year has shifted from being primarily from
Pakeha over 55 years of age, to represent a much more accurate reflection of
the community. This has meant an increase in Maori, Asian, Pasifika and youth
participation. As a result, there was strong support for diversity to be
reflected in the plan.
16. Views
were sought on whether the plan will help communities and local businesses
recover from the impact of COVID‐19. Overall, 53 per
cent felt the plan would help the community recover from the impact of COVID‐19, while 14 per cent did not. Key themes included:
· Support local
businesses financially and promote local businesses and buying local
· Invest in local
infrastructure to support businesses
· Create / promote
community initiatives and events
· Find other revenue
savings
17. The key feedback points, analysis and subsequent
proposed changes to the outcome chapters are outlined in Table 1 below.
Table
1: Substantive changes to the draft Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020
|
Key point of feedback
|
Analysis
|
Proposed
change
|
|
Council’s obligations are to support mana whenua interests
in the area.
|
The initiative in the draft plan is generic, “Work
alongside Māori to protect and support their interests and aspirations
for Waitematā”.
|
Move the initiative to under the objective, Develop and foster
authentic relationships with mana whenua”.
Amend the initiative to “Work alongside mana whenua to
protect and support their interests and aspirations for
Waitematā”.
|
|
There is a need to strengthen the emphasis on diversity.
|
The board has had a workshop on developing an Engagement
Strategy, which discussed the communities of focus to be included in the
plan.
|
Amend the wording in the “Being heard” section of
outcome two to align with the focus areas of the local boards draft
Engagement Strategy.
|
|
Feedback highlighted the impacts of light and noise pollution in
the city centre on residents.
|
The plan does not talk about these topics.
|
Add a challenge in outcome two: “Excessive light and noise
pollution diminish the quality of life for people living in the city
centre.”
|
|
BIDs have identified concerns of the increase in antisocial
behaviour and crime in certain areas.
|
The plan discusses safety in terms of transport and in public
spaces, however it does not discuss the increase in antisocial behaviour
which has increased since COVID-19.
|
Add a challenge in outcome three: “Community concerns
about safety and antisocial behaviour in public and green areas.”
|
|
Focus on older children and young adults
|
There is currently a large focus on families in the plan, but
does not specifically focus on older children, teenagers and young
adults.
There were also requests to include play equipment for older
children in local parks.
|
Amend the text in outcome two to specifically address teenagers
and young adults needing space to make connections.
Amend the initiative in outcome three to seek opportunities to
include equipment focused on older children and teenagers.
|
|
Concern that heritage is not a priority for the board.
|
There is an opportunity to highlight the different ways the
board can support heritage.
|
Add a new initiative: “Support the retention and adaptive
reuse of character and heritage buildings such as the renewal of Myers Park
and Albert Park cottages for community use.”
|
|
More focus on supporting businesses recover from the impacts of
COVID-19.
|
Outcome six "Prosperous Waitematā economy that is
sustainable and innovative" was not well supported in the feedback,
however the feedback largely supported initiatives that would help businesses
recover from the impact of COVID-19. This suggests that the title is
unclear and could be reworded to clearly focus on businesses.
|
Amend the title of outcome six to: "Waitematā
businesses are sustainable, innovative and prosperous"
|
18. Other minor changes to the plan which respond to
submissions include:
· terms
such as “tactical urbanism” and “co-design”
· mention
of the Hobson Bay pathway
· mention of the
Auckland Domain pathways
· recognising the anticipated
growth in families and youth in certain areas
· achieving climate
mitigation through championing the creation and identifying appropriate sites
for urban farms with the aim of these becoming self-sustaining and creating
local employment
· recognising the
legacy that trees can provide
· support towards the
housing first model
· mention of council's
newly adopted Climate Plan
· the renewal of Pt
Erin Pools in the promote active and healthy lifestyles initiative
· the ‘No
Mow’ project pilot in the text to support community initiatives to reach
environmental goals.
Changes to the Waitematā Local
Board Plan 2020
19. Staff recommend adopting the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020
(Attachment A) which incorporates the proposed substantive changes to the
outcome chapters as described in Table 1 and other minor changes.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
20. The
Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020 reflects the impacts of predicted climate
change.
21. The plan
includes specific objectives and initiatives within each of the six outcomes
including:
· ‘Te
tangata’ - tinana: Promote, progress and fund current and emerging
initiatives, programmes and groups who are actively committed to the
restoration, sustainability and protection of food sovereignty systems within
their communities
· Encourage
and support residents, businesses and schools to develop healthy, sustainable
and low carbon lifestyles
· Work
with our communities to develop resilience plans for the impacts of pandemics,
climate emergencies, and natural and man-made disasters
· Support
community-led projects for energy efficiency and reduced emissions such as the
Low Carbon Network
· Encourage
developments that provide a range of housing types that are healthy and
sustainable for current and future residents including family-friendly housing,
affordable housing, co-housing and papakāinga or whānau-oriented
housing.
· Support
business innovations, tools and resources that enable businesses to adopt low
carbon practices and thrive
· Support
local composting and grow a local low-carbon, resilient food production system
· Investigate
providing an Ecohub in the city centre to deliver climate action advice and
education
· Empower
our communities, schools and businesses to reduce their carbon footprint and
become more resilient to the impacts of climate change
· Advocate
for our fleet and buses to convert to electric vehicles, and reduce pollution
from shipping to improve air quality particularly in the city centre
· Develop
a detailed ‘Planting Opportunities List’ that will help to deliver
the goal of providing 30 per cent of tree canopy cover within the
Waitematā Local Board area by 2050
· Encourage
tree planting and retention in public and private land and support
community-led volunteer planting
· Advocate
for all infrastructure developments to have an outcome of more trees planted
· Encourage
events, communities and businesses to reduce, reuse and recycle and make
sustainable living choices
· Encourage
installation of amenities such as shelters, bike racks, charging stations,
drinking fountains, public toilets, showers, lockers and wayfinding signage
· Implement
the Waitematā Greenways Plan and extend the cycle network including a
greenway connection from Meola Road along William Denny Avenue through
Cox’s Bay to Jervois Road
· Advocate
for the implementation for a safe cycle network
· Encourage
and showcase business solutions towards better energy efficiency and resource
use, lower emissions, waste minimisation and sustainability
22. The
impact on the climate of the final plans has been considered. The final
publication will be an online document to minimise printing hard copies.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
23. The
adoption of the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020 will inform the
development of the council’s 10-year budget. It will also form the basis
for the development of the following three years’ work programmes.
24. Planning
and operational areas of the council have taken part in the development and
review of the draft and final plans.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
25. The local board’s views have informed the
development of the final Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020. Workshops were
held on 8 September and 13 October 2020 to discuss and consider feedback and
agree any changes.
26. In developing the plan, the Waitematā Local
Board considered:
· advice
from mana whenua and mataawaka
· what
is already known about our communities and what is important to them
· submissions
received via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post
· feedback
provided at engagement events and online through Facebook
· regional
strategies and policies
· staff
advice.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
27. In developing the plan, the Waitematā Local
Board:
· considered views and advice expressed by mana whenua and
mataawaka at a mana whenua online hui held on 15 July 2020
· considered
existing feedback from Māori with an interest in the local board area
· reviewed submissions received.
28. The Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020 promotes outcomes
or issues of importance to Māori by:
· Include a specific
outcome Māori are empowered, and their identity and culture is
visible
· Focus on four
objectives within the outcome, Māori are empowered, and their
identity and culture is visible including:
o Provide opportunities to
celebrate Māori heritage and culture
o Integrate Māori values and
sustainable practices into planning, decision-making and delivery
o Increased participation of iwi
and non-affiliated Māori in decision making
o Develop and foster authentic
relationships with mana whenua
· Include initiatives within the
remaining outcomes including:
o Ensure planning of new public
spaces consider Māori design principles and artwork.
o Encourage developments that
provide a range of housing types that are healthy and sustainable for current
and future residents including family-friendly housing, affordable housing,
co-housing and papakāinga or whānau-oriented housing.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
29. Budget to
implement initiatives and projects is confirmed through the annual plan
budgeting process. The local board plan informs this process.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
30. There is
a minor reputational risk associated with the adoption of the final
Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020. The process of consultation is likely to
have raised expectations of the local board being able to achieve particular
initiatives. As a result of the economic impact of COVID-19 and the
council’s significantly reduced budget, it may no longer be possible to
achieve all the priorities and aspirations that were identified in the draft
plan.
31. This will
be mitigated by clear communication of decision-making processes.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
32. Staff
recommend that responsibility for approving any minor edits following adoption
are delegated to the Chair and/or other nominated member(s) of the Waitematā
Local Board.
33. Photographs,
maps and other design features will be added to the plan for final publication.
This will be an online digital document that will be available in early 2021.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020
|
51
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Caroline Teh - Local Board Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager
|
