Agenda of Waitematā 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.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 October 2020 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 3 November 2020, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

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 Waitematā 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 Deputation - Iain McKenzie to speak to the Board regarding strategies around a Pest Free programme

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To speak to the board regarding strategies around a Pest Free programme in Waitematā.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Iain McKenzie – will be in attendance to speak to the board regarding strategies around a Pest Free programme in Waitematā.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Iain McKenzie for his attendance.

Attachments

a 17 November 2020 Waitematā Local Board - Depuation - Item 8.1 Iain McKenzie to speak to the board regarding strategies around a Pest Free programme in Waitematā, presentation.................................................................................................. 269

8.2 Deputation - Will McKenzie and Arvind Dali to speak to the Board about Active Transport on the Auckland Harbour Bridge

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To speak to the local board about Active Transport on the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Will McKenzie and Arvind Dali – will be in attendance to speak to the Board about Active Transport on the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Will McKenzie and Arvind Dali for their attendance.

Attachments

a 17 November 2020 Waitematā Local Board - Item 8.2 - Deputation - Will McKenzie and Arvind Dali to speak to the Board about Active Transport on the Auckland Harbour Bridge, presentation..................................................................................... 271

b 17 November 2020 Waitematā Local Board - Item 8.2 - Deputation - Will McKenzie and Arvind Dali to speak to the Board about Active Transport on the Auckland Harbour Bridge, pages from PLA............................................................................... 297

8.3 Deputation - Annie Coney and Daniel Minhinnick to speak to the Board about the proposed Erebus Memorial

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To speak to the board about the proposed National Erebus Memorial.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Annie Coney and Daniel Minhinnick will be in attendance to speak to the Board about the proposed Erebus Memorial.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Annie Coney and Daniel Minhinnick for their attendance.

8.4 Deputation - Rev. Dr Richard Waugh to speak to the Board about the proposed Erebus Memorial

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To speak to the board about the proposed National Erebus Memorial.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Rev. Dr. Richard Waugh will be in attendance to speak to the Board about the proposed National Erebus Memorial.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Rev. Dr. Richard Waugh for his attendance.

8.5 Deputation - Jo Malcolm to speak to the Board about the proposed Erebus Memorial

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To speak to the board about the proposed National Erebus Memorial.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Jo Malcolm will be in attendance to speak to the Board about the proposed National Erebus Memorial.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Jo Malcolm for her attendance.

8.6 Deputation - Ministry for Culture and Heritage to speak to the Board about the proposed Erebus Memorial

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To speak to the local board about the proposed National Erebus Memorial.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ministry for Culture and Heritage will be in attendance to speak to the Board about the proposed Erebus Memorial.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank the Ministry for Culture and Heritage for their attendance.

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.

9.1 Public Forum

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an opportunity for a member of the public to address the 15 September 2020 Waitematā Local Board meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Section 7.8 of the Waitematā Local Board’s set of Standing Orders provides for a member of the public to address a Waitematā Local Board meeting in its public forum section of the meeting.

3. Formal approval from the Chair is not required.

Time

4. A period of up to 30 minutes, or such other time as the local board or any of its committees may determine, will be set aside for a public forum at the commencement of meetings of the local board which are open to the public.

5. Each speaker during the public forum section of a meeting may speak for three minutes.

6. Standing orders may be suspended on a vote of not less than 75 per cent of those present to extend the period of public participation or the period any speaker is allowed to speak.

7. This Standing Order does not apply to inaugural meetings and, where not appropriate, extraordinary meetings or a special consultative procedure.

Subjects of public forum

8. The public forum is to be confined to those items falling within the scope or functions of that local board or committee. Speakers must not speak about a matter that is under judicial consideration or subject to a quasi-judicial process.

Questions of speakers during public forum

9. With the permission of the chairperson, members may ask questions of speakers during the period reserved for public forum. Questions by members, if permitted, are to be confined to obtaining information or clarification on matters raised by the speaker.

10. Members may not debate any matter raised during the public forum session that is not on the agenda for the meeting, or take any action in relation to it, other than through the usual procedures for extraordinary business if the matter is urgent.

11. The meeting may not make any resolution on issues raised in public forum except to refer the matter to a future meeting, or to another committee, or to the chief executive for investigation.

12. [Note: s 76 – 81, LGA 2002, regarding decision-making]

Language for speeches

13. A member of the public may address a meeting in English, Māori or New Zealand Sign Language. However, the person should advise the chairperson of their intention to speak in a language other than English at least two clear working days before the meeting.

14. Where practical, Auckland Council will arrange for a translator to be present at the meeting. The chairperson may also order the speech and any accompanying documents to be translated and printed in English or Māori or another language.

Chairperson’s discretion

15. The chairperson may:

· direct a speaker to a different committee if they consider this more appropriate, given the proposed subject matter

· prohibit a speaker from speaking if they are offensive, repetitious or vexatious, or otherwise breach these standing orders.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank all public forum speakers for their presentations and attendance at the meeting.

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 ⇩	Ward Councillor Pippa Coom report November 2017	13

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

Landowner approval for the National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park

File No.: CP2020/16839

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the landowner approval application for the proposed National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park, Parnell.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The proposed National Erebus memorial project is being sponsored and led by the Manutū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH). The purpose of the memorial is to commemorate the 257 passengers and crew who lost their lives in what remains New Zealand’s worst civil disaster.

3. Auckland City was identified by MCH as the appropriate location for the national memorial on the basis that the flight flew out of Auckland Airport and the large majority of New Zealand passengers were from Auckland.

4. Auckland Council in mid-2018 identified five potential sites for the proposed memorial and provided information on those sites to MCH.

5. In November 2018, prior to the design process being started by MCH, the Waitematā Local Board and Ngāti Whātua Orākei supported, subject to conditions, the location for the National Erebus Memorial. The board’s support (resolution WTM2018/176) was given on the basis that the proposed memorial design followed a rigorous design process which included a review of the short listed designs by the Auckland Urban Design Panel and, as a separate process, the Waitematā Local Board. Set park values and outcomes were also articulated by the board and included as part of the memorial design scope and used as criteria against which shortlisted designs were assessed by the board.

6. ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ was selected as the favoured design for the chosen location in April 2019. Auckland Council was not involved in this design process and does not have decision making authority over the design of the memorial.

7. ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ is a walkway design that projects out towards Judges Bay. It will provide a space for visitors to reflect and remember those who lost their lives in the accident and also accommodate a wide range of additional users and interpretations.

8. In September 2019, the local board resolved to undertake public consultation before making a decision on granting landowner approval. The public consultation process carried out in October 2019 has been collated and presented for the local board’s consideration.

9. The council consultation produced a total of 953 submissions from individual people or groups, with 58 of these submitting more than once. A petition was also received with 604 signatures opposing the proposed memorial, with approximately a third of these having made individual submissions as part of the council consultation.

10. The local board need to consider the impact of the proposed memorial on the park outcomes and values that the board agreed in November 2018.

11. The local board also needs to consider the views and preferences of those interested in, or affected by, the decision and must give due consideration to feedback received through the public consultation process.

12. Submissions have been collated to present the community views from the consultation. While more submitters felt that the memorial would impact negatively on their experience of Dove-Myer Robinson Park and reduce visitation, the feedback is more balanced when those who felt the memorial would have a positive impact and those who felt it made no difference to their experience or visitation, are considered together.

13. Following the granting of resource consent and an Archeological Authority earlier this year, MCH now require landowner approval from the Waitematā Local Board to progress this project.

14. In determining a staff recommendation for the landowner approval, the views of those interested in, or affected by, the decision, including residents and community members and the Erebus family members have been taken into account. Consideration has been given to all of the submissions received as well as the petition. Account has also been taken of the views of MCH in terms of their support for Dove-Myer Robinson as the preferred location for the memorial and all technical reports and information provided by MCH.

15. The proposal has been assessed as being consistent with the park outcomes and values established in the November 2018 business report and changes to the landscape at Dove-Myer Robinson are localised. The proposed siting of the memorial is therefore considered appropriate and will allow for commemoration of a significant event in New Zealand’s history.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) note the views of the community, family members where they have been expressed, Ngāti Whatua Orākei, the applicant, and the technical reports and advice provided in relation to the proposed National Erebus Memorial ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ at Dove-Myer Robinson Park.

b) approve the landowner approval application for the proposed National Erebus Memorial ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ at Dove-Myer Robinson Park.

Horopaki

Context

16. The proposed National Erebus Memorial project is being sponsored and led by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH). Its purpose is to:

· honour the lives of those who died in the Erebus disaster

· acknowledge the effect the event had on families and recovery personnel

· acknowledge significance of the event for New Zealand and New Zealanders

· provide a place of contemplation and interest for all park users.

17. The ministry selected Dove-Myer Robinson Park as the preferred location from a short list of five sites in central Auckland put forward by Auckland Council. Of particular importance in this decision was the preference expressed by many Erebus families that the memorial be located at a site that was tranquil, accessible and park like.

18. ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ was selected on advice from an expert panel as the preferred design from six shortlisted designs. The Prime Minster in consultation with the Mayor of Auckland endorsed the selection.

19. MCH originally submitted the landowner approval application in 2019 and the matter was due to come before the Local Board at the December 2019 business meeting. However, the application was withdrawn at MCH’s request whilst MCH obtained a resource consent for the Memorial and authorization from Heritage New Zealand.

20. Resource consent from Auckland Council (LUC60345670 (s9 land use consent)) and authorities from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (2021/061: R11/2681) have now been granted.

21. As part of the resource consent process under the Resource Management Act 1991, Auckland Council requested that an Independent Duty Commissioner give consideration as to whether the MCH consent application should be publicly notified. The Duty Commissioner (4 March 2020) determined the application could be considered without public notification on the basis, in part, that the adverse effects on the environment are no more than minor. The Duty Commissioner concluded in this regard that:

The proposal would introduce a new built element within a public reserve. It is modest when taken in the context of the reserve as a whole and would provide for additional recreation activities within the reserve, including by providing a vantage point for views over the harbour. It is sited well away from any sensitive receiver or neighbour and will not visually dominate the reserve. The majority of the adjacent open lawn would be retained. The use of the reserve to accommodate memorials or artworks is not unusual, and the existence of a number of such installations within the wider reserve is noteworthy. Because of all of the above, the introduction of this new memorial would not adversely detract from the existing character and amenity values of the park, or the wellbeing benefits it provides the community (including regular reserve users), in a way that would be beyond minor.

22. Now the necessary consents and authorities are in place, MCH is seeking landowner approval in order to proceed with the construction of the memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. The Waitematā Local Board has decision-making responsibility for landowner approval applications in local parks. As this is a landowner approval decision, the local board needs to consider the impact of the proposed memorial on the park (Attachments A and B).

23. The local board also needs to consider the views and preferences of those likely to be interested in, or affected by, this decision. This is in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. When considering feedback provided as part of the consultation, the local board must receive the feedback with an open mind and give that feedback due consideration when taking its decision.

The site

24. Dove-Myer Robinson Park, which incorporates Parnell Rose Garden, is located close to Auckland’s city centre on the edge of the Waitematā Harbour. The site sits between Fred Ambler Lookout and Judges Bay. Further to the east of Judges Bay is the Parnell Baths.

25. The park, which is largely held as parkland under the Local Government Act, is 5.56 hectares in size and consists of open lawn areas enclosed by groups of large mature trees and a belt of bush that runs along the coastal edge. The site includes the Nancy Steen Rose Garden and a re-sanded beach on the edge of Judges Bay Lagoon.

26. The area for the proposed National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park is in an open terraced lawn at the northern extent of the park. The proposed site provides views out over Judges Bay Lagoon and the Waitematā Harbour to Rangitoto.

27. As part of MCH’s site selection process, MCH obtained a report from Boffa Miskell, an environmental planning and design consultancy, on the suitability of the site in Dove-Myer Robinson Park. That report included an assessment of the site against a list of general site assessment criteria developed by Boffa Miskell.

28. Across the nine criteria identified, the report scored the site good in relation to one criterion, adequate in relation to four criteria, adequate to poor across two criteria, and poor in relation to two criteria. No score of excellent was given. A copy of the report is attached as Attachment F to this report. MCH have selected Dove-Myer Robinson as the preferred site for the proposed National Erebus Memorial.

Park outcomes and values

29. MCH sought support to locate a memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. Support was given by the Waitematā Local Board in November 2018 (resolution number WTM/2018/176) on condition that the necessary consents and authorities were sought and that the design for the proposed memorial was reviewed by the board and separately by the Auckland Urban Design Panel. The board’s design review process involved assessing short listed designs against the following park outcomes and values (as set out in the November 2018 board business report):

· blending in with and being sympathetic to the natural environment

· protecting view shafts

· maintaining open space values

· allowing multiple uses of the area

· being consistent with the heritage and mana whenua values of the park

· accommodating current use types / patterns

· increasing the use levels of this area of the park

· providing additional amenity value.

30. These outcomes and values were also supplied to the teams that entered the design competition managed by MCH and therefore formed an integral part of the design scope on which the winning entry was based.

31. There is no management plan to guide planning decisions at the park but the following plans and guidelines have some relevance; the Parks, Sports and Recreation Plaques and Memorials guideline document (2011), the Parnell Plan (2019) and the Waitematā Local Board Plan (2020).

Strategic context

Plaques and memorials guidelines (2011)

32. In June 2011, a guiding document was prepared for Auckland Council staff and local boards on the procedures for requesting plaques and memorials in Auckland Council parks.

33. The guideline protocols state that where a reserve management plan does not exist the guidelines, which provide for the memorials linked to significant events, be applied. Such events include commemoration of international, national and local events.

34. The proposed National Erebus Memorial was assessed under the guidelines and is supported by them.

The Parnell Plan (2019)

35. The Parnell Plan provides direction and actions for development in Parnell over the next 30 years. It presents the local board and community’s vision for the area and provides key objectives, strategies and a set of actions to achieve the objectives.

36. Five high level objectives are articulated in the plan. The following two are considered pertinent to the proposed National Erebus Memorial:

· enable the community to use and enjoy its great places and spaces

· value, protect and enhance Parnell’s natural environment.

37. These objectives do not provide definitive guidance on the appropriateness of the proposed National Erebus memorial. It could be considered that the memorial impacts on the natural environment but in terms of ecology and biodiversity outcomes that are focused on in the plan, these impacts are negligible. The granting of resource consent for the memorial was made partly on the basis that any adverse effects on the environment would be at most minor. In addition, the consent application was approved on the grounds that adverse effects have been appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated including by the conditions of consent volunteered by the applicant and those recommended by the council’s staff.

38. With regard to ‘use and enjoyment’ the introduction of a memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park could be seen, as is reflected in consultation feedback, a positive or negative outcome. Resource consent was granted on the basis that the proposed memorial would not detract from the amenity or people’s ability to use and enjoy the open space.

Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020

39. The Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020 has six key outcomes to help provide a focus for development and improvements across the board. The most pertinent outcome in relation to the proposed memorial is summarised as follows:

High quality urban development that has accessible, versatile, and sustainable public and private spaces – We have a wide variety of community places and open spaces that are safe, accessible and versatile.

40. It is considered that the proposed memorial aligns with this outcome.

National Erebus Memorial design features

41. Following the site selection, MCH completed a design process where designs were submitted for the particular lawn at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. The selected design for the memorial structure, ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’, is a directional linear pathway that is made up of three key components; a white concrete walkway and two feature walls that rise either side of the walkway as it extends out over the terraced bank (see Attachments A and B).

42. One wall is curved, made of stainless steel and will have 257 unique snowflake shapes cut out of it to represent those who lost their lives in the Erebus accident. The other wall will be made from precast white concrete and will have the names of those who lost their lives inscribed into the wall. There is a break in both walls to provide additional entry and exit points.

43. The walkway is just over 17 metres in length and on a gentle, but perceptible, 1:20 incline towards its end. It is cantilevered over the last nine metres, with a glass balustrade at its apex providing views out over the harbour. Three speakers concealed in the structure will play sound drawn from the movement of the sea ice, wind and animals of Antarctica. The sound will be subtle and heard only when standing immediately beside the speakers.

Consultation

44. After announcing ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ as the winning design in April 2019, MCH undertook targeted consultation with local community groups including Parnell Heritage Inc, the Parnell Community Committee and other interested parties.

45. At the business meeting on 17 September 2019, the Waitematā Local Board received an extraordinary item to consider approving the landowner application for the National Erebus Memorial at Dove Myer Robinson Park. The local board resolved to undertake public consultation before making a decision on granting landowner approval (resolution number WTM/2019/197).

46. The public consultation requested by the board focused on the effects of the memorial on the people who use the park and have an interest in the project. The following two questions were asked and submitters were also invited to provide additional comments:

a) Do you think the proposed National Erebus Memorial would affect your experience of Dove-Myer Robinson Park in Parnell?

b) Would it change the amount of times you visit the proposed site at Dove-Myer Robinson Park?

Public consultation process

47. The following consultation methods were used:

· Online survey on the council’s Have Your Say consultation site from 25 September to 8 October 2019. This was then extended to 29 October 2019. In total the consultation ran for five weeks. Hard copy forms were also made available at the Parnell and Central City library.

· A drop-in session was held at the proposed site on Saturday 28 September from 1 to 3pm. The session provided a pegged outlay of the proposed memorial. Images of the design were made available and staff were present to explain key aspects of the design and respond to questions regarding the consultation.

· Flyers were delivered to neighbouring Parnell homes on two occasions. The first flyers promoted the consultation and drop-in session. The second flyer drop advised that the consultation was being extended.

· A3 posters were delivered to community venues such as Parnell and Central City library, Plunket, Parnell community centre and some nearby businesses.

· Eight A2 posters were put up in Dove-Myer Robinson Park.

· The consultation was included in the September 2019 edition of the Waitematā Local Board eBulletin and on the Waitematā Local Board Facebook page.

· Key local stakeholders were informed of the consultation by email and submitters were informed of the extension by email and mail.

· Two Our Auckland articles were published.

The local board’s role

48. The Waitematā Local Board has a range of matters to consider . These include reasons for and purpose of the memorial, impacts on established park outcomes, placemaking, specialist advice, consents/authorities granted as well as the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the landowner approval whether they are in support or opposed.

49. The local board is asked to consider whether landowner approval should be granted for this new memorial structure.

50. The local board do not have decision-making authority over the design of the memorial.

51. The quality of the design has been reviewed by the Auckland Urban Design Panel and relevant council staff have provided information through the approval and consenting processes.

52. The local board must consider the views and preferences of those likely to be interested in, or affected by, their decision and must consider all of the submissions received through consultation with an open mind and give those submissions due consideration when taking its decision. Those interested in and affected by the decision include those who reside nearby and those who regularly use the park.

53. The local board may consider that those likely to be most affected by or interested in the decision are those who regularly use the park and all those who have an interest in the establishment of an Erebus memorial.

54. However, consideration needs to be given to all park users which includes not only those who live or work in relatively close proximity to the park and use it regularly, but also those who live in the wider board area and Auckland region, as well as those New Zealanders and international visitors who come to the park infrequently.

55. Dove-Myer Robinson is a destination park that caters for the entire region and draws national and international visitors. Those who are affected or interested in the decision will not exclusively reside nearby. People may have an historic connection to the area, a connection with one of the numerous other memorials spread across the park or are simply recreational visitors who have travelled from other parts of Auckland, New Zealand or the world.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

56. The ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ design was reviewed by the Auckland Urban Design Panel, Auckland Council’s Parks, Sports and Recreation department and the Waitematā Local Board who in 2019 stated that the design would be viewed favourably if selected.

57. The park outcomes and values were assessed on the following basis.

Blending in with and being sympathetic to the natural environment

58. The scale of the design is considered appropriate to, and fits well within, the park setting.

Protecting view shafts

59. The views of the Waitematā Harbour from the proposed location for the National Erebus Memorial are out to the north-east. The memorial is similarly aligned in a north-easterly direction and therefore views from this location will be largely unaffected. The project looks to enhance the current views from the grassed bank through the removal of three exotic Mexican Fan Palm trees that currently partially block the views.

Maintaining open space values

60. The memorial structure and path have a footprint of 175 square metres. This is a comparatively small footprint over a site of 55,600 square metres but noting the memorial presents a new built structure that will change the look and feel of the terraced lawn area within the park.

61. The land contours and spread of mature specimen trees across Dove-Myer Robinson Park mean that the proposed memorial would remain unseen from most other locations within the park.

62. The visual and landscape effects are therefore localised and well away from any sensitive receiver. There is little impact on the wider landscape within the park and an additional artistic installation is not considered to compromise the reserve, and it will remain a site characterised by natural open spaces.

63. Resource consent was granted on the basis that the proposed memorial’s ‘visibility will not result in adverse effects that could be more than minor from any individual viewpoint or in an overall sense’.

Allowing multiple uses of the area

64. The memorial itself will add additional recreation activities within the reserve and another dimension to the park in terms of providing a linear and directional pathway of high design quality. The end of the walkway will provide a vantage point from which views out to the Waitematā Harbour can be enjoyed.

65. The proposed memorial seeks to accommodate a wide range of users through an accessible design and inspire a range of interpretations and meanings that allow for reflection and contemplation.

Being consistent with the heritage and mana whenua values of the park

66. The three following key values expressed by mana whenua have been identified and incorporated into the memorial design:

· Whānaungatanga (relationship, kinship, sense of family connection)

· Kaitiakitanga (guardianship)

· Manaakitanga (hospitality).

67. The ‘huarahi/journey’ that is established by the proposed memorial is set up to allow for an individual to create space in their heart and mind to keep the memories of their loved ones alive.

68. ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ maintains and enhances visual connections to Taurarua and the wider Waitematā, as well as other significant sites such as Rangitoto – reinforcing the unique sense of place and identity of the location.

69. It is proposed that the interpretive material at the memorial is given in both te reo Māori and English, and that the traditional name of the site Taurarua is recognised within it.

70. Resource consent was granted on the basis that there were no adverse effects on mana whenua/cultural values that might be more than minor.

Accommodating current use types / patterns

71. The terraced open lawn area, the proposed location for the memorial, currently provides views to the harbour and is a place where people can sit, enjoy quiet respite and picnic.

72. The memorial structure will take up approximately one fifth of the open lawn and is set well into the southern half of this area. The northern half of the lawn remains untouched and will provide for continued enjoyment of current pastimes and capacity for formal gatherings of several hundred people. Whilst the proposed structure partially separates open space, access through and seating around the memorial would ensure recreation use of the space continues to be enjoyed.

Increasing the use levels of this area of the park

73. The Erebus anniversary on 28 November is likely to be marked by one single annual event on site. Smaller family gatherings may also occur at other times but, across the year, visitation levels are predicted to increase at low levels.

Providing additional amenity

74. The memorial could be an attractive addition to the park and a feature that would become a destination in its own right attracting more visitors to the park and providing a space for events.

75. The Duty Commissioner processing the resource consent commented in conclusion that ‘the introduction of this new memorial would not adversely detract from the existing character and amenity values of the park, or the wellbeing benefits it provides the community (including regular reserve users), in a way that would be beyond minor.’

Assessment of submissions received

76. A total of 953 submissions were received from people and groups via the online form, hard copy form and emails. Of these, 58 of the submitters had entered feedback more than once and therefore were not counted in the quantitative assessment. There were a total of 895 submissions that were used for the quantitative assessment which are summarised in Attachment C. All submissions have been attached as Attachment D to this report.

77. The following organisations submitted feedback as part of the council consultation process:

· Erebus National Memorial Advocacy Group (in support)

· Occupy Garnet Road (in opposition)

· Memorial Committee Dutch Veterans (in opposition)

· Parnell Community Committee (in opposition)

Petition

78. One of the submissions received as part of the council consultation included a petition with 604 signatures opposing the proposed memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. The petition collected people’s names, city of residence, email addresses and comments. The names and emails were cross checked with the council consultation and there were 200 signatories who also submitted individual feedback through the council consultation. The petition can be found under Attachment E of this report.

79. The petition has been considered by staff and all comments made under the petition have been read and included in the analysis. However, the petition has been excluded from the graphs summarising the response to the particular council consultation questions Data required to populate the graphs was not available from the data given on the petition. For example, there is no detail on where people reside within Auckland or to how frequently people would visit.

Overall summary of answers to survey questions

80. Of those who submitted on the council consultation, 57 per cent felt they would have a more negative experience and 43 per cent would have a more positive or the same experience. The views of the public are relatively split between those who feel they may have a worse experience and those who may have a better or unchanged experience.

81. There is also a relatively even split between those who would visit less often and those who would visit more often or not change how often they visit. Of those who submitted on the council consultation, 49 per cent would visit less often and 51 per cent would visit more often or not change how often they visit.

82. It is clear, however, that those signing the petition add to the numbers in opposition to the proposal.

83. Staff did a further analysis on the 406 people who signed and did not provide an individual submission through the council consultation process. The majority indicated that they lived in Auckland, but did not give a specific address.

84. The petition organiser has advised that most signatories are from the Parnell area. There were 53 people who indicated they lived in the Waitematā Local Board area, 22 who indicated a specific suburb in Auckland but outside of the Waitematā Local Board area, and 9 who were from outside Auckland.

Place of residence analysis – Waitematā Local Board responses

85. This is a landowner decision in relation to a local park and it is, therefore, likely to be of particular interest to those who regularly use the park. Although there will not necessarily be an exact correlation, it may be expected that those most likely to regularly use the park will be those who reside in close, or relatively close, proximity to the park. To ensure the views of local residents can be clearly identified and considered, staff have split responses according to residential location.

86. A total of 325 submissions were received from people who reside in the Waitematā Local Board area. 74 per cent of Waitematā Local Board area residents indicated they would have a more negative experience and 67 per cent would visit the park less often or had opposing comments.

Place of residence analysis – wider Auckland and outer Auckland responses

87. A total of 450 residents from the wider Auckland area made up most of the submissions and there was a relatively even split between those who may have a worse experience (51 per cent) and those who would have the same or better experience (48 per cent). There were 96 submissions from outside Auckland and the majority of people would have a more positive or same experience (80 per cent) and would not change how often they visit or would visit more often (82 per cent).

Analysis of main themes from feedback

88. The tables below provide a summary of the consultation results and the common themes that the local board should consider for the landowner approval, as well as additional themes that were common throughout the consultation. The feedback received as part of the petition has been included in this analysis.

More negative experience and likely to visit less often – Local board to consider
Theme	Additional Comments
The proposed memorial will occupy open space, limiting recreational activities and obstructing views.	The green open space at Dove-Myer Robinson Park is valued by submitters who use the area for recreational activities such as walking and picnicking. There are concerns that the proposed memorial will have a negative effect on the ambience of the park and restrict existing views of the surrounding features, including the trees, harbour views and green space. There have been comments that the size of the memorial is overpowering.
The proposed memorial does not fit with the existing historic and natural features of the park.	Some commented that the national memorial did not fit well within the park and the existing features. Many commented on the existing heritage of the park and they felt the memorial did not blend in with the surrounding environment. Submitters felt the proposed memorial was overwhelming and would have a negative visual impact on the park.
The proposed memorial is not suitable for this location.		Some did not understand the association between Dove-Myer Robinson Park and the Erebus accident. Some gave suggestions for it to be placed in other areas of Auckland and the country, with a particular preference for the memorial to be placed in a more open area or space linked to aviation or regional significance.
The selected design is wrong, unappealing and will attract crime.		Some were not supportive of the materials proposed for the memorial and thought the structure was too big. There were concerns that the area would attract rough sleeping, unpleasant behaviour and potentially graffiti. Some submitters felt that the wrong design had been selected and would prefer to see a smaller, more natural memorial that is more subtle and takes up less space.
The proposed memorial will have a significant impact on the surrounding trees, in particular the large pohutukawa.		Some mentioned the significant pohutukawa tree in their feedback and expressed concerns that the tree may be threatened by the construction and placement of the proposed memorial. *An independent arborist and council arborist have confirmed the proposed works under the dripline of the tree are minor and will not have adverse effect on the tree.

More positive experience and likely to visit more often – Local board to consider
Theme	Additional Comments
The proposed memorial will add another element to the park.	Some felt that the proposed memorial will be another point of interest in the park and occupy a space at Dove-Myer Robinson Park that is currently not used by many people. Many commented that the proposed memorial would be an attraction that would invite more visitors to Dove-Myer Robinson Park and enhance their experience of the peaceful location.
The proposed memorial would add to the serenity of the park.	Some felt the memorial should be in a special place in the park that will benefit from a significant memorial and enhance their experience of a peaceful location. People felt that there was a strong connection between the land and the design and felt that visiting the area of the park would provide an emotional and serene experience.
The proposed memorial will not have a negative impact on the other areas of the park.	Some subitters recognised that this area of the park is enclosed amongst beautiful trees and easily accessible from other areas of the park. Comments were made that the structure would not have an impact on the other features that make this park special such as the Rose Garden.
The proposed memorial will provide a space for people to reflect and remember those who lost their lives.	Some felt a memorial is long overdue and think the proposed memorial is a special place to reflect and learn about the significant event in New Zealand’s history. Many shared their connection with the event and felt the memorial was appropriate and needed.
The proposed location in accessible area.	Some commented on the location being suitable and were supportive of the fact the memorial was proposed in central Auckland.

Options

89. The local board has two reasonably practicable options – to approve or decline the landowner approval application.

90. The advantages of approving the landowner application are that the proposed memorial will add another element of interest to the park and will add another dimension to the park in terms of providing a linear and directional pathway of high design quality. The end of the walkway will provide a vantage point from which views out to the Waitematā Harbour can be enjoyed. The memorial may become a destination in its own right attracting more users to the park.

91. The disadvantages of approving the application are that it may negatively impact on some user’s enjoyment of the park by reducing open space and may result in some regular users reducing their use of the park.

92. The advantages of declining the landowner application are that the area remains green open space maintaining the existing enjoyment of some regular users. The disadvantage is that the park loses the opportunities identified above.

93. If the local board declines the application, MCH would need to consider if, and how, they wish to restart the site and design selection process for a National Erebus Memorial in Auckland.

94. The design is not ‘transplantable’ to other locations and significant work and cost goes into identifying suitable sites. ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ is a site-specific design using the terraced glade at Dove-Myer Robinson to create a linear cantilevered walkway experience that creates universal emotions of both adventure and loss.

95. Selecting a new site that fits MCH’s criteria for a peaceful park-like setting and fulfils flexibility, functionality and accessibility criteria will be challenging.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

96. There are no anticipated impacts on the climate as a result of this proposal.

97. The karo, oak sapling and three palm trees that are proposed for removal will be replaced with three native species.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

98. The application and its effects have been assessed by a number of technical experts on behalf of both the applicant and the council. These areas of expertise include engineering, acoustics, arboriculture, historic heritage, ecology, storm water, landscape architecture, soil contamination, sediment management, policy planning and regulatory planning.

99. Due to the significant heritage values in this park, the applicant was required to obtain archaeological authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. This authority, which is a separate process to the landowner approval and the resource consent processes, has now been granted (Authority no. 2021/061: R11/2681).

100. The Parks, Sports and Recreation and Community Facilities Departments have worked closely to ensure that the proposal meets all relevant council policies and guidelines and that wider park outcomes, such as those relating to ecology and archaeology, are protected.

101. Should the project proceed, and prior to the commencement of construction, a Cultural Monitoring Plan shall be prepared and endorsed by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. This plan would be implemented on site for the duration of the land disturbance activities.

102. In terms of the specifics around ensuring any archaeology associated with Kilbryde House and the Mataherehere Pā site are protected, all consent conditions will apply.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Previous resolutions and input from the local board

103. In November 2018, the Waitematā Local Board and Ngāti Whātua Orākei supported in principle, the location for the National Erebus Memorial (resolution number WTM/2018/176).

104.   The resolution stated that the board:

“supports locating the National Erebus Memorial at Dover-Myer Robinson Park at the proposed location identified in Attachment A to the agenda, subject to:

a)           i. all necessary building and resource consent requirements being met

         ii. a rigorous design process which includes a review of the short-listed designs by
              the Auckland Urban Design Panel and, as a separate process, the Waitematā
              Local Board

         iii. the local board granting landowner approval for the installation of the winning
               design subject to board approval of this design

          iv. Ministry for Culture and Heritage providing funding to cover all costs relating to
               the installation and future maintenance of the structure and associated
               landscape features.

105. Board feedback was provided during the design selection process and ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ was considered a favourable design which met the park outcomes set out by the board. The design was also reviewed by the Auckland Urban Design Panel made up of four urban design, landscape and architectural experts. They viewed the design as having significant merit and being appropriate for the site from a landscape perspective.

106. At the business meeting on 17 September 2019, the Waitematā Local Board received an extraordinary item to consider approving the landowner application for the National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. The local board resolved to undertake public consultation before making a decision on granting landowner approval (resolution number WTM/2019/197).

107. Workshops were held on 19 November 2019 and 27 October 2020 to go through the park outcomes and present the consultation results.

Local impact

108. There were 325 submissions from people in the Waitematā Local Board area. The majority of Waitematā Local Board residents indicated in the public consultation that they would have a worse experience and would frequent the park less often if the memorial was constructed in the park.

109. There were 53 people from the Waitematā Local Board area who signed the petition opposing the selected memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. There may have been more from the area that signed the petition and indicated they lived in the Auckland area.

110. Those who live locally generally felt that the memorial was not right for the site. People felt the area should remain an open grassed lawn and considered the memorial to not be a good fit with the existing park features. There were also people who were concerned with the significant surrounding trees in the area

111. Since the survey was undertaken the resource consent decision by an independent commissioner indicated that adverse effects on the local environment would be at most, minor.

112. The proposed memorial will change the landscape of the park and people’s experiences, whether they be positive or negative, but staff consider that this change is limited to a small and defined area of the park.

Regional and national impact

113. The purpose of the memorial is to commemorate the 257 passengers and crew who lost their lives in what remains one of New Zealand’s worst civil disasters. The event is significant in New Zealand’s history and 2020 marks the 41st anniversary. Many consultation comments were from people who knew someone that was on Air NZ flight 901.

114. There were 450 submissions from people in the wider Auckland area (excluding Waitematā Local Board residents) and 96 from outside Auckland. Submitters in the wider Auckland area were relatively split on how the National Erebus Memorial would affect their experience of the park, and the majority of those outside Auckland would have a better or unchanged experience

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

115. MCH began consultation with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in November 2018, and wider mana whenua consultation has been completed as part of the resource consent process. In addition to the direct engagement with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, MCH sent the proposal to the following iwi for feedback:

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Pāoa

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Te Ahiwaru - Waiohua

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Te Patukirikiri

· Waikato – Tainui.

116. Of these mana whenua groups, only one response was received from Ngāti Whanaunga. In August 2019, the mana whenua group requested the opportunity to prepare a report with recommendations to MCH. MCH responded to the request advising that an extensive review was not anticipated and advised the group that MCH were willing to discuss any specific concerns relating to the design or the archaeological assessment. There has been no further correspondence from the mana whenua group following the response from MCH.

117. Dove-Myer Robinson Park – Taurarua Pā is a significant site within the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei rohe. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei support and acknowledge that this is a nationally important project. The proposed memorial provides a way for whanau of those lost in the tragedy to reflect and remember their loved ones but also accommodates a wide range of users and interpretations.

118. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and the design team both recognise the site is a treasured piece of whenua which will complement and honour the memorial. The memorial is ideally positioned as a place to celebrate land, sea and sky and is extremely important to the hapu. The design acknowledges and strengthens these connections to the elements. Specifically, three key values have been identified and ingrained in the design:

· Whānaungatanga (relationship, kinship, sense of family connection)

· Kaitiakitanga (guardianship)

· Manaakitanga (hospitality)

119. The quality of the whenua is maintained with limited ground surface modifications. All temporary effects from construction will be restored on completion. The values of the land will be enhanced by the presence of ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’.

120. ‘Te Paerangi Ataata – Sky Song’ is a title that incorporates both languages and the interpretive material proposed for the memorial is given in both te reo Māori and English.

Consultation results: People who identify as Māori

121. There were 46 submissions that were made by people that identified as Māori. There were 16 submissions from the Waitematā Local Board area, 27 from the wider Auckland area and three submissions from outside Auckland.

122. Overall, 54 per cent of Māori thought the memorial would improve their experience or not change their experience of Dove-Myer Robinson Park, and 39 per cent thought it would worsen their experience. Seven per cent of Māori did not know whether it would affect their experience of the park. Some 59 per cent of Māori thought they would visit more often or not change how often they visited the park. The remaining 41 per cent said they would visit the park less often.

123. In terms of Mana Whenua values, applying Tikanga and Mana Whenua values during the works, as well as the planting of native trees as proposed, will ensure that the land disturbance will not impact on Mana Whenua values to the extent that any specific Mana Whenua group would be adversely affected.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

124. The construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed memorial and associated features will be covered by MCH. There will be no financial cost to the local board for the National Erebus Memorial and associated infrastructure. A maintenance agreement will be confirmed prior to the completion of the memorial to ensure the maintenance costs are covered by MCH.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

125. The following table identifies the risk of the two options; approving the landowner approval application or declining the landowner approval application for the proposed National Erebus Memorial at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. The risks associated with either option is considered to be high.

Option 1 – Approve the landowner approval application
Risk description	Mitigation	Risk rating post mitigation
If the landowner approval is granted, those who signed the petition and indicated they would have a more negative experience in the council consultation, may be dissatisfied with the decision. Ill feeling and protests in the community could also continue and potentially escalate. A memorial that aims to bring people together in loss could have the opposite effect at a local level. If land owner approval is granted the decision could be judicially challenged and reviewed.	Throughout the process, the council has consulted with relevant specialists to ensure alignment and protection of park values and outcomes. As requested by the local board, the views of the public have been sought and the feedback has been considered. The risk of being judicially challenged can be mitigated by the local board ensuring that it carefully considers all relevant information put before it prior to making a decision.	As with any new feature being introduced to a park, there will be differing views on how people feel it impacts upon amenity values.
If the landowner approval is granted, there will be temporary risks with the construction of the memorial.	All works will need to be completed with significant consideration to the health and safety of park users. All works on and near any significant trees will need to be completed to best arboriculture practices to ensure there is no detrimental damage to the trees during works.	The contractors must be vigilant and considerate to surrounding park users and the park setting. If correct procedure is followed, there is relatively low risk to the park and its users, during construction.
Option 2 – Decline the landowner approval application
Risk description	Mitigation	Risk rating post mitigation
If landowner approval is not granted, the families of the Erebus victims would have to wait longer for a memorial in another location. MCH, who have invested considerable time and expense thus far, will have to restart the whole site selection and design process.	Staff could work with MCH to find an alternative location for a national memorial.	Finding a high-quality Auckland site that provides a peaceful park-like setting, and that is befitting of a national memorial that accommodates the views of locals, will continue to be extremely challenging.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

126. If the local board approves this application, the applicant will receive land owner approval for the proposed National Erebus Memorial and the associated infrastructure at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. The landowner approval letter will be issued to the applicant with conditions that will mitigate any detrimental effects on the reserve.

127. If the local board declines this application, the proposed National Erebus Memorial will not be granted landowner approval at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. MCH would need to restart the entire process of finding an appropriate location and designing a new memorial.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

128. If the local board approves this application, the applicant will receive land owner approval for the proposed National Erebus Memorial and the associated infrastructure at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. The landowner approval letter will be issued to the applicant with conditions that will mitigate any detrimental effects on the reserve.

129. If the local board declines this application, the proposed National Erebus Memorial will not be granted landowner approval at Dove-Myer Robinson Park. MCH would need to restart the entire process of finding an appropriate location and designing a new memorial.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Application Plans and Supporting Documents (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Plans, Approvals, Reports (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Consultation Summary (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Consultation Feedback (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Petition (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Boffa Miskell Report (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Allan Christensen - Senior Land Use Advisor

David Barker - Parks & Places Team Leader

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

Waitematā Local Board Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021 grant allocations.

File No.: CP2020/16537

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline the applications received for Waitematā Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Waitematā Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021 (Attachment B).

3. The Waitematā Local Board adopted the Waitematā Local Grants Programme 2020/2021 on 19 May 2020. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants submitted to the local board (Attachment A)

4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $150,003 for the 2020/2021 financial year. The local board allocated $57,800 in Local Grants Round One 2020/2021. This leaves a total of $92,203.

5. The local board has received $5,775 from Auckland Tourism and Economic Development (Auckland Unlimited, formerly ATEED) film revenue, which will be allocated to the grants budget. A total of $97,978 remains to be allocated to one further local grant round and two quick response rounds.

6. Twenty-six applications have been received for Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021, requesting a total of $61,791.63

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received for the Waitematā Quick Response Grants Round One, listed in Table One.

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR2120-105	Westhaven Radio Sailing Club	Community	Towards two hand-held radio communications kits.	$658.95	Eligible
QR2120-106	Zionist Federation of New Zealand Incorporated	Events	Towards advertising, marquees, sandbags and a generator for 'Hanukkah in the Bays' on 13 December 2020.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-108	Yeajin Im	Arts and culture	Towards the stage, lighting and sound equipment hire for a community dance and music event on 5 December 2020.	$1,575.94	Eligible
QR2120-109	Newmarket Business Association Incorporated	Community	Towards the power bills, furniture and advertising for shops 19/28 and 20/28 Remuera Road from 1 October 2020 to 30 June 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-110	Parnell Community Trust	Community	Towards the Sustainable Urban Living workshop facilitator fees and advertising from 20 February to 29 May 2021.	$1,081.00	Eligible
QR2120-113	Hackland Incorporated	Community	Towards truck rental for two days, a lift operator and fire extinguishers for the relocation of the groups premises.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-114	For the Love of Bees	Community	Towards facilitator fees and project organization fees for the "Pull Together Festival" from 1 December 2020 to 1 March 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-115	Everybody Eats Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the managers wages for the “Everybody Eats” programme from 7 December 2020 to 11 October 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-116	Auckland Indian Sports Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the financial auditor fees for the club.	$1,425.00	Eligible
QR2120-118	The Actors' Program	Arts and culture	Towards writer`s fees for the graduation production.	$2,500.00	Eligible
QR2120-119	Auckland and District Pipe Band Incorporated	Community	Towards venue hire from 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021	$1,226.00	Eligible
QR2120-121	Doughnut Economics Advocates New Zealand	Environment	Towards venue hire, signage, sandwich boards, flyers and cleaners fees for six repair cafe events from 27 February 2021 to 28 August 2021.	$3,124.62	Eligible
QR2120-124	Central Vineyard Church Charitable Trust	Community	Towards resources for baking items for morning tea for twelve weeks from 11 January 2021 to 12 April 2021.	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR2120-125	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the management and training of volunteer counsellors at Youthline.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-127	Blue Light Ventures Incorporated	Community	Towards costs of printing and production of 777 'Street Smart Handbooks'	$2,719.50	Eligible
QR2120-128	The Opera Factory Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the wages for a casual part-time production assistant from 1 December 2020 to 28 February 2021	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-129	Youth Arts New Zealand	Arts and culture	Towards costs for the artist performance fees from 20 February 2021 to 22 March 2021	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-130	Ponsonby Business Association Incorporated	Events	Towards the “Ponsonby Street Festival” street entertainment on 20 February 2021.	$2,437.50	Eligible
QR2120-131	Grey Lynn Community Centre Incorporated	Community	Towards the replacement of the basketball backboard and new educational resources.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-132	Social Change Collective	Community	Towards venue hire, speakers fees and a public announcement system for six community workshops between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-133	The Yes and Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the cost of performers, printing posters and 'Facebook' marketing for workshops from 17 January 2021 to 28 March 2021.	$2,957.00	Eligible
QR2120-134	Grey Lynn Business Association	Community	Towards the cost for the development of branded pre-paid loyalty cards and marketing for three networking events and the cost to analyse the levels of engagement.	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR2120-135	St Mary`s College Board of Trustees	Community	Towards the cost of two laptops.	$2,366.86	Eligible
QR2120-138	Bonnie Ruth Lee	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire for the markets and art workshop from 3 December to 28 December 2020 at '54 Ponsonby Road'.	$3,000.00	Eligible
QR2120-139	Parnell Heritage Incorporated	Community	Towards a portable public announcement system.	$719.26	Eligible
QR2120-140	The Operating Theatre Trust trading as Tim Bray Theatre Company	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire for youth theatre classes and performances from 1 February 2021 to 16 April 2021.	$3,000.00	Eligible
Total				$61,791.63

Horopaki

Context

7. 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.

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

9. 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.

10. The Waitematā Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2020/2021 on 19 May 2020 and will operate two quick response and two local grants rounds for this financial year.

11. The community grant 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

12. The aim of the local board grant 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.

13. Due to the current COVID-19 crisis, staff have also assessed each application according to which alert level the proposed activity is able to proceed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. 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.

15. 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; decreasing access to single-occupancy transport options, home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and education about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

16. Seven applicants applying to local grants response round two have indicated that their project supports climate change outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. 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.

18. 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

19. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Waitematā Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

20. 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’.

21. A summary of each application received through Waitematā Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021 is provided (refer Attachment B).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

23. Twelve applicants applying to Quick Response grants round one, have indicated that their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

25. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $150,003 for the 2020/2021 financial year. The local board allocated $57,800 in Local Grants Round One 2020/2021. This leaves a total of $92,203.

26. The local board has received $5,775 from Auckland Tourism and Economic Development (Auckland Unlimited, formerly ATEED) film revenue, which will be allocated to the grants budget. A total of $97,978 remains to be allocated to one further local grant round and two quick response rounds.

27. Twenty-six applications have been received for Quick Response Grants Round One 2020/2021, requesting a total of $61,791.63

28. Relevant staff from Auckland Council’s Finance Department have been fully involved in the development of all local board work programmes, including financial information in this report, and have not identified any financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. 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 that a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

30. Staff recommend that due to current COVID19 crisis, if an applicant is unable to carry out the project in this financial year, then a clause is added to the recommendation, that the applicant can retain the funds to carry out the event in the next financial year or postpone the event date, to when alert levels have reduced, and the event can be conducted safely.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Following the Waitematā Local Board allocation of funding for the Quick Response Grants Round One, grants staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Waitematā Grants Programme - 2020 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Waitematā Local Board Quick Response Round One 2020/2021 grant applications (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ann Kuruvilla - Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

Name approval for the new pedestrian mall at lower Queen Street as part of the City Rail Link project

File No.: CP2020/16316

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Waitematā Local Board to name the new pedestrian mall area at lower Queen Street, between Quay and Customs streets, outside of Britomart Station. This area has been redeveloped as part of the City Rail Link project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s road naming guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names and the naming of public squares and spaces. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road and place naming across the Auckland Region.

3. Applicant City Rail Link Limited (CRL Ltd hereafter) has proposed the name Te Komititanga for consideration by the local board, for the pedestrian mall at lower Queen Street, between Quay and Customs streets (shown in Appendix A).

4. Komiti in Te Reo Māori can be translated into English as ‘to mix’ or ‘to merge’.

5. CRL Ltd advises that the proposed name has been gifted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and has been accepted by the CRL Mana Whenua Forum. Because this is a gifted name, no alternative name options are provided.

6. It would be acceptable for the local board to approve Te Komititanga for use in this location, as the name has been assessed to ensure it meets the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road and place naming. All technical standards are met and the name is not duplicated anywhere else in the region.

7. Adding ‘Square’ or ‘Plaza’ to the name Te Komititanga is not required. This is because ‘Te Komititanga’ is in itself a noun.

8. The renaming of the pedestrian mall will not affect surrounding street addresses, however it will help give the space its own unique identity as a destination of civic importance.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) approve the name Te Komititanga for the new pedestrianised area on lower Queen Street, between Quay and Customs streets, created by the City Rail Link project, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (CRL designation condition 2500-1).

Horopaki

Context

9. So that CRL Ltd could construct new rail tunnels underneath lower Queen Street from Britomart Station, it was necessary to excavate the area of Queen Street in front of the Britomart Station.

10. CRL Ltd was tasked with replacing the lower Queen Street bus station interchange and surrounding streets with a fully pedestrianised public realm upgrade once construction of the rail tunnels was completed.

11. CRL Ltd developed a design that would extend the pedestrian-focused space to include all of Queen Street between Customs Street and Quay Street. This proposal required removal of motor vehicle access to this section of Queen Street and the western ends of Tyler Street and Galway Street.

12. The pedestrian mall will become Auckland’s newest premier civic space. Its civic importance is considered to be on par with Aotea Square. It has been architecturally designed incorporating mana whenua and cultural heritage values and will include native trees and new street furniture. The pedestrian mall sits on top of the now-built CRL tunnels that connect Britomart Station to the tunnels underneath Albert Street.

13. The renaming of the pedestrian mall will not affect surrounding street addresses, however it will help give the space it its own unique identity as a destination of civic importance. A similar example would be Aotea Square which is a well-known destination, is of civic importance and doesn’t affect neighbouring street addresses.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

· a historical, cultural, or ancestral linkage to an area;

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

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

16. Theme (as described by applicant): Komiti in Te Reo Māori can be translated into English as ‘to mix’ or ‘to merge’.

17. The name, Te Komititanga, was chosen by mana whenua as it reflects that this space will be a place where people can come together in formality, celebration, and parade. People will also travel through, mix, and meet within the space as they move between transport modes, the harbour, Commercial Bay, and mid-city.

18. As well as the mixing of people, the name also reflects that the plaza’s location had been where the waters of Waitematā and Wai o Horotiu, the stream that once ran into the harbour and still exists beneath Queen Street, had once merged.

19. Place type: This space is designated a pedestrian mall. The use of ‘Square’ or ‘Plaza’ as part of the name is not required. This is because ‘Te Komititanga’ is a noun that can be used to name a space in itself. Te Komititanga will suit the space’s form and layout, as per the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines. Surrounding street addresses will not be impacted by the change in name.

20. Assessment: The name proposed has been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road and place naming. All technical standards are met and the name is not duplicated anywhere else in the region.

21. Confirmation: LINZ has confirmed that the proposed name is acceptable for use and not duplicated elsewhere in the region.

22. Permissions: No permissions are required as part of this naming process.

23. Iwi Consultation: CRL Ltd has consulted with iwi through the CRL Mana Whenua Forum. A memo was also provided to the Auckland Council Kaitiaki Forum on the proposed name, Te Komititanga.

24. Stakeholder consultation: Information on the name and an invitation to complete a short online survey was sent to directly affected stakeholders by CRL Ltd. Feedback is summarised in Appendix B.

25. In August 2020, CRL Ltd consulted on the name with its Community Liaison Group, made up of directly affected stakeholders and set up under the project’s designation conditions. Group members expressed positive feedback on the name and requested that the change in name not affect local street addresses.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. The naming of roads and public spaces 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 designations and resource consent conditions for the City Rail Link project.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The decision sought for this report has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group.

28. The intention to name this space was discussed with Auckland Transport, which did not raise any issues. The views of Auckland Transport or any other council-controlled organisation 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

29. 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

30. CRL Ltd engages with iwi through its CRL Mana Whenua Forum.

31. The Forum was established in 2012 as part of the CRL project and in accordance with its designation conditions. All Iwi Mana Whenua were invited to register their interest in the project, with eight Iwi opting to join: Te Ākitai Waiohua, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki , Ngāti Tamaoho , Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

32. The Forum had agreed that a name for this public space would be generated by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, before coming back to the Forum for agreement.

33. Agreement was also sought from both the CRL Mana Whenua Forum and the Waitematā Local Board on the proposed engagement process to name this public space.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The applicant has informed Auckland Transport that appropriate signage will need to be installed once approval is obtained for the new name. The road and place naming process does not raise any financial implications for council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. There are no significant risks to council as road and place naming is a routine part of the development process, with consultation being a key part of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. Approved road and place names are notified to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database that includes street addresses issued by councils and pedestrian and public space names.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Appendix A & B - Plans and Stakeholder Feedback Summary	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

Investigation of the central library

File No.: CP2020/16136

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal views from the Waitematā Local Board on the findings of an investigation into the central library / Tāmāki Pātākā Kōreo and recommendation to move to the next step of work: the development of an indicative business case.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To inform decision-making staff have undertaken an investigation into the future of the central library. The investigation constitutes the first step of the three-step process to guide council investment in community facilities.

3. The central library plays a unique role in the libraries network. It provides valued services to an Auckland-wide catchment and delivers many tangible benefits to Aucklanders.

4. The investigation establishes that the role of the central library is fast evolving. The facility needs to provide for a fast-growing population and adapt to new technologies and changing preferences.

5. The central library of the future has the potential to assume the following role:

· a destination, attracting people from across Auckland and beyond, offering unique heritage and research services as well as innovative, and leading-edge programmes, activities and events

· a place activator in the city centre

· a facility that reflects Auckland’s unique identity and generates civic pride.

6. Current and future service delivery is somewhat constrained by the facility’s location, size and configuration, age and condition, as well as its governance model.

7. The central library requires investment of $42.5 million in renewal and remediation over the next 20 years to maintain current levels of service.

8. Four options were short-listed following the investigation:

· Option 1: the status quo option ($42.5 million)

· Option 2: increase capacity for people-focused activities by remodelling the current facility

· Option 3: deliver destination library services in a new building on site

· Option 4: deliver destination library services in a new building elsewhere in the city centre

9. These options were assessed against following two investment objectives:

· to enable the central library to fulfil its unique role in the Auckland libraries network to meet and anticipate Aucklanders’ evolving needs to connect with one another and with the world of information and ideas.

· to provide services and spaces that reflect Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique Māori identity, preserve the past and celebrate Auckland’s place in the world.

10. Staff recommend the development of an indicative business case to provide further analysis of the four short-listed options.

11. This would provide the evidence decision-makers need to determine which option best balance the investment objectives with affordability and value for money.

12. An indicative business case would:

· scope the additional services required for Auckland central library to fulfil its role as a regional destination facility serving the whole of Auckland

· develop and analyse options to balance regional and local service delivery

· develop and refine the four short-listed options for cost benefit analysis

· test the options against key success criteria, including value for money

· recommend a preferred way forward for further development of the investment proposal.

13. The indicative business case would be funded by the existing budget allocated.

14. There are medium-level risks associated with any future investment in the central library, related to uncertainty about future demand for services, budgetary constraints and further degradation of the facility.

15. The next step is for staff to report to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee on 10 December 2020. The report will include feedback from Waitematā Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the investigation into the future of the central library.

b) support the future role of the central library as being:

· a destination, attracting people from across Auckland and beyond, offering unique heritage and research services as well as unique, innovative and leading-edge programmes, activities and events

· a place activator in the city centre

· a facility that reflects Auckland’s unique identity and generates civic pride,
notably through architecture.

c) note that due to the condition of the facility, $42.5 million is required over the next 20 years to maintain current levels of service.

d) support the development of an indicative business case, commencing in 2021/2022, including further assessment of the following options:

i Option 1: the status quo option ($42.5 million)

ii Option 2: increase capacity for people-focused activities by remodelling the current facility

iii Option 3: deliver destination library services in a new building on site

iv Option 4: deliver destination library services in a new building elsewhere in the city centre.

e) note that funding for the indicative business case outlined in g) above has been allocated through the Libraries and Information Departmental budget.

f) request that any action to progress refurbishment and expansion of the central library be included as a priority action in the updated Community Facility Action Plan.

Horopaki

Context

A central library investigation is a priority action in the Community Facilities Network Plan

16. In 2015 the Community Facilities Network Plan and associated Action Plan were approved by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee. Action 108 in the Action Plan states: “investigate refurbishment and the need for expansion of the central library”.

17. The drivers for the action were to respond to growth and make the facility fit-for-purpose. Building issues also made this a priority action.

18. In May 2019, the Finance and Performance Committee approved $420,000 of operational funding in 2019/2020 to undertake an investigation and options analysis for the future of the central library (FIN/2019/53).

19. Funding for this work was made available through the Libraries and Information Departmental budget.

The investigation is the first of three stages in support of decision-making

20. This investigation into the central library / Tāmāki Pātākā Kōreo examines whether there is a compelling case for change and provides high-level options for future investment.

21. The council uses a three-stage process to investigate large-scale capital projects such as community facilities. This approach is based on the Better Business Cases methodology.

22. The investigation is the first step of the three-step process to guide investment in community facilities.

Figure 1: Council’s investment approcah

23. Based on the findings of the investigation, staff recommend to move to the next step of work: the development of an indicative business case. An indicative business case would provide further analysis and:

· develop and refine viable options for the cost benefit analysis

· test the viable options against success criteria such as viability and value for money

· recommend a preferred option for further development of the investment proposal.

There is shared decision-making over the central library

24. The decision-making allocation for libraries is set out in Volume Two of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

25. The central library is the only library to have dual governance arrangements.

26. The Waitematā Local Board has decision-making responsibility over local library services and the ground and first floors.

27. The Governing Body has decision-making responsibility for regional services and the rest of the library.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

28. Staff have prepared an investigation report for the central library. This investigation is designed to guide decisions on how council delivers the range of services likely to be required of the central library in the future.

29. Three key elements informed this work:

· an investigation into the future service needs of the central library

· options for how current and future needs could be met, including consideration of the ability of the existing building to deliver these

· the costs associated with maintaining the existing building in a fit-for-purpose condition.

30. The key findings are outlined below.

The central library is a valued local and regional facility

31. Auckland Libraries deliver services through 55 libraries, four mobile libraries and the library website. There are over 2.7 million items in the Auckland Libraries collections and over 100 databases provided through the digital library. The distinct collections or taonga are valued at $184.5 million, with the bulk (or approximately $150 million) held at the central library.

32. The central library is amongst a small number of facilities, such as the Auckland Art Gallery and the Auckland War Memorial Museum, that serve the entire Auckland region.

33. These facilities contribute to making life in Auckland richer for the community and visitors and to making Auckland an internationally competitive city.

34. The central library is unique within the library network in that it provides both local and regional services to Aucklanders. Its three main functions are described below.

Figure 2: The central library’s main functions

35. The central library attracts a million visitors a year. This is more than visitors to Takapuna, New Lynn and Manukau libraries put together.

Figure 3: Key numbers for the year ending June 2019

36. Physical visitations to Auckland libraries are decreasing as items are increasingly borrowed electronically. This decrease is less marked in the central library than across the library network. This may be explained by the fact that visitors to the central library are more likely to:

· use the library as a study space or as a community space

· access free Wi-Fi on their own device

· browse, rather than borrow, items.

37. The number of visits to the central library (one million) was far higher than the number of items borrowed (390,000), pointing to the prevalence of central library users visiting for reasons other than borrowing an item.

38. On average, each Aucklander visits the central library 0.6 time a year. In comparison, Wellington, Christchurch, and Geelong central libraries have a much higher visitation rates. This suggests that the central library has the potential to attract a larger number of visitors each year and become a place activator in the city centre.

Figure 4: Average visits per resident for a sample of central liraries

The role of the central library needs to evolve and adapt

39. The central library needs to evolve and adapt. Key drivers of changes can be broadly split into population growth, changing demographic and changing preferences.

40. The central library serves an Auckland-wide catchment. The city is fast-growing and expected to reach 2.4 million people in 2051. An unprecedented number of people is living, working, studying, and visiting the city centre.

41. The central library also delivers local library services to city centre residents. Those residents have a different demographic profile from residents in the rest of Auckland, driving preferences for services. They tend to be young, ethnically diverse with a majority being of Asian descent, well-educated, in the labour force or in study and rent one-to-two-bedroom dwellings.

42. The city centre also has a sizeable number of homeless people. These Aucklanders have high needs and are frequent users of the library.

Figure 5: Current and future communities the central library must serve

43. The future of the central library is also shaped by major world-wide trends in the library sector:

· collections are increasingly digital

· facilities are places for people and offer multifunctional, mixed-use spaces

· a wider range of services and activities are delivered to foster interactive social activity, creativity, skills development building and lifelong learning

· delivery is based on collaboration and partnerships.

Figure 6: Key shifts in libraries

44. The central library needs to adapt to meet new and shifting demand and remain fit-for purpose. This necessitates the central library to make the following changes:

· the space allocation and service model need to account for growth and increasingly diverse communities

· the central library should be more integrated and work with a range of partners to promote innovative service delivery, maintain accessibility for vulnerable users and attract a wider number of users

· the central library has the opportunity to express the cultural history and identity of the people of Tāmaki Makaurau

· space must be flexible and adaptable to meet the changing needs of users and the wider community and enable both people activities as well as more quiet activities.

· digital infrastructure increasingly allows the movement of some physical collections to offsite spaces and the repurposing of prime space for people.

45. The proposal for the central library of the future is as follows:

The central library, Tāmaki Pātaka Kōrero, is

a destination, attracting people from across Auckland and beyond,
offering unique heritage and research services as well as
unique, innovative, and leading-edge programmes, activities and events.

a place activator in the city centre.

a facility that reflects Auckland’s unique identity and generates civic pride,
notably through architecture.

The central library’s ability to meet current and future demand is compromised

46. At present, four main factors impact negatively on service delivery. They are described in Figure 7 below.

47. Located at 44-46 Lorne Street, the facility is in close proximity to, but has poor connectivity with, the Aotea and Learning quarters and Auckland Art Gallery.

48. It also has poor visibility within the city centre, making it somewhat difficult to find.

Figure 7: Main factors impacting on service delivery

The facility is relatively small size and its current configuration is poor

49. This library is relatively small and poorly configured. This impacts on the ability to deliver fit-for-purpose services to Aucklanders.

· Built in two halves, the facility opened in 1970 and 1982, when the city had fewer residents.

· It provides 9500m² above ground, comparable to the Christchurch Central Library. Only two thirds are accessible to the public.

· The lack of space, lack of separation between noisy and quiet activities and accessibility issues limit enjoyment and hinder visitation.

· The lack of space limits the ability to display collections. For example, there is no space to permanently showcase the Māori documentary heritage content.

· The lack of space, inadequate equipment and disturbance on other users limit the ability to programme regular and one-off events. The whare on the second floor can accommodate a maximum of 80 people, which is insufficient to cater for demand.

The central library is an ageing facility

50. The central library is an aging facility and there are some issues with the building. This puts the collections at risk of loss and degradation due to asset issues.

51. A recent condition assessment of the central library building provided a comprehensive understanding of the condition of assets and shows that some assets require urgent remediation.

Figure 8: Building asset condition

Source: Babbage, 2020

52. It concluded to the need to invest $42.5 million over the 20 years. This includes $7 million budgeted in 2020/21 towards the roof renewal.

53. This is an average $2.1 million a year. However, investment is lumpy reflecting large renewals and internal fitting work during particular years.

54. This investment would maintain the current level of services, but would not deliver a fit-for-purpose facility.

The library’s dual governance complicates funding and planning

55. Unlike other facilities serving the whole of Auckland, the governance of the central library is shared between the council’s Governing Body and the Waitematā Local Board.

56. The Waitematā Local Board has decision-making responsibility over local library services and the ground and first floors.

57. The Governing Body for has decision-making responsibility regional services and the rest of the library.

58. The dual governance model has unintended consequences.

· The central library services and building renewals are not considered regionally, leading to disparate funding allocation, ad hoc maintenance and renewals of the building.

· Decision-making about opening hours can be problematic. The local board’s funding for increased opening hours covers staffing costs for ground and first floors, but staffing of other floors is required to provide a holistic customer experience. This is unfunded.

· The local board funds local library services, but these benefit users from across the region. Seven out of 10 users reside outside the local board area.

What benefits could be expected from investing in the central library?

59. The central library provides services and spaces that contribute to a wide number of strategies and plans.

60. It contributes to four of the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and to the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020. It also delivers on council social and community strategies, the Community Facilities Network Plan, the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and supports the City Centre Masterplan.

Figure 9: Strategic alignment

61. The following direct benefits are associated with investing in the central library:

· a diverse range of Aucklanders access services offered by the central library

· Aucklanders access information, inspiration and expertise to help develop their full potential

· Aucklanders feel more connected, communities are thriving

· Aucklanders’ evolving needs are met and anticipated

· Aucklanders have an increased understanding of, and pride in Auckland’s history and diversity

· the visibility of Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique Māori identity is strengthened

· the unique treasures that tell Auckland’s diverse stories are well cared for

· the central library contributes to civic pride and to Auckland being an attractive city.

62. The relationships between problems, benefit and objectives are shown in the investment logic map in Attachment A.

63. To deliver these benefits, any future investment must contribute to the following two objectives:

· to provide services and spaces that reflect Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique Māori identity, preserve the past and celebrate Auckland’s place in the world.

Four options were short-listed in the investigation

64. Meeting the investment objectives described above could be best achieved by:

· matching the central library’s funding, management and governance with its role and functions as expected and valued by Aucklanders

· providing the spaces that enable Auckland libraries to adapt our programmes, services and technologies to meet and anticipate Aucklanders’ evolving needs

· working in partnership with other educational and cultural institutions to bring the best service delivery to communities.

65. Four options are shortlisted as potential solutions to meet the investment objectives. These are described in the diagram below:

Figure 10: Short-listed options

66. These options were short-listed after analysis of a long list of options addressing the following questions:

· in relation to the proposal, what levels of services are possible?

· how can services be provided?

· where can deliver the services?

· when can services be delivered?

· how can services be funded?

67. The long list of options is presented in Table 1 below.

68. An initial assessment of the options looked at the potential advantages and disadvantages of each identified option, as well as risks.

69. It enabled the options that are most cost-efficient and best meet the investment objectives and key service requirements of the central library to be identified and prioritised for further investigation.

Table 1: Long-list of optins considered

Service levels

70. Four options were examined. The recommended option is to scale up levels of services to fit a destination and flagship model within the libraries network to cater for all Aucklanders.

71. Central library services are not currently funded.

Service solutions

72. Three core service solution options examined the different potential mix of functions in the central library. It is assumed that central city archives could move off site as the council’s Work Smart team concludes.

73. The recommended option is to keep services under one roof, which is the status quo.

74. Keeping the ‘serving the communities’ and the ‘preserving the past, ensuring our future’ functions together is in line with the integrated principle in the Community Facilities Network Plan and international trends.

75. It also supports an efficient model of delivery as it provides opportunity to share programmable space and enable joint programming.

76. The options to re-locate back-office functions, such as back-catalogue lending, collections storage and regional administration, and to co-locate research and heritage functions provided by other institutions together with the ‘preserving the past, ensuring our future’ functions offers advantages that can be explored further as building options are refined.

Building options

77. The cost of maintaining the facility in its current form (the status quo) is estimated at $42.5 million over a 20-year period, including the current expenditure to replace the roof.

78. This would maintain the current level of services, which would not address existing limitations related to service provision and customer experience. Nor would this option provide for growth.

79. Other options range from undertaking a major refit of the facility to building new on site or off site. While building new would provide a fully fit-for-purpose building, the cost might be prohibitive in the short to medium-term in the context of budgetary constraints.

80. The 9500m² Christchurch Central Library, a possible benchmark, cost $93 million in 2018.

81. Undertaking a major refit of the facility might be a good trade-off between budgetary consideration and improvement to service provision and customer experience. Currently only two thirds of the facility above ground is open to the public, and most of the basement floors are off limits.

82. Increasing public access might go some way to alleviate current limitations, notably the lack of space for people-based activities and to provide for growth.

83. The feasibility and cost of remodelling the building, and the outcomes this would deliver are not known.

84. It is recommended that all building options are further investigated to develop evidence to support an investment decision.

Implementation options

85. The timing of the investment is dependent somewhat on the building solution.

86. Library services can continue to be provided over next decade in the current facility, albeit with some limitations.

87. The maintenance of the building should address the risk of degradation and loss to the heritage and research collections.

88. Investing in a new facility may be best considered in the next 10 to 20 years given budgetary constraints. On the other hand, a major refit of the facility might be best carried out in the next decade, to maximise the investment within the context of the remaining life of the asset.

Funding options

89. Funding options for service delivery include a mix of regional and local funding (status quo), regional funding only and a mix of regional and third-party funding. Funding options should be aligned to service levels and service solutions.

90. The options that are most cost-efficient and best meet the investment objectives and key service requirements of the central library are prioritised for further investigation.

How do the four short-listed options compare?

91. The four short-listed options are further assessed as follows:

92. Option 1: The status quo maintains the facility at a cost of $42.5 million over the next 20 years. It ensures the current levels of service are maintained. However, it does not address the current service delivery constraints, nor does it respond to growth.

93. Option 2: Increase capacity for people-focused activities by remodelling the current facility increases space to better respond to customers' needs. It may provide a favourable trade-off between additional costs and additional levels of services, ensuring the investment delivers value for money.

94. Option 3: Deliver destination library services in a new building on site and Option 4 – Deliver destination library services in a new building elsewhere in the city centre would lift the current service delivery constraints and respond to growth. They would also provide services and spaces that reflect Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique Māori identity and preserve the past and celebrate Auckland’s place in the world.

95. In the long-term, investment in a new facility may be required. However, options 3 or 4 may not be affordable in the context of current budgetary constraints.

What future for the central library? Recommended key move

96. Staff recommend developing an indicative business case for the future redevelopment or replacement of the central library. This would provide the evidence decision-makers need to decide which option best balances meeting the investment objectives with providing value for money and being affordable.

97. Staff recommend that the indicative business case be developed in the next 12 months.

98. The status quo option would be taken as the base case for the indicative business case. This assumes $42.5 million investment over the next 20 years to ensure that the current levels of service are retained.

Table 2: Recommended key move

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

99. Developing a new facility would open the opportunity for the council to adopt higher building performance standards and to lead in green design and architecture.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

100. Staff from Libraries and Information, Service Strategy and Integration, and Asset Management and Investment Programme were involved in inputting, reviewing and finalising the investigation report.

101. Community Investment will develop the indicative business case process, with support from other parts of the business.

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

Local impacts and local board views

102. The central library serves a wide catchment as well as city centre residents. It also provides alternative library services to neighbouring communities in the event of temporary closure.

103. Three in 10 visitors who are library card holders reside in the Waitematā Local Board area and one in four reside in the city centre. Evidence suggests that a significant number of visitors reside in the city centre, but do not hold a library card.

104. The central library provides local library services tailored to residents within the city centre reflective of the neighbourhood and whānau.

105. A fit-for-purpose central library can, amongst other requirements, serve a fast-growing resident population.

106. Auckland city centre is home to approximately 43,000 residents today and is expected to be home to an additional 17,800 people by 2051. It is growing faster than Auckland as a whole.

107. The central library attracts a million visitors a year. Visitation to central libraries in other cities suggests that there exists a strong potential to increase visitation and for the central library to become a place activator in the city centre. This would support the city centre’s vitality and economic performance.

108. The Waitematā Local Board is responsible for the provision of local library services to serve the needs of its communities.

109. The Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020 sets out the aspirations and priorities of resident communities for the next three years and beyond.

110. The central library has the potential to contribute to the following local board plan outcomes:

· Outcome 1: Māori are empowered, and their identity and culture is visible

· Outcome 2: Connected communities that are inclusive, accessible and equitable

· Outcome 3: High quality urban development that has accessible, versatile, and sustainable public and private spaces

· Outcome 6: Waitematā businesses are sustainable, innovative and prosperous

111. This report seeks formal views from Waitematā Local Board on the findings and recommendation of the investigation to move to the next step of work: the development of an indicative business case.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

112. Only three per cent of visitors to the central library identify as Māori.

113. Accessibility to specific groups, including Māori, has been identified as an issue.

114. The central library is currently home to significant Māori collections. There is no space to permanently showcase the Māori documentary heritage content, which is expected of a heritage and research centre of excellence and to enable Aucklanders to learn the distinct Māori identity of Tāmaki Makaurau. Māori content is highlighted in temporary exhibitions and displays at present.

115. The design of the central library could express the cultural history and identity of the people of Tāmaki Makaurau by:

· having a dedicated space to display the Māori heritage content would better enable Aucklanders to learn the distinct Māori identity of Tāmaki Makaurau. This aspiration seems more relevant than ever as history is becoming a compulsory subject in New Zealand curriculum.

· recognising Māori values and culture in the design of one of the city’s most significant civic buildings would support the promotion and valuing of culture amongst rangatahi and the wider community.

116. One of the two investment objectives for the central library is “to provide services and spaces that reflect Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique Māori identity, preserve the past and celebrate Auckland’s place in the world”.

117. This would contribute to benefits such as: “the visibility of Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique Māori identity is strengthened.” It would also remove some barriers to participation for Māori.

118. More work is required to understand how the facility could become more attractive to the Māori community.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications119. There are no financial implications to the local board for any decision to support the development of an indicative business case

120. The operational funding available in the 2019/2020 Libraries and Information Departmental budget for this investigation was carried forward to 2020/2021.

121. The proposed indicative business case can be funded from this remaining allocated budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

122. A comprehensive risk assessment has been undertaken. The main risks are outlined in Table 3 below.

123. Library patronage has been impacted by the COVID-19 lockdown and ensuing restrictions. Current budgetary constraints also impact on level of services such as programming and events and collections renewal.

124. The long-term impacts of the events of the last few months are still unknown. Utilisation data over the next 12 months will provide some indication of patterns of use.

125. Continued building issues would impact negatively on the facility’s functionality as well as on the duty of care Auckland Libraries has for its important and unique collections. This should be looked at within the context of other library failures, such as the recent closure of the Leys Institute Library and substitute pop-up library which puts additional pressure on the central library.

Table 3: Initial risk identification and mitigations

Main risks	Consequence	Likelihood	Comments and risk management strategies
Lack of visibility as to long-term impacts of Covid-19 restrictions on utilisation impacts on planning	Medium	Medium	Monitor key statistics on central library usage Monitor international library trends
Current budgetary constraints impact on our ability to deliver required building maintenance, which could impact the facility’s functionality and the condition of the collections	Medium	High	Consider the building asset maintenance plan as part of the Long-term Plan 2021-31
Degradation or closure of library facilities in the wider network impact service delivery	Medium	Medium	Optimise libraries network and maintain facilities

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

126. Staff will report to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in December 2020. The report will include feedback from the Waitematā Local Board.

127. Pending a decision from the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, the next step is to proceed with the second stage of the business case process, namely an indicative business case. The indicative business case would:

· develop and refine viable options for the economic case

· test the viable options against success criteria such as viability and value for money

· recommend a preferred way forward for further development of the investment proposal.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment 1: Investment logic map	77
b ⇩	Attachment 2: Detailed investigation report	79

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carole Canler - Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

Auckland Transport - Allocation of Local Board Transport Capital Fund

File No.: CP2020/16750

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. For the Waitematā Local Board to allocate its FY 2020/2021 Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) to projects in its area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report outlines:

· Confirmation of the Waitematā Local Board’s transport capital fund allocation for 2020/2021 as $240,994;

· An update on the progress of Waitematā Local Board’s LBTCF projects begun in 2016-2019 political term;

· To note that the Waitematā Wayfinding Signage was completed in August 2020. The remaining funds to allocate are $170,994.

· Two options for the Waitematā Local Board to consider allocating its LBTCF in the 2020/2021 financial year. The options are outlined in the report and have been put forward for consideration because projects are in detailed design stage.

· Advice on the financial implications of these decisions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Allocate $170,994 of its Local Board Transport Capital Fund to the following projects:

i) approve $70,000 to the Auckland Domain Projects – Design work for four footpath connections within the Domain being delivered by Community Facilities

ii) approve $100,000 to the MOTAT Shared Path project to construct a new carpark, which includes a shared path linkage between Motions Rd and Meola Rd.

Horopaki

Context

3. This report focuses on allocating the remaining budget left in the LBTCF for the 2020/2021 financial year.

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

5. Any project must also:

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

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

6. Auckland Council consulted on an Emergency Budget in May-July 2020 to take into account the effects of COVID-19 on its financial position. This has affected the amount of funding available to local boards to deliver LBTCF projects.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

7. Following the setting of the Emergency Budget the LBTCF programme received $5,000,000 for the 2020/2021 year for allocation across the 21 local boards.

8. Decisions about the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 financial years will form part of the Long-term Plan/Regional Land Transport Plan discussions but early indications are that these years will also see a more constrained capital programme than prior to the COVID-19 crisis.

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

10. The $5,000,000 for 2020/2021 will be split using the Local Board Funding Policy

11. Currently, with budgets unknown for financial years 2021/2022 and 2022/2023, Boards are unable to combine future years allocations into a single project.

12. Boards are encouraged to target delivery towards smaller projects or complete design and documentation for a project that can be physically delivered in 2021/2022.

13. The Waitematā Local Board’s share of the 2021/2022 allocation is $240,994.

14. Waitematā Wayfinding Signage was completed in August 2020 and the costs of $70,000 for this project are therefore committed in 2020/2021. This leaves the remaining funds to be allocated as: $170,994.

Progress Report LBTCF Projects 2016-2019

Project Name	Status	External Consultation Complete	Estimated Cost to Complete
Waitematā Wayfinding Signage	This work was contracted late in 2019/2020 and completed in August 2020. These costs are therefore committed in 2020/2021 year	Yes	$0
MOTAT Shared Path (Board contribution)	Currently in design and consent preparation. Construction planned to start in early 2021.	N/A	$130,000
Cox’s Bay to Wharf Rd Greenway	Detailed Design in progress. Consent documentation being prepared.	Yes	$800,000 (For construction)
Auckland Domain – Titoki Carpark	Design in progress	No	$198,000
Auckland Domain – The Crescent	Design in progress	No	$157,000
Auckland Domain – Grafton Mews	Design in progress	No	$89,000
Auckland Domain – Parnell Station through wood chip yard pathway	Design in progress	No	$518,000
Western Springs Greenway	Concept design complete but project on hold until funding is confirmed	No	$690,000
Total Estimated Costs for all projects			$2,652,000

15. A brief synopsis of each project is as follows:

Waitematā wayfinding signage
This project was contracted and commenced in the last financial year but the physical work was carried out and paid for this financial year. The cost this year of $70,000 must therefore be part of this year’s allocation.

Auckland Domain Projects

16. There are four footpath connections within the Auckland Domain being delivered by Community Facilities, which are currently in concept design phase.

17. Community Facilities currently have a committed contract with a consultant to deliver detailed designs, costings and consent documentation for the four projects valued at $70,000. It is recommended that this contract be continued to completion.

18. It is expected that unless there are complications with the consents that these could reasonably be expected to be received in February or March 2021.

19. This is unlikely to leave time for procurement and construction of any of these projects in 2020/2021, and the recommendation is to target the construction of the affordable projects in 2021/2022.

20. Should the consents be received earlier it may be possible to deliver the Grafton Mews project in 2020/2021 providing funds were made available.

21. Completion of designs in 2020/2021 will give a more accurate assessment of construction cost estimates.

City Centre CCTV

22. Rolling out of CCTV cameras in the Waitematā Local Board area. There are a number of areas in the inner-city area that are prone to illegal parking. The Waitematā Local Board would like to prioritise areas that are high risk to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users of the road corridor. Enforcement of these areas requires high resourcing of Auckland Transport staff who are not able to patrol such a wide area effectively.

23. Auckland Transport do not currently have a technology solution that suits enforcement needs. Auckland Transport will be trialing a new technology offering between October and December 2020.

24. Funding for additional installations will not be able to be exercised until the commencement of the 2021/2022 Financial Year.

25. Capex funding for the current financial year is very tight and unfortunately a number of Business Technology Projects have been placed on hold or cancelled.

Local Board Decision Making

Allocation of the LBTCF 2020/2021

26. Auckland Transport attended a workshop with the Board on 29 September 2020 where a progress report was given on the Board’s 2016-2019 LBTCF projects as well as discussion on how to plan for the next two years as it now appears that budgets will continue to be constrained.

27. The Waitematā Local Board’s position is outlined above - the Board has several projects ready or almost ready to be delivered but only a limited ability to fund them. Auckland Transport outlined some options on how to deliver these projects over the next three years assuming increases in the LBTCF budget become available.

28. As public funds have already been expended in getting these projects to delivery stage, Auckland Transport’s advice is to prioritise their delivery rather than to seek out new projects.

29. Discussion at the workshop canvassed views allocating funds to the projects from the 2016-2019 political term.

30. Auckland Transport presented two options to the Waitematā Local Board to consider:

Option 1:

Project	FY21
Wayfinding Signage	$70,000
Domain – Design	$70,000
MOTAT Shared Path	$100,000
Total	$240,000

Option 2:

Project	FY21
Wayfinding Signage	$70,000
Domain – Design	$70,000
MOTAT Shared Path	$21,000
Auckland Domain – Grafton Mews	$79,000
Total	$240,000

31. Other priorities were discussed for future financial years and local board members noted their strong desire to get the pathway from Auckland Domain to Parnell Station through the Wood Chip Yard completed.

32. The Local Board sought advice on whether the Titoki Carpark was going to be paid for out of the Parking Fund.

33. Auckland Council Communities Facilities Group advised the installation of the gates at the entrance and exit to the Titoki Street carpark and at the Carlton Gore entrance would be paid for out of the Parking Fund.

34. Auckland Council Communities Facilities Group indicated that it would investigate the Parking Fund to see if there were left over funds.

35. The following projects were discussed by the Waitematā Local Board to allocate funding in 2020/2021:

Project	FY21
Wayfinding Signage	$70,000
Domain – Design	$70,000
Domain – Grafton Mews	$79,000
City Centre CCTV	$20,000
Total	$239,000

Following the workshop, it was discussed that the three projects to be funded in the 2020/2021 year are:

i) Allocate $70,000 to the Auckland Domain Projects – Design work

ii) Allocate $79,000 to the Domain Grafton Mews project - Construct

iii) Allocate $20,000 to the CCTV City Centre rollout – Partially funded

36. Auckland Transport’s recommendation is for the following:

37. Allocate $70,000 in the 2020/2021 financial year to the design phase for the four footpaths in the Auckland Domain.

38. Auckland Transport’s recommendation is to not allocate $79,000 to the Grafton Mews Project. While the Waitematā Local Board is wanting to deliver this project in the 2020/2021 financial year, there are some Design and Construction considerations which will delay this project and mean that it is not practical to progress in this Financial Year.

39. With the previous commitment from the local board to contribute to the MOTAT Shared Paths project, Auckland Transport makes a recommendation to contribute $100,000 and not allocate $79,000 to the Grafton Mews project.

40. Allocate $100,000 to the MOTAT Shared Paths project. MOTAT have advised that their project is continuing with construction due to start in early 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43. The impact of information in this report is mainly confined to Auckland Transport. Where LBTCF projects are being progressed by Auckland Council’s Community Facilities department, or another part of the council family, 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

44. Auckland Transport attended a workshop with the Waitematā Local Board on 29 September 2020 where options on how to get best value from its 2020/2021 LBTCF allocations were discussed as well as planning for future financial years.

45. The board indicated its support for the Auckland Domain projects and the pathway from Parnell Station through the Wood Chip yard. This will be looked into for the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 years.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

46. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, as result of decisions in this report, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47. There is currently $240,994 in the local board’s transport capital fund.

48. The Waitematā Wayfinding Signage was completed in August 2020 and cost $70,000 to complete. This leaves $170,994 to allocate.

49. The projects outlined in this report seek local board funding to progress. The advice to the local board is that it should allocate its funding to projects for the 2020/2021 as soon as possible.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50. There is a risk around delivery of other LBTCF projects as the amount of LBTCF that will be available to local boards in FY 2020/2021 and FY 2021/2022 is uncertain at this time.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. Board to consider the option presented and give direction on whether they wish to proceed with using the funding available.

52. It should be noted that only 2020/2021 projects are critical at this time. The Board can confirm projects for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 once the Long-Term Plan budget is completed and actual budgets for those years are known.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Caroline Tauevihi - Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

Auckland Transport November 2020 Update to the Waitematā Local Board

File No.: CP2020/16608

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on Auckland Transport activities in the Waitematā Local Board area and a summary of the local board transport capital fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report covers:

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

· an update on the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and Community Safety Projects.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport November 2020 report.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

5. With the Council’s emergency budget now confirmed the LBTCF for the 2020/2021 Financial Year has been set at $5.0 million, for allocation across the 21 Local Boards. Allocation will still be based on the Local Board Funding Policy. Decisions about the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 Financial Years will form part of the LTP/RLTP discussions but early indications are that these years will also see a more constrained capital programme, than prior to the COVID-19 crisis. The specific budget available for the LBTCF in 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 will be determined by the prioritisation of the capital programme through the RLTP and will be subject to the usual consultation and submission processes.

6. The Community Safety Fund is funded from Auckland Transport’s safety budget and is dependent on the level of funding Auckland Transport receives from Council. Current indications are that this level of funding will be significantly constrained. Public consultation and the design work informed by this consultation, is progressing, with a view to having projects designed and ready to go, when money becomes available

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Community Safety Fund

7. The CSF planned to deliver a total of $20 million over two years distributed across all 21 local boards. It is strictly for road safety initiatives and is to deliver safety projects identified by the local board and Ward Councilors.

8. A local board’s share of the fund is derived from a formula that assesses the number of deaths and serious injuries in that area.

9. Waitematā Local Board share of the CSF was $1,450,000.

10. Waitematā has five CSF proposed projects and these are listed below:

a) Safe Schools Toolbox – Newton Central School

b) Pedestrian Crossings - on West End Road / Fife St by the bus stops next to the Westend tennis club

c) Pedestrian crossings formalised on Lower Domain Drive at Lovers Lane and at Domain Drive

d) Pedestrian crossing outside ACG Campus on Davis Cres to Olympic Reserve

e) Hopetoun Street Improvements

f) The Community Safety Fund is funded from AT’s safety budget and is dependent on the level of funding AT receives from Auckland Council. This level of funding has been constrained through the Emergency Budget process.

g) Safety projects for delivery in FY2020/2021have prioritised according to DSI (death and serious injury) data and therefore local board community safety fund projects will continue with planning and design but will not be delivered in the 2020/2021 financial year.

Innovating Streets Pilot Fund

11. Earlier this year on 3 April 2020, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport released the Innovating Streets for People Pilot Fund, which supports council projects that aim to transition streets to be safer and more liveable spaces. The fund encourages the use of ‘tactical urbanism’ techniques, such as pilots and pop-ups - interim treatments that can be delivered within a short timeframe to test and help demonstrate the value of future permanent street changes that make walking and cycling easier. Projects that Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency aims to support include:

· temporary, or semi-permanent, physical changes to streets

· improvements that test a permanent fix and prototype a street design

· activations that help communities re-imagine their streets.

12. The fund makes up to $1 million available for each project in 2020/2021. Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency will provide a financial assistance rate of up to 90 percent, as well as support for capability building for successful applicants.

13. Initially, the fund allocated $7 million for projects across New Zealand. This cap was lifted on 12 April 2020 to an unspecified amount with the actual amount to be distributed dependent on the quality of the bids received.

14. There were two application rounds for the pilot fund. The first round opened on 3 April and closed on 8 May 2020. Successful applicants in round one were announced in June 2020. The second round was from 8 June till the 3 July 2020, with successful applicants announced in September 2020.

15. The expectation is that projects from either round will be delivered by the end of June 2021.

16. Auckland Transport will be delivering the Ponsonby Road – Te Rimu Tahi – returning Ponsonby Road.

17. The Innovating Streets Project Teams met with the Waitematā Local Board on 3 November to provide an update.

18. Auckland Transport aim to set up public engagement with key stakeholders, public engagement, expression of interest for co-design team.

19. Once the co-design team has been finalised, co-design sessions will run over a 3 to 4 week period. This process for public engagement and co-design will run from September to December 2020.

20. More information will be provided in the December report.

21. Auckland Transport is also delivering WAVE – (Westhaven and Viaduct Enhancements). This project has been in the Auckland Transport pipeline for a number of years. Most key stakeholders have been consulted over those years. The aim is to complete the cycle path network around the City Centre (‘the missing link’).

22. This will aid the active mode option for key events (e.g. AC36 – America’s Cup).

23. It must cater for hospitality deliveries and taxi services.

24. A bi-directional cycle path will be installed on Market Place, Customs Street West and Lower Hobson Street. The intention is to install by December 17^th 2020 or before the first races.

25. More information will be provided in the December report.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

26. Following the setting of the Emergency Budget the LBTCF programme received $5,000,000 for the 2020/2021 year for allocation across the 21 local boards.

27. Decisions about the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 financial years will form part of the Long-term Plan/Regional Land Transport Plan discussions but early indications are that these years will also see a more constrained capital programme than prior to the COVID-19 crisis.

28. Advice from the Auckland Transport Finance Department set the following criteria for the fund following the setting of the Emergency Budget:

· The $5,000,000 for 2020/2021 will be split using the Local Board Funding Policy

· Currently, with budgets unknown for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 Boards are unable to combine future years allocations into a single project.

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

29. Auckland Transport had a workshop with the Waitematā Local Board on 29 September 2020 to discuss Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects and advise of the allocation they can allocate during 2020/2021. Two options were presented to the Local Board.

30. The Waitematā Local Board’s share of the 2020/2021 allocation is $240,994.

Auckland Transport projects and operations in the local board area

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

Item	Update
City Gateway Treatments – works to signal to drivers as they enter the City that they are entering a slower speed zone.	Raised Pedestrian Crossing at Ophir St will shortly receive some remedial works by the contractor to make the westbound ramp a little less steep. All gateways complete except for Cook St. The plan for this offramp has been significantly revised, and public consultation will begin shortly.
Karangahape Road Enhancements Project – streetscape upgrade.	Construction work presently on-site at the Karangahape Road Enhancements Project continues to operate through Covid-19 Alert Level 1 with site teams following strict COVID-19 health, safety and physical distancing protocols based on the Ministry of Health guidelines at given times and industry best practice to ensure the safety of all project staff and the community. The expected project completion is by end of April 2021. Here is the progress update: 1. Section A (Northside From Ponsonby Road to Howe Street): 100% complete except some minor works which is due complete by month end October 2020. 2. Section B (Northside Motorway Over bridge): 100% complete 3. Section C (Northside Motorway Over bridge to Pitt St): Anticipated to start in second week November 2020 with anticipated completion by early March 2021. 4. Section D (Pitt Street to Upper Queen Street): 50% complete since physical works having started at end of July 2020. Main alignment anticipated to complete by month end November 2020 excluding Pitt St corner works which will carry on into the new year till month end Feb 2021. 5. Section E (Northside from Symonds St to Upper Queen St): 98% complete except some minor works which is due for completion by month end October 2020. 6. Section F (Southside from Symonds St to Upper Queens St): 100% complete, minor works in progress at Upper Queen St and Symonds St to Karangahape Road Intersection which is due to complete by mid-November 2020. 7. Section G (Southside from Upper Queen St to Mercury lane): 98% completed, minor works in progress and due for completion by month end October 2020. 8. Section H (Southside from Mercury Lane to motorway Bridge) – 98% completed and due to fully complete month end October 2020. 9. Section I (Southside Motorway over bridge): 100% completed 10. Section J (Southside Motorway over bridge to Ponsonby Rd Intersection): 10% complete with physical works having partially started between Cobden St and Edinburgh St, this section is anticipated to tentatively complete by March end 2021. We continue to: 1. Detailed pilot trenching and CCTV investigation are continuing to be carried out for future sections for early identification of any potential clashes with underground services. 2. Regular weekly meetings are being held with the CRL team and key stakeholders including the K Road Business Association. 3. Both City Rail Link Limited & K Road comms and Development Response teams have developed a coordinated collaborative approach with all stakeholders and continue to communicate on matters that overlap between the projects. 4. John Fillmore Contractors continue to provide regular project updates to the business and residential community 5. Weekly Engagement with the Karangahape Business Association continues to go well and we continue to respond to operational issues providing constructive feedback with queries around design decreasing. KBA are generally pleased with the level of support and around communication engagement with local business and development response. Overall the relationship is in a good space. 6. Development Response initiatives are to support local creative sector and encouraging visitors to the street and overall Karangahape precinct.
Nelson Street Phase 3 - a cycling facility linking Nelson Street via Market Place into the Viaduct.	Construction of the cycleway on Market Place is still on hold due to budget constraint of Walking and Cycling programme. The project is ‘shovel ready’ for construction once budget becomes available.
Victoria Street East-West cycleway - dedicated cycle route along Victoria Street West, from the Beaumont Street intersection to the Hobson Street intersection.	The Victoria Street cycleway construction is nearing completion. The cycle delineator strip installation on the northern side of Victoria Street has been delayed due to the breakdown of the road marking machine. The final road marking works are expected to be completed early November and the remaining tasks would be the remedial works to correct items have been rejected or not finished. The review of the Union Street intersection is ongoing and an update of any proposed changes to the cycleway at that location will be provided in a separate update to the local board members.
Waitematā Safe Routes project, the two routes open for feedback are Route 1: Surrey Crescent to Garnet Road and Route 2: Richmond Road.	Apart from the West Lynn village remedial works, the design stage for the project (both routes 1 and 2) is on hold for the remainder of FY20/21. A meeting has been scheduled with the Grey Lynn Business Association (GLBA) to provide them with a project update and similar meetings are to be scheduled with the resident’s association and Bike Auckland. The illustrative plans together with an update on the project status will be published on the project website once the meetings with the key stakeholders have taken place. The detailed design for the West Lynn village remedial works and the construction procurement plan have been completed and funding is available to complete the work. Some additional elements have been added to the design following on to further consultation with the Grey Lynn Business Association and updating of the design to incorporate these is expected to be complete by the end of October. The timing for the construction is be agreed with local businesses prior to the work commencing.
Wellesley Street and Sale Street – new intersection signals.	Auckland Transport are working to determine how they can minimize impact on businesses. Work was due to start on the first week of November however, there has been push back from a number of businesses due to the contractor’s methodology to close down part of Sale Street to undertake civil works. Auckland Transport are currently working to see if it can carry out the works in January 2021 as this is a quiet period for businesses instead so there can be minimal impact. It is very likely that work will start on site in January and February 2021.
Wynyard Quarter Street and park upgrades - central construction package.	Completion to be done before mid-November. Majority of works are already complete but there are still some minor works to complete within the coming weeks including providing a boundary fence around the central park area (Amey Daldy Park). The Auckland Transport events team are in the process of planning an opening event. More details on this event to be provided to the Local Board.

32. The table below has an update on the Downtown Infrastructure programme.

ITEM

UPDATE

Downtown Infrastructure Improvement Programme

This includes:

· Quay Street Strengthening

· Quay Street Enhancement

· Britomart East

· Lower Albert

· Downtown Ferry

· Waterfront Park

· Mooring dolphin

· Galway Street Enhancement

The Downtown Programme continues to progress well, meeting its benchmarks and remains on target for completion mid-2021.

Eastbound lane closure on Quay St

As of 30 October, no major issues have been reported around the eastbound lane closure. The eastbound lane will remain closed until December.

Lower Albert Street Gas leak

On Thursday 22 October at around 3.30 pm a gas line was damaged during hydro demolition works onsite in Lower Albert Street. As a precaution the Lower Albert Street site was placed under NZ Fire & Emergency management and Lower Albert Street closed to vehicles, and pedestrians. Adjoining ground floor businesses were temporarily closed while the leak was isolated and made safe.

Bus services were suspended at the Lower Albert Street stop 7071. Birkenhead bus users were asked to catch the NX1 from stop 7016 on Customs Street and disembark at stop 7036 on Fanshawe Street.

Gas levels were not dangerous and were closely monitored by the Fire Department onsite.

Repairs were completed Friday afternoon, 23 October, enabling footpaths and businesses to reopen. Birkenhead bus services resumed on Lower Albert Street from 6.30 pm.

Ferry Basin Redevelopment project

Last week another major milestone was met in the Ferry Basin Redevelopment project, with the first of three canopies installed on the west side of Queens Wharf over pontoons 5 and 6.

The three sections of the canopy were successfully lifted into place in the early hours of Wednesday 28 October and Thursday 29 October and Friday 30 October.

The canopy sections weigh 35 tons each and were craned in from a floating barge using two cranes. The completed canopy will be 65 metres long by 15 metres wide and provide shelter for up to 250 ferry passengers.

Significant works/ site changes

Princes Wharf access changes: On Friday 30 October, vehicle access into Princes Wharf shifted West towards Burger Boy. This shift enables construction of the new northern section of the Lower Hobson / Prince Wharf intersection. The wharf exit will remain as it is for now.

Pedestrian thoroughfare will remain the same, as will access to and from the cycle lane

QSE – Lower Hobson Street intersection

Paving is very close to completion and reinstatement and tie in of the red brick into the new pavers will continue over the next two weeks. Construction of the new northern section of the LHS/Princes Wharf intersection has commenced.

QSE Princes Wharf to Ferry Basin complete mid 2021

The Final section of existing footpath upgrade works are underway. Construction of the final smaller shallow planter will commence soon as the subgrade works and footpath preparation works begin.

QSE Ferry Basin – complete mid 2021

Construction of rain gardens and new street light foundations continue. Streetscape works will follow close behind the Te Wānanga construction works.

QSE Ferry Building

Paving in front of the Ferry Building's eastern side is now almost complete and paving of the final section of new footpath in front of the Ferry Building is now underway. Concrete pours continue across the Queens Wharf access gates. As works progress, pedestrian access into the Ferry Building and Queens Wharf from Quay Street will continue to shift.

Queens Wharf to Commerce Street

Construction of new rain gardens, footpath and the Queen Wharf Vehicle Crossing continue.

Lower Queen Street to Commerce Street

Following the completion of the footpath construction works along Quay Street's northern edge and of private works on 148 Quay Street, we will return to finish works on this corner (Southern side of Quay Street).

Downtown Public Space (Te Wananga)

Deck construction over the water. Tying steel continues in preparation for the final concrete pour for the new deck, scheduled for Mid-November.

Seawall works from the land Reconstruction of the deck continues and all concrete pours are now complete. All twenty nine new inclined anchors are now drilled and grouted.

Lower Albert Street

The full length of the eastern footpath opened on Monday, 31 August. The new western footpath is now accessible to pedestrians and expected western footpath completion up to the southern Countdown Metro Steps is end-October 2020. Completion from the southern Countdown Metro Steps to Customs Street is mid-November 2020.

By end of October all site cabins and the temporary bus-stops are scheduled for removal. Full completion of Lower Albert Street is programmed for early December 2020.

Ferry Basin Redevelopment

Last week another major milestone was met in the Ferry Basin Redevelopment project, with the first of three canopies installed on the west side of Queens Wharf over pontoons 5 and 6. Glazing installation for canopy 2 is underway. The gangway landing for Pontoon 3 is under construction in Ruakaka.

Galway Street Upgrade

Galway Street is now open and paving is complete on the eastern side of Gore Street. Construction of Gore Street speed table continues and Gore Street is operating under a one way traffic management plan with access only from Customs Street. Galway Street vehicle thoroughfare from Britomart Place onto Gore Street is temporarily restricted until end-October. Access for Westpac maintained.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

General information items sent to the board:

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

Item	Date sent to Board
INFO: Downtown Programme	07/10/20
FEEDBACK: Herne Bay Resident Parking Zone	16/10/20
FEEDBACK: Hopetoun street	16/10/20
FEEDBACK: Commerce Street parking changes	04/11/20

Traffic Control Committee resolutions

38. Auckland Transport's resolution and approval process ensures the most appropriate controls and restrictions are put in place and can be legally enforced. The decisions made by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in the Waitematā Local Board during September 2020 are as follows:

Street Name	Report Type	Nature of Restriction	Decision
Daldy Street / Gaunt Street / Pakenham Street West / Fanshawe Street / Beaumont Street Auckland Central	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	Lanes / Lane Arrow Marking / Shared Path / No Stopping At All Times / Motorcycle Parking / Bus Stop / Bus Shelter / Mobility Parking / P120 Parking / Pedestrian Crossing / Footpath / Traffic Signal Control / Stop Control / Keep Clear	Carried
Park Avenue Grafton	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	No Stopping At All Times / Shared Vehicle Parking / Paid Parking	Carried
Te Taou Crescent / Mahuhu Crescent / Quay Street Auckland Central	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Event)	Temporary Traffic and Parking Controls	Carried
Porters Avenue / Wynyard Road / Haultain Street / Fenton Street / Brentwood Avenue Mount Eden	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	No Stopping At All Times / Traffic Island / Stop Control / Give-Way Control / Removal Of No Passing	Carried
Boston Road / Nugent Street / Normanby Road / Auburn Street / Severn Road Eden Terrace	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	No Stopping At All Times / Roundabout / Lanes / Lane Arrow Marking / Keep Clear / Give-Way Control / Removal Of Traffic Island	Carried
Greys Avenue Auckland Central	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	No Stopping At All Times / Loading Zone / P10 Parking / Bus Stop / Bus Shelter / Edge Line	Carried
Customs Street West / Fanshawe Street / Albert Street Auckland Central	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Works)	No Stopping At All Times / Bus Lane / No Straight Ahead	Carried
Mahuhu Crescent and surrounding streets Auckland Central	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Event)	Temporary Traffic and Parking Controls	Carried
Mahuhu Crescent and surrounding streets Auckland Central	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Event)	Temporary Traffic and Parking Controls	Carried
Broadway / Davis Crescent Newmarket	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	Loading Zone / Lanes / Lane Arrow Marking / Traffic Signal / Traffic Island	Carried
Gladstone Road And Surrounding Streets Parnell	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Event)	Temporary Traffic and Parking Controls	Carried
The Crescent And Surrounding Streets Grafton	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Event)	Temporary Traffic and Parking Controls	Carried
Queen Street Auckland Central	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Event)	Temporary Traffic and Parking Controls	Noted

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. The proposed decision of receiving this report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. Auckland Transport’s capital and operating budgets have been reduced through Auckland Council’s Emergency Budget process. Some projects planned for 2020/2021 will not be able to be delivered. Both the Community Safety Fund and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund are impacted by these budget reductions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the local board next month.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Caroline Tauevihi - Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

Community Facilities’ Sustainable Asset Standard

File No.: CP2020/16591

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Sixty-one per cent of C40 cities^{^[1]} require green building certifications for all new facilities. For CF to manage its assets efficiently and sustainably, our practices need to go beyond building code compliance. Green building and infrastructure tools provide the framework to align CF asset management with international best practice to deliver better asset value and outcomes for Aucklanders.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

· The Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

· Te Aranga Design Principles

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

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

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

Auckland Council Māori Outcomes Framework

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

3.0 Mārae Development

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

4.0 Te Reo Maori

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

5.0 Māori Identity and Culture

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

6.0 Māori Business, Tourism and Employment

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

7.0 Realising Rangatahi Potential

Rangatahi potential included via two pathways:

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

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

8.0 Kaitiakitanga

Supports kaitiakitanga outcomes in two ways:

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

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

9.0 Effective Māori Participation

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

10.0 An Empowered Organisation

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

Te Aranga Design Principles

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. A four per cent^{^[2]} cost increase is forecast for 30 capital projects to be certified under the Standard over the next ten years. This increase totals $14.5 million on top of the existing allocated budgets for these 30 projects. Funding will be sought through the Long-term Plan climate lane corporate emissions package, at a future Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Community Facilities Sustainable Asset Policy	193

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toto Vu-Duc - Manager Community Leases

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16222

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

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

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

· Unitec Residential Development

· Papakainga development in Point Chevalier

· Britomart Station Eastern End Upgrade

· Papakura to Pukekohe Rail Electrification

· Northern Pathway – Westhaven to Akoranga shared pathway

· Papakura to Drury South State Highway 1 Improvements.

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

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

· the public good aspects of the application

· its potential contribution to job creation and economic activity

· the potential significance of any environmental effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urban Development Act 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· There are significant implications for the Parks Network Plans for the same location.

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

Urban Development Act 2020

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Powers available to Kāinga Ora	201
b ⇩	The Specified Development Project process	203

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Waitematā Local Board

17 November 2020

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

File No.: CP2020/16447

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. The critical themes from submissions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā 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 chair of the Waitematā Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

10. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.^{^[4]}

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

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

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

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

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

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

· the Section 32 Report that accompanies the plan change

· submissions

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

Themes from submissions received

18. Key submission themes are listed below.

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

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

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

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

19. Submissions were made by four people/organisations:

Table 1: Submissions received on plan change 53

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Auckland Transport and ATEED will review relevant submissions and provide expert input to the hearing report.

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

29. On 17 July 2020, a memo was sent to all local boards outlining the proposed changes, the rationale for them and the likely plan change timeframes.^{^[5]}

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

34. No iwi authorities made a formal submission.

35. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.^{^[6]} The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.^{^[7]}

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy – Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

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

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

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

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

Chair	Richard Northey, (ONZM)
Deputy Chair	Kerrin Leoni
Members	Adriana Avendano Christie
	Alexandra Bonham
	Graeme Gunthorp
	Julie Sandilands
	Sarah Trotman, (ONZM)

Author	Priscila Firmo - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager