Agenda of Henderson-Massey Local Board

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

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

The following are declared interests of elected members of the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

Member

Organisation

Position

Brenda Brady, JP

- Safer West Community Trust

Trustee

Chris Carter

(Chair)

- St Lazarus Trust

- Waitemata District Health Board

- Waitakere Badminton Club

Member

Peter Chan, JP

- Cantonese Opera Society of NZ

- Asian Leaders Forum

- NZ-Hong Kong Business Association

- NZ-China Business Association

- Auckland Chinese Environment Protection Association (ACEPA)

- Whau Coastal Walkway Trust

Member

Advisor

Trustee

Matt Grey

- West Auckland Youth Development Trust

- Billy Graham Youth Foundation

Director

Board Member

Will Flavell

(Deputy Chairman)

- Asia New Zealand Leadership Network

- COMET

- Te Atatū Tennis Club

- Waitākere Literacy Board

Member

Employee

Board Member

Brooke Loader

- Waitakere Licensing Trust

- Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association

- Neighbourhood Support

- Te Atatu Glendene Community Patrol

Member

Associate Member

Member

Volunteer

Vanessa Neeson

- Village Green Quilters

- Ranui Advisory Group

Member

Chairperson

Ingrid Papau

- Liberty Impact Community Trust

- #WeLoveTuvalu Community Trust

- Liberty Church

- Board of Trustees (Rutherford Primary School)

Board Member

Member

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council:

External organisation	Leads	Alternate
Central Park Henderson Business Association	Brenda Brady and Brooke Loader
Heart of Te Atatu South	Brenda Brady and Brooke Loader
Massey Matters	Will Flavell and Peter Chan
Ranui Advisory Group	Vanessa Neeson (Chair) and Ingrid Papau
Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association	Peter Chan and Ingrid Papau
Waitakere Ethnic Board	Ingrid Papau and Peter Chan
Waitakere Healthlink	Peter Chan	Chris Carter
Te Whau Pathway Trust	Matt Grey and Brenda Brady

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 April 2021 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 4 May 2021, 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 Henderson-Massey 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.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Te Kete Rukuruku programme - adoption of te reo Māori names, receipt of associated narratives and installation of bilingual signs at Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre

File No.: CP2021/05110

Te take mō te pūrongoPurpose of the report

1. To adopt 63 of the Tranche One te reo Māori park names and their associated narratives.

2. To approve Rush Creek Reserve and the Massey Leisure Centre (park) for installation of bilingual park signage.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. On 17 July 2018, the Henderson-Massey Local Board (the board) resolved (HM/2018/104) to invite mana whenua to name 179 parks in the Henderson-Massey area, as Tranche One of Te Kete Rukuruku, the Māori naming of parks and community places programme.

4. The Māori name will be added to the existing name resulting in a dual name for the site. Nothing will be taken away.

5. Sixty-three names from Tranche One are now ready for formal adoption.

6. This report seeks the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s adoption of these 63 park names, receipt of narratives and approval to install bilingual signage in Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park).

7. Communications to inform the stakeholders and communities around these parks will commence upon formal adoption of the names.

8. Where reserves are classified under the Reserves Act 1977, gazettal of the dual park names will occur once the names are adopted.

9. The Te Kete Rukuruku team will discuss the remaining 113 parks where names are sought with iwi and workshop with the board to prioritise which sites will go forward for naming in 2021/2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) adopt 63 te reo Māori names for parks as dual names as outlined in Attachment A

b) receive the narratives which tell the story behind each of the names as outlined in Attachment A

c) acknowledge that Auckland Council has agreed to enter into a mātauranga agreement that commits to upholding the correct use of the name and to use it only for purposes that have a community outreach or educational purpose (non-commercial use)

d) authorise the gazettal of park names listed in Attachment A, for parks classified under the Reserves Act 1977, in accordance with section 16 (10) of the Reserves Act

e) approve Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park) as the preferred location for the installation of bilingual signage.

Horopaki

Context

10. Te Kete Rukuruku is a culture and identity programme that collects and tells the unique Māori stories of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. It is a partnership between Auckland Council, 15 local boards and all 19 mana whenua groups that have interests across the region, led by mana whenua.

11. A key outcome of the programme is for te reo Māori to be seen, heard, learned and spoken. The programme contributes to reclaiming the Māori identity which is Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique point of difference in the world.

12. A subset of the programme involves the reintroduction of ancestral and contemporary Māori names to the city’s parks and places.

13. The rationale and benefits of the programme, as well as the process for identifying and adopting names and narratives, was agreed by Henderson-Massey Local Board at its business meeting on 17 July 2018.

14. On 17 July 2018, the Henderson-Massey Local Board invited mana whenua to provide Māori names and narratives for 179 parks (HM/2018/104). This was included in its 2018/2019 work programme as Tranche One.

15. Te Kete Rukuruku process, as agreed with mana whenua and local boards, is that te reo Māori names are being restored by mana whenua, consequently public feedback on specific names is not sought. In some cases, the Māori names have been attached to the park or area for hundreds of years prior to the English name being adopted.

16. Existing park names are not removed and will not be lost.

17. When received, the names will be accepted and adopted by the board. Communication and public notification will commence upon this formal adoption.

18. One park is identified within each tranche where signage will be reviewed and upgraded or replaced to include both Māori and English text. Upon project completion, all signage within the selected park will be bilingual.

19. At a Henderson-Massey Local Board workshop held on 13 May 2020:

· the board supported the Te Kete Rukuruku programme team’s recommendation to develop bilingual signage for Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park). Please note that the Māori name does not apply to the Massey Leisure Centre facility, only the park land that it sits upon

· it was advised and agreed with the board that, given the high number of parks identified for Tranche One and the capacity of iwi, 66 parks would receive a name in this tranche, with 113 being deferred.

20. Sixty-three park names were presented to the board by mana whenua at a hui on the 29 April 2021 and are now ready for adoption.

21. As previously advised at the hui tuku ingoa, three sites have been removed from the tranche of 66. These sites are Windy Ridge, Valron Esplanade and Epping Plant Reserve, leaving 63 sites to receive names.

22. Once names are adopted signage will be replaced only when due for renewal, except for the bilingual parks selected. Should the board wish to upgrade signage sooner to reflect the new names funding would be required from the Locally Driven Initiatives fund.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. At its July 2018 meeting, the board resolved that the names and narratives will be adopted for use as names to enrich the stories of parks and support the Māori language to be visible, heard, spoken and learnt.

24. Once received, the Māori names are not open for consultation.

25. It is recommended that the board adopt the names as dual names as no parks have been identified for sole naming at this time.

26. The board may subsequently choose to remove the English name from the park and have a sole Māori name rather than a dual name. Consultation with stakeholders and those with an interest in the park is at the boards’ discretion but would be recommended should the board wish to pursue this as an option.

Bilingual signage in Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park)

27. In Tranche One, the board was offered the opportunity to select one park where all signage will be upgraded to be fully bilingual.

28. At a workshop on 13 May 2020, the board indicated their support for Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park) to be their first park to receive this fully bilingual signage.

29. The Māori name being submitted for Massey Leisure Centre is applicable to the whenua (land) only and does not apply to the buildings that sit upon it. Should the board wish to discuss the name of the facility further discussion would be required with mana whenua.

30. This bilingual signage is fully funded from Long-term Plan regional funding for Māori outcomes. No additional funding is required.

31. The new signage will include:

· dual language entrance signage stating the te reo Māori and English names

· bilingual wayfinding, information and bylaw signage

· a bilingual interpretative sign to tell the story behind the te reo Māori name.

32. With a view to spending Aucklanders’ money wisely, existing signs will be reskinned, unless the signage is damaged or worn and needs to be replaced.

33. A signage audit is underway and visuals of the park signage will be drafted and provided to the board prior to the signs being installed.

34. Bilingual signage will visibly raise the profile of te reo Māori in the public domain. It will provide the opportunity to learn the story behind the name as well as making it easy for the public to familiarise themselves with and use te reo.

35. If the board do not approve the installation of bilingual signage at Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park) all signage will remain in its present condition. Signage will then only be replaced either via the renewals programme or, if funded separately by the board, as a stand-alone project from the Locally Driven Initiatives budget.

36. For the reasons outlined above it is recommended that the board approve the installation of bilingual signage in Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37. There are no substantive climate change impacts relating to this matter.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38. The Te Kete Rukuruku project is a regional programme that delivers on council’s Māori Language Policy and Kia Ora Te Reo, which is a priority within Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, the organisation’s Māori Outcome Performance Management Framework. It also delivers on Kia Ora Te Ahurea (the Māori culture and identity outcomes) as the programme helps to reclaim our Māori identity and unique point of difference in the world.

39. The programme aligns with the aspirations of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) as articulated in the Schedule of Issues of Significance 2017, Māori Plan.

40. This programme is a partnership programme with the naming and narratives being led by mana whenua. It seeks to bring rigour to the process of naming across the council group over time.

41. The programme has also triggered the development of new bilingual signage templates that may be used across the organisation in the future.

42. Community Facilities are responsible for renewal of existing signage and will incorporate the new dual name as and when signage is renewed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

43. Through partnering with mana whenua on this project, it is envisaged that relationships between mana whenua and local boards will be strengthened.

44. The programmes recommendation of dual naming adds an additional name and narrative to each park, as opposed to taking anything away from the community.

45. Dual language naming signage and bilingual signage help to enrich park user experience.

46. Māori naming and bilingual signage in parks is aligned to the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020:

· outcome three: Thriving Māori culture and identity

· key Initiative: Progress Te Kete Rukuruku.

47. When the 63 names have been adopted and their narratives received, the board and Auckland Council are permitted to use them for community outreach and educational purposes (non-commercial).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. This project helps to increase Māori identity and belonging and is aligned with outcomes in the Auckland Plan.

49. The project contributes towards outcomes from the Te Reo Māori Action Plan 2020-2023. The action plan brings to life the Māori Language Policy (2016) and describes actions to champion a bilingual city where te reo Māori is seen, heard, spoken and learned.

50. Adopting the Māori name and narrative for 63 parks will increase the visibility of te reo Māori in the local board area, will safeguard the stories of mana whenua and help ensure their survival.

51. Te Kete Rukuruku has sought to establish a best practice approach to Māori naming and the collection and sharing of stories.

52. Mātauranga agreements are being developed to ensure that names and stories are protected by the council - we will uphold their correct use and use them only for purposes that have a community outreach or educational purpose (non-commercial use).

53. As a partnership programme, all aspects of providing names and narratives have been led by the mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau. This is appropriate as mana whenua are those with the mana in this area to carry the responsibility for Māori naming.

54. There are a large number of resident mataawaka (Māori who live in Auckland and are not in a mana whenua group) who will have a great interest in these new names and narratives. This provides an opportunity to engage with mataawaka Māori organisations and invite them to embrace and help champion the names and narratives once the names are adopted.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. Henderson-Massey Local Board has set aside Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) funding for this programme and this has been carried forward into the current financial year.

56. This funding provides a partial contribution to mana whenua for their time in supporting the process including research and ratification.

57. The Henderson-Massey Local Board allocated $41,500 for naming 179 parks as Tranche One of this project. Sixty-three parks will receive dual names within this financial year and no additional funding is required.

58. The board may choose to hold a small community event to unveil the bilingual signage in either Rush Creek Reserve or Massey Leisure Centre (park) to celebrate the adoption of the names. It is expected that signage will be fully installed by August. The board should advise the Te Kete Rukuruku team if they wish to hold such an event so this can be organised in liaison with the Civic Events team.

59. Sufficient funding remains to allow for a small community event, as detailed above, and to continue with delivery of the remaining 113 sites selected for naming, subject to the funding being carried forward into 2021/2022.

60. Updated dual name signage for these parks will be delivered through Community Facilities’ existing renewals programmes.

61. Bilingual signage for Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park) is funded by Long-term Plan regional funding for Māori outcomes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62. A number of risks and issues were highlighted at the outset of this programme or added as the programme has progressed including:

· multiple mana whenua having an interest in Henderson-Massey, with differing views on naming

· extended delays in the adoption of Māori names continuing the predominance of English only names and missing renewal opportunities

· potential negative public reaction to the addition of Māori names

· costs of replacement signage.

63. These risks are carefully managed throughout the process and mitigated in a variety of ways including:

· timeframes are extended when required to allow robust discussion around the names being submitted. The approach of the programme has been to focus on a quality outcome

· splitting the tranche to allow for adoption of names as they are finalised rather than waiting for completion of the entire tranche. This is particularly relevant when such a high number of parks are being named

· the existing park name will be retained with the Māori named being returned/added. No existing names will be removed. Communications with stakeholder and community groups will communicate this once the Māori names are adopted

· signage will be replaced as it comes up for renewal with the only exception being the bilingual signage at Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park) that will be reskinned if replacement is not warranted.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64. Where land is vested in the council and held as a reserve under the Reserves Act, the council may name or change the name of a reserve by notice in the Gazette. Where reserves are classified under the Reserves Act 1977, gazettal of the dual park names will occur once the names are adopted.

65. The names will be entered into the council’s website, GIS and SAP systems.

66. Upon Henderson-Massey Local Board’s formal approval, the process for installation of bilingual signs at Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park) will commence, with anticipated delivery in August 2021.

67. Community Facilities will be advised of all names adopted so any signage being renewed will have the correct dual name.

68. The Te Kete Rukuruku programme team will defer the remaining 113 parks into next financial year to be discussed and workshopped with the board, should the board choose to proceed with the programme.

69. The Te Kete Rukuruku team will discuss with iwi how many names of the remaining 113 they are able to submit in 2021/2022. There is sufficient funding currently available to deliver the next group of names. This is contingent on the remaining budget being carried forward into 2021/2022.

70. The board should confirm if an unveiling event is required.

Communications approach

71. At local board level, the local communications team will work with the local board and mana whenua, with support from the programme team, to develop communication outputs.

72. Messaging will be focused on what the community is gaining and being proud of what we are doing for all Aucklanders.

73. Local board communication channels will be used to get messages out, including Facebook pages and e-newsletters. The local communication team will also work with local boards to develop media opportunities with board members to share the messages with their networks.

74. The launch of the communications outputs will be triggered by the board’s adoption of the names.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey Local Board Tranche One Māori names and narratives.pdf	17

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Anahera Higgins - Te Kete Rukuruku Programme Manager

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Approval for a new private road name at 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44, 46, 46A & 48 Border Road, Henderson.

File No.: CP2021/05342

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Henderson-Massey Local Board for a name for a new private road, being the commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of the subdivision development at 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44, 46, 46A & 48 Border Road, Henderson.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines (the Guidelines) set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. The guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider /developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the Local Board’s approval.

3. The developer and applicant, Kāinga Ora and their Senior Stakeholder Relationship Manager Catherine Gilhooly, have proposed the names presented below for consideration by the Local Board.

4. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the Guidelines and the Australian & New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing, AS NZS 4819:2011 and the Guidelines for Addressing in-fill Developments 2019 – LINZ OP G 01245 (the Standards). The technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity. Mana Whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the Guidelines.

5. The names proposed for the new private road at 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44, 46, 46A & 48 Border Road are:

· Riwai Lane (applicant’s preference)

· Peruperu Lane (alternative 1)

· Kōwiniwini Lane (alternative 2)

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve the name ‘Riwai Lane’ for the new private road created by way of the subdivision being undertaken by Kāinga Ora at 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44, 46, 46A & 48 Border Road, Henderson in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60363317 and SUB60363319).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent BUN60363317 (subdivision reference number SUB60363319) was issued in February 2021 for the construction of 47 new residential freehold units and a commonly owned access lot (COAL).

7. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachment A.

8. In accordance with the Standards, any road including private ways (COALs) and right of ways, that serve more than five lots, generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The Guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region. The Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the Local Board’s approval.

10. The Guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes with the use of Maori names being actively encouraged:

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

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

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

11. Theme: The proposed road names were provided by Te Kawerau a Maki and reference the following history:

Panuku and Parehuia are Te Kawerau ā Maki ancestors, who lived out at Te Henga (Bethells Beach). Parehuia was kidnapped by Nihotupu and as she was carried away she dropped feathers from her korowai. This trail of feathers enabled Panuku to find Parehuia.

‘Henderson Walkway’ runs from Border Road through to the Henderson township and the story of Parehuia and Panuku is represented visually along the walkway.

Parehuia and Panuku were well-known for their gardening skills and there are some taro plants along the Henderson Walkway, to represent this. To continue this theme the applicant has suggested names for the road that are all varieties of potato.

The proposed names and their meaning are as follows:

Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Riwai Lane (applicant’s preference)	Meaning ‘potato’.
Peruperu Lane (alternative 1)	Variety of potato.
Kōwiniwini Lane (alternative 2)	Variety of potato.

12. Assessment: All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the Guidelines and the Standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity. It is therefore for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

13. Confirmation: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

14. Road Type: ‘Lane is an acceptable road type for the new private road, suiting the form and layout of the COAL.

15. Consultation: Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the Guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

18. 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

19. To aid local board decision making, the Guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua, particularly through the resource consent approval process, and the allocation of road names where appropriate. The Guidelines identify the process that enables mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications and in this instance, the process has been adhered to.

20. The road names proposed in this report have been provided to all mana whenua by Council for their consideration. The proposed road names were provided by Te Kawerau a Maki and chosen by the applicant.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. There are no significant risks to Council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process, with consultation being a key component of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24. Approved road names are notified to LINZ which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database. LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44, 46, 46A & 48 Border Road Site Plan & Location Map	33

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Dale Rewa - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Henderson-Massey Local and Multiboard Grants Round Two 2020/2021 grant allocations

File No.: CP2021/05908

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Henderson-Massey Local Board with information on applications in Henderson-Massey Local Grants and Multi-board Grants Round Two 2020/2021; to enable a decision to fund, part fund or decline each application.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Henderson-Massey Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 (Attachment B), and Multi-board Grants Round Two 2020/2021 (Attachment C).

3. The Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted the Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Grants Programme 2020/2021 (Attachment A) that sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $128,057 for the 2020/2021 financial year. A total of $74,060 has been allocated to Quick Response Round One and Two and Local Board Grant Round One, leaving a total of $53,997.00 to be allocated to one local grant round and one quick response round.

5. Twenty-eight applications were received for Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 (Attachment B), including twenty multi-board applications (Attachment C), requesting a total of $196,217.94.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Henderson-Massey Local Grants Round Two, listed in Table One:

Table One: Henderson-Massey Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 grant applications

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2105-202	The Agape Homes Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards two treadmills and two spin bikes, which will be based at the applicant's clinic	$4,060.00	Eligible
LG2105-204	Poly X Ltd	Events	Towards venue hire of Waitakere City Stadium Trust (“The Trusts Arena”) for six Polynesian Night Markets	$9,798.00	Eligible
LG2105-207	Synchro Swim New Zealand	Events	Towards WestWave Pool hire costs for the North Island Artistic Swimming Championships 2021	$3,094.00	Withdrawn
LG2105-209	Henderson Photographic Society	Arts and culture	Towards matting supplies, refreshments for the volunteers, a donation for the guest speaker, petrol vouchers for volunteers moving equipment, and a donation to the school venue	$1,775.00	Eligible
LG2105-210	The Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind	Community	Towards rent for the Blind Low Vision NZ Henderson office	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-211	Massey Playcentre	Community	Towards the purchase of safe play equipment to be built in the outdoor area in Massey Play Centre	$2,499.68	Eligible
LG2105-212	Fiona Edgar	Historic Heritage	Towards the cost of fixing the east wall at a heritage house	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-213	Rise and Shine Worship Ministry - New Zealand	Community	Towards the purchase of cricket equipment	$5,000.00	Ineligible
LG2105-214	Waitakere Swimming Club	Sport and recreation	Towards the cost of lane bookings for eight sessions at WestWave	$2,070.00	Eligible
LG2105-215	???	Arts and culture	Towards participation and promotional material for community art exhibited in the WestCity mall main entrance	$1,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-217	Te Kōtuku Ki Te Rangi Charitable Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the venue hire of West Wave Aquatic Centre, personal trainer fees, and Tangata Whaiora personnel equipment	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-219	Interacting	Arts and culture	Towards the venue hire at Corban Arts Centre's Lower Homestead and Old St Michael’s Church for weekly arts classes for people with disabilities	$4,420.00	Eligible
LG2105-220	Communicare CMA (Ak) Inc	Community	Towards venue hire for Massey Community Hub and Te Atatu Peninsula Community Trust	$4,353.00	Eligible
LG2105-222	Graeme Dingle Foundation Auckland	Community	Towards the salaries of two trained Kiwi Can Leaders who are responsible for the delivery of the programme at Glendene School	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-223	UpsideDowns Educational Trust	Community	Towards speech and language therapy for three children for one year	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-224	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards Youthline Helpline Volunteer Counsellor training	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-225	Dance Therapy NZ	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire, marketing, facilitation, coordination, client support and liaison and equipment	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-227	The Massey Community Men's Shed Charitable Trust	Community	Towards a portion of the annual operating costs for the men’s shed	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-228	Ranui Community Centre Incorporated	Community	Towards architects' consultant engagement fee for the Ranui Community Garden Building Project	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-229	Triangle Park Community Teaching Garden Charitable Trust	Community	Towards a 25,000-litre water tank and pump for the trust	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-230	Waitakere Adult Literacy Incorporated trading as Literacy Waitakere	Community	Towards rent and operating expenses of the office building for one month	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-231	Edmonton Primary School	Environment	Towards materials to build school gardens	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-232	Athletics New Zealand (Incorporated)	Sport and recreation	Towards advertising costs for the 2022 Sir Graeme Douglas International event	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-234	New Zealand Association For Gnostic Studies Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the promotion of the organisation and rental and materials costs	$4,500.00	Eligible
LG2105-235	Western Districts Hockey Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the annual cost of the clubrooms from April 2021 to October 2022	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-236	YMCA North	Community	Towards programme, volunteer, and event costs for the “Massey Raise Up Crew”	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-237	Arogya Mantra	Community	Towards delivery of a free event “Garba Night 2021”	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2105-238	New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups National Office	Community	Towards the Victim Support Waitakere Volunteer Programme	$2,500.00	Eligible
			TOTAL	$119,069.68

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Henderson-Massey Multi-board Local Grants Round Two, listed in Table Two.

Table Two: Henderson-Massey Multi-board Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021 grant applications

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
MB2021-209	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust	Arts and culture	Towards artistic costs and fees for the development of 2021 Tāmaki Tour and associated workshops	$2,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-211	Auckland Events Company Limited	Events	Towards the logistic costs to deliver the “Food Truck Series” event at various locations between September 2021 and April 2022	$3,636.00	Eligible
MB2021-214	Auckland Softball Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the operating expenses for the Auckland Softball Association	$3,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-217	New Zealand Eid Day Trust Board	Events	Towards costs of venue hire, security, audio-visual equipment, electrical services, cleaning, games, and entertainment to host the New Zealand Eid Day 2021 - Eid-ul-Adha	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-218	Leyte-Samar NZ Solidarity Foundation Incorporated	Events	Towards the delivery of 2021 Quincentennial Celebration on 16 October, including event management, performance, choreographer fee, photography, food, decoration, costumes and props	$3,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-225	Pet Refuge New Zealand Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the pet refuge shelter landscaping and tree planting costs	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-226	Zeal Education Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the "West Auckland Street Youth Work and Community Activation," including project management fees, activity costs, van hire and resources from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-228	Re-Creators Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the costs for upcycling workshops and the provision of educational services in the local board area	$4,766.00	Eligible
MB2021-232	Brain Play Limited	Community	Towards operational costs to deliver "Brain Play Science and Technology" classes	$3,150.00	Eligible
MB2021-236	Children's Autism Foundation	Community	Towards overall costs to deliver community workshops and outreach visits between October 2021 to May 2022	$4,698.66	Eligible
MB2021-240	Empowerment Trust (previously Kidpower Teenpower Fullpower Trust)	Community	Towards the facilitation and delivery costs to deliver the "Kidpower programme" including the resources kit to schools in the local board area	$3,309.00	Eligible
MB2021-245	The Operating Theatre Trust	Arts and culture	Towards free theatre tickets for low decile schools and early childhood centres from 25 September 2021 to 31 November 2021	$5,217.60	Eligible
MB2021-246	Age Concern Auckland Incorporated	Community	Towards salary costs, office overheads, room and equipment hire, meeting and catering, and volunteer expenses	$2,500.00
MB2021-250	Social Enterprise Auckland	Events	Towards the delivery of the capability building workshops, which includes payments to the host for online workshop events, venue hire, food, gifts for the event, logistics and security, contractor costs, and project management fees	$2,871.00	Eligible
MB2021-253	KidsCan Charitable Trust	Community	Towards programme items including food, raincoats, shoes and socks for children attending KidsCan low decile partner schools within the Auckland region	$10,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-257	Interacting Theatre	Community	Towards the delivery of an online InterACT festival 2021, including costs for in-school tutors, a Master of Ceremonies and event equipment	$5,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-260	PHAB Association (Auckland) Incorporated	Community	Towards operational costs, including youth worker wages, activity costs, administration and coordination fees from July 2021 to June 2022	$2,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-264	The Kids for Kids Charitable Trust	Events	Towards National Young Leaders Day (NYLD) production expenses	$2,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-266	The Reading Revolution	Community	Towards managers wages for the shared reading programme at local libraries and retirement villages and community hubs	$3,000.00	Eligible
MB2021-267	OUTLine New Zealand Incorporated	Community	Towards a portion of general operating expenses including telephone and internet costs, printing, insurance, clinical supervision wages, training fees and volunteer costs	$2,000.00	Eligible
			TOTAL	$77,148.26

Horopaki

Context

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

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

8. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted the Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Grants Programme 2020/2021 on 19 May 2020 (Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

10. 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

11. 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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. The Local Board Grants Programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include local food production and food waste reduction; increasing access to single-occupancy transport options; home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

13. 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.

14. 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

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

16. 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”.

17. A summary of each application received through Henderson-Massey Local Grants and Multi-board Round Two 2020/2021 (Attachment B and C) is provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. 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.

19. Eighteen applicants applying to Henderson-Massey Local Grants and Multi-board Round Two indicated that their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

21. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $128,057 for the 2020/2021 financial year. A total of $74,060 has been allocated to Quick Response Round One and Two and Local Board Grant Round One, leaving a total of $53,997.00 to be allocated to one local grant round and one quick response round.

22. Twenty-eight applications were received for Local Grants Round Two 2020/2021, including twenty multi-board applications (Attachment C), requesting a total of $196,217.94.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Following the Henderson-Massey Local Board allocation of funding for the Local Grants Round Two, the grants staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021	43
b ⇩	Henderson-Massey Local Board Grants Round Two grant applications	47
c ⇩	Henderson-Massey Multi-Board Grant Round Two grant applications	159

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rikka Barbosa - Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies – Gbrants and Incentives Manager

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04969

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the draft decision-making responsibilities policy for inclusion in the long-term plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governing Body is required by legislation to allocate decision-making responsibility for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council to either itself or local boards. This allocation is outlined in the Decision-Making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and Local Boards policy that is published in each long-term plan and annual plan.

3. The policy also records delegations given to date by the Governing Body to local boards and provides a list of statutory responsibilities that are conferred on both governance arms.

4. An internal review of the policy was undertaken in early 2021 and considered by the Joint Governance Working Party at its meeting on 22 March 2021. The review outlined some proposed changes to the policy as well as some recommendations on how to take forward other issues that do not yet lend themselves to a policy amendment. The recommendations adopted by the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) have informed the proposed changes in the draft policy. (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) endorse the draft Decision-making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards policy.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Governing Body and local boards obtain their decision-making responsibilities from three sources:

· statutory responsibilities - functions and powers directly conferred by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) 2009

· non-regulatory activities that are allocated to local boards and the Governing Body in accordance with a set of principles (section 17(2) LGACA)

· delegations – these can be regulatory or non-regulatory responsibilities; the Governing Body has delegated some of its responsibilities to local boards.

Allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities

6. The primary purpose for the policy is to set out the allocation of non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities. However, it incorporates other sources of decision-making authority for completeness and context, including a register of key delegations which have been given by the Governing Body to local boards.

Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP)

7. To facilitate a review by the JGWP, staff provided an analysis of issues raised, mainly by local boards, and proposed recommendations in relation to those issues. The report containing this advice can be found in the record of the Joint Governance Working Party Meeting, 23 March 2021.

8. The JGWP carefully considered the issues that were in scope for the review as well as the staff advice and raised some questions and issues that staff are exploring further. These are discussed in the advice below.

9. This report only covers the discussions relating to the recommended changes to the policy. A memo will be provided to each local board providing a summary of the issues considered in the review and outlining a staff response to specific issues, if any, that individual local boards raised in their feedback.

10. Following their review, the JGWP agreed as follows:

That the Joint Governance Working Party:

(a) note the feedback from local boards on the decision-making responsibilities policy

(b) request the following amendments to the decision-making responsibilities policy:

(i) request that staff report with urgency that local boards can be delegated approval for developing and approving area plans, provided the Governing Body can make its views known on such plans

(ii) that the local boards can take responsibilities for decision making over drainage reserves provided such decisions are constrained to those that will not negatively affect the drainage functions and stormwater network operations.

(iii) provide for local boards to tailor locally delivered projects within regional environmental programmes, subject to advice from staff on the types of projects that can be tailored

(iv) provide explicit reference to Health and Safety obligations and requirements that local boards and Governing Body must consider in their decisions

(v) local boards can object to a special liquor licence and this be enabled by an appropriate administrative process.

(c) note the recommendations that the next phase of the Waiheke pilot should consider some of the issues that have been raised including:

(i) trialing delegations from Auckland Transport on decision-making relating to street trading for roads and beaches, placemaking and urban design decisions

(ii) Identifying opportunities and non-regulatory decision-making elements in relation to town centres that the Governing Body can consider when making allocation

(d) recommend that Auckland Transport consider if there are types of community activities that can take place on road reserves without impacting the roading network.

(e) request staff scope out a review of the role of the Governing Body in regional governance within the shared governance model of Auckland Council, taking into considerations the recommendation of the CCO Review.

The following members requested that their dissenting votes be recorded as follows:

Cr A Filipaina against e)

Member R Northey against e)

The following members requested that their abstention be recorded as follows

Cr S Henderson against (b)(i)

Cr R Hills against (b)(iii)

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Request for further advice or implementation support

Area plans

11. Local boards requested that the responsibility for adoption of area plans, which is currently allocated to the Governing Body, be assigned to them. This can be done through allocating the responsibility to local boards or through the Governing Body delegating this allocated responsibility to local boards to exercise on their behalf.

12. Staff have considered this request and advised the JGWP as follows.

· Area plans are an important tool in council’s spatial planning framework. It is used to strategically plan an area usually for the purpose of seeking and/or supporting changes to the Unitary Plan. The responsibility for the Unitary Plan rests with the Governing Body.

· Area plans, as a stand-alone non-regulatory tool and decision, appear ‘local’ in nature given their focus on local planning which is a responsibility allocated to local boards.

· However, area plans also meet the exceptions in section 17(2) of the LGACA: specifically, that for these decisions to be effective, they require alignment or integration with other decision-making responsibilities that sit with the Governing Body. These include plan changes and amendments to the Unitary Plan, infrastructure prioritisation and regional investment.

· During the Waiheke pilot, the Waiheke Local Board sought a delegation to sign off the Waiheke Local Area Plan. This delegation was granted with conditions that included a requirement to ensure the involvement of a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board. This suggests delegations on a case-by-case basis can be possible and provides an alternative route if a standing delegation is not given to local boards.

13. The JGWP carefully considered the advice of staff but were not all in agreement with it. Members had strong views about the need to empower local boards in their local planning role and have requested staff to reconsider their advice and to explore the risks and possible risk mitigation of enabling local boards to adopt the plans through a delegation from the Governing Body.

14. Whilst the practice already ensures high involvement of local boards in the development of these plans, it was the view of the JGWP members that delegating the adoption decision with relevant parameters is more empowering for local boards. JGWP members felt that this would enable local boards to make local planning decisions that are aligned with their local board plan aspirations and other community priorities without requiring further approval from the Governing Body, whose members may not be as familiar with these local priorities.

15. JGWP members agreed that area plans, while local, often require funding and alignment to other plans that are developed by the Governing Body. Keeping the responsibility and accountability allocated to the Governing Body ensures the decision continues to sit at the right level but that this does not necessarily need to be exercised by the Governing Body on all occasions.

16. The JGWP have requested advice from staff on how to pursue a Governing Body delegation. Staff will seek to provide further advice to the JGWP. If the JGWP considers recommending a delegation from the Governing Body on this issue, staff will present the request to the Governing Body for consideration. A delegation can be given at any time and it will have immediate effect.

Special liquor licence administration process for notifying local boards

17. One of the issues raised in the local board feedback is special liquor license applications. On this matter, the request was for clarification that local boards can object, as per the delegation from Governing Body granting the ability to make objections under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Elected members perceived this is not being enabled as notifications on these licences are not proactively shared with them in the same way that information about other applications (on, off and club licences) are.

18. The JGWP has recommended that this be clarified in the policy and request that staff enable notifications to be sent to local board where public consultation is required for special licence applications.

Proposed changes to the Allocated decision-making responsibilities (part c)

Local purpose (drainage) reserves

19. During discussions with local boards on the scope of the review, many local boards raised concerns about the interpretation of the policy.

20. An example raised by Upper Harbour Local Board demonstrated the need for clarity, especially in areas where decision-making authority allocated to both governance arms overlap. During the development of the board’s local park management plans, staff had advised that those reserves that are primarily dedicated to stormwater drainage should be treated as part of the stormwater network. This advice appeared to suggest that local boards do not hold any decision-making over a subset of local parks since it is the Governing Body that is responsible for management of the stormwater network.

21. Through discussions with staff as part of this review, the advice has been revised. Staff accept this is an example of where there is clear overlap in activities and decision-making responsibilities. Staff will need to work closely with local boards to develop protocols that enable decision-making by the Governing Body on stormwater issues to be exercised efficiently and effectively.

22. The JGWP were supportive of the staff recommendation to clarify that the exercise of decision-making in relation to stormwater network and how it functions must be properly enabled on local parks. This is done by acknowledging that these considerations and decisions about the stormwater network constrains local board decision-making over local parks (or parts of local parks) that have a stormwater drainage function. This clarity will also help staff to understand that the local board continues to retain the decision-making responsibility over all other activities of local parks.

Role of local boards in environmental programmes and grants

23. Some local boards feel the current policy wording and ways of working does not provide a meaningful role for local boards on regional environmental issues, specifically regional environmental programmes. These local boards have also requested that local boards be enabled to monitor the progress of any locally delivered projects (funded by regional environmental programmes) through the established work programme reporting mechanism.

24. Local board input into regional environmental programmes is at the policy and/or programme approval stage. The approved programme direction provides sufficient guidance to staff, acting under delegation from the Governing Body, when developing an implementation plan and prioritising projects for delivery.

25. At the operational level, where identified priorities and project ideas are to be delivered in local parks or other key locations within the local board area, local board input is sought by staff at workshops. This is to ensure locally delivered projects are tailored to local circumstances. While it is possible to capture this current practice in the policy, this needs to be done in a way that continues to enable relevant local boards to add value to projects without too many administrative requirements. A member of the JGWP also expressed concern about signalling all projects can be tailored to local circumstances as this is not the case.

Other changes

Health and Safety – parameters for decision-making

26. Council decisions need to take account of Health and Safety considerations, as well as reflecting a shared approach to risk.

27. Staff advise that Health and Safety considerations should be explicit in the policy to protect the council from liability. The JGWP supports this recommendation and a reference to complying with health and safety legislation and plans has been inserted in the policy.

Issues relating to delegations

28. The review considered requests for new delegations or additional support to implement delegations given to local boards. Some of these were requests for delegation from Auckland Transport.

29. The review considered that before recommending or agreeing any new delegation, the delegator, whether it be Governing Body or Auckland Transport, must first weigh the benefits of reflecting local circumstances and preferences (through a delegation) against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in the district (through itself retaining the responsibility, duty, or power concerned).

30. Staff advised the JGWP to recommend that the Waiheke pilot (part of the Governance Framework Review) which is about to enter another phase, expands to include a trial of delegated decision-making on key issues raised in this review. They include several issues that relate to Auckland Transport, namely street trading and town centre/urban design. Piloting these delegations can help Auckland Transport to identify any practical issues that need to be considered before a formal delegation to all local boards can be given on any of the issues identified.

Other issues

JGWP resolution on role of Governing Body

31. Some members of the JGWP expressed concerns about what they perceived to be a heavy focus on local board responsibilities.

32. Both sets of governors were invited to identify issues to be examined in the review. The Governing Body, in workshop discussions, did not identify any major issues that it wanted to review but was open to including any issues raised by local boards. As a result, almost all of the issues raised were suggested by local boards and the majority of them relate to their areas of decision-making responsibility. This may have given the impression of a bias towards examining the role of local boards.

33. To address this concern, the JGWP requested that staff scope a review of the role of the Governing Body. Staff will provide advice to the JGWP in response to this request at an upcoming meeting.

Escalation process for any disputes relating to the Allocation of decision-making responsibilities for non-regulatory activities

34. The process for resolving disputes relating to allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities (including disputes over interpretation of the allocation table) will vary depending on the issue at hand. The chart below outlines the basic escalation process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. This report relates to a policy and does not have any quantifiable climate impacts.

36. Decisions that are taken, in execution of this policy, will likely have significant climate impacts. However, those impacts will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and appropriate responses will be identified as required.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. Council departments support and implement decisions that are authorised by this policy.

38. Feedback received to date from some departments reinforces the need for guidance notes to aid interpretation of the allocations in the decision-making policy. This work will be done in consultation with departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. This report canvasses issues that had been raised by local boards and focuses on those issues that warrant an amendment to the policy.

40. All other issues raised by local boards in their feedback were canvassed in the staff advice that formed part of the review. This information is available to all local boards.

41. Staff have also prepared responses to specific issues raised by local boards and have shared this information in a memo.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. There are no decisions being sought in this report that will have a specific impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. There are no financial implications directly arising from the information contained in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. The are no identified risks other than timeframes. The Governing Body will be adopting this policy in June as part of the long-term plan. Local board feedback is requested in early May in order to provide time to collate and present this to the Governing Body for consideration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. Staff will prepare guidance notes to aid the interpretation of the decision-making policy following its adoption.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason – GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Endorsing Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates for 2021/2022

File No.: CP2021/05094

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rates for the Te Atatu Peninsula and Central Park Henderson Business Improvement District (BID) programmes for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are rohe within Tāmaki Makaurau, where local business and property owners have agreed to work together to improve their business environment, encourage resilience and attract new businesses and customers.

3. Auckland Council supports business associations operating BID programmes, including Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association and Central Park Henderson Business Association, by collecting a targeted rate from commercial properties within a defined geographic area. The funds from the targeted rate are then provided by way of a BID grant to the relevant business association.

4. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BID programmes. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body.

5. Each business association operating a BID programme sets the BID grant amount at its Annual General Meeting (AGM) when members vote to approve an operational budget for the following financial year. This budget funds the implementation of a business plan that delivers programmes based on each association’s BID strategic priorities.

6. Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association members approved a BID grant sum of $102,000 for 2021/2022. This figure is unchanged from the current financial year.

7. Central Park Henderson Business Association members approved a BID grant sum of $400,000 for 2021/2022. This figure is unchanged from the current financial year.

8. The business associations operating BID programmes are incorporated societies that are independent of the council. However, to sustain public trust and confidence in the council, there needs to be a balance between the independence of the business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

9. For the council to be confident that the funds provided to the BID-operating business associations are being used appropriately, the council requires the BIDs to comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi), known as the BID Policy.

10. The council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy and this report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds.

11. Staff are satisfied the Te Atatu Peninsula and Central Park Henderson business associations sufficiently comply with the BID Policy.

12. Staff propose the Henderson-Massey Local Board receives this report and recommends to the Governing Body the striking (setting) of the BID targeted rate sought by Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association and Central Park Henderson Business Association as part of the council’s Annual Budget 2021/2022 decision-making.

13. After the Annual Budget is approved, the council collects the targeted rate funds and distributes them in quarterly BID grant payments, effective from 1 July 2021. This enables Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association and Central Park Henderson Business Association to implement programmes that contribute to Outcome 1 – Henderson-Massey is a great place to live, work and play, thereby supporting the aspirations of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020.

14. Henderson-Massey’s BID programmes, managed by the BID-operating business associations, will continue to play an important role in supporting their members facing two global challenges. A BID programme can support local businesses to mitigate some of the flow-on effects from the COVID 19 lockdowns through business resilience and recovery initiatives. A BID programme can also facilitate opportunities that address the climate change emergency, with a focus on sustainability.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) recommends to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rates for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2021/2022 for the following Business Improvement District (BID) programmes:

i) $102,000 for Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association

ii) $400,000 for Central Park Henderson Business Association.

Horopaki

Context

BID programmes promote economic well-being and collaboration with the council

15. Tāmaki Makaurau is projected to include approximately 660,000 more people in the next 30 years. This level of population growth presents challenges and opportunities for Auckland town centres and commercial precincts.

16. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are rohe within Auckland where local business and property owners have agreed to work together, with support from the council, to improve their business environment, promote innovation and attract new businesses and customers.

17. BID programmes provide the opportunity for the council group to partner with business associations to seize on the opportunities from Auckland’s growth.

18. BID programmes encourage collaboration to achieve greater local outcomes. They provide a mechanism to enable local boards to engage with the business sector in local town centres and business areas in a co-ordinated way.

BID programmes provide essential support in building business resilience and aiding economic recovery

19. The economy continues to be impacted by the flow-on effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdowns, affecting both retail-based town centres and industrial precincts.

20. BID-operating business associations provide the local business leadership required to help their members to mitigate some of the economic effects of the pandemic through business resilience and recovery initiatives.

BID programmes are funded by a targeted rate on business ratepayers within a set area

21. BID programmes are funded by a targeted rate applied to all commercially rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct.

22. Auckland Council supports business associations operating BID programmes by collecting the targeted rates and providing these funds, in their entirety, by way of a BID grant to the relevant business association.

23. This revenue is paid to the business association every quarter to provide a regular and sustainable income stream to implement an agreed work programme.

The BID Policy is the mechanism to ensure accountability for BID targeted rates

24. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) ensures accountability for BID targeted rate funding and encourages good governance and programme management.

25. The policy outlines the principles behind the council’s BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, amalgamating and disestablishing BID programmes; determines rating mechanisms; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements.

Diagram A: From calculation to approval, how the BID targeted rate is set.

The business association sets the BID grant amount to deliver its work programme

26. BID-operating business associations are provided with a rate modelling spreadsheet to help with their budget decision-making. The spreadsheet models any proposed changes to their current BID grant amount and, most importantly, how that influences the BID targeted rate for everyone who will pay it. When considering a change to the BID grant amount, the association’s board must take into account what the local business and property owners can afford.

27. Each BID-operating business association prepares an annual business plan for the following financial year that will deliver programmes based on their strategic priorities and financial parameters.

28. The cost of implementing that business plan is set out in an annual budget that the association’s board (governing committee) agrees will be recommended for approval by the business association membership.

29. The AGM provides the forum where members vote to approve the operational budget and, in doing so, set the requisite BID grant amount for the following financial year.

Local boards are responsible for recommending the targeted rate if a BID complies with the BID Policy

30. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BID programmes. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body. The local board should recommend the setting of the targeted rate if it is satisfied that the BID is substantially complying with the BID Policy.

31. The Henderson-Massey Local Board approved a similar recommendation for the BID programme last year (resolution number HM/2020/61), as did 17 other local boards that have BID programmes operating in their rohe.

The Governing Body sets the targeted rate when it approves the Annual Budget

32. The recommendation in this report is put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Budget 2021/2022 and its striking (setting) of the targeted rates.

33. In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Governing Body is authorised to make the final decisions on what BID programme targeted rates, if any, to set in any particular year or property (in terms of the amount and the geographic area to be rated).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

34. BID programmes are operated by independent business associations, and their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent status, the BID Policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. That is a matter for business association members to determine. Staff, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

Both Te Atatu Peninsula and Central Park Henderson business associations comply with the BID Policy

35. Staff are satisfied the Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association and Central Park Henderson Business Association have sufficiently met the requirements of the BID Policy.

36. Staff require BID-operating business associations to provide to the council the following documents, and stay in touch with their local board at least once a year:

· Current strategic plan – evidence of achievable medium- to long-term opportunities.

· Audited accounts – assurance that the BID-operating business association is managing its members’ BID targeted rate funds responsibly.

· Annual report on the year just completed – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit BID targeted ratepayers.

· Business plan for the coming year – detailed one-year programme, based on the strategic plan, to be resourced and achieved.

· Indicative budget for the following year – Auckland Council’s Annual Budget requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Budget process which sets all rates.

· Board Charter – establishes guidelines for effective board governance and positive relationships between the association and its members.

· Annual Accountability Agreement – certification that these requirements have been met.

· Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID-operating business association and the council that sets basic parameters of the council-business association relationship.

· AGM minutes – the provisional minutes of each business association’s 2020 AGM meetings which contain the resolution, voted on by members, confirming the BID grant amount for the 2021/2022 financial year.

37. In addition, BID-operating business associations are required to inform the council staff of progress with other compliance requirements, including:

· Incorporated Society registration – a current registration of the business association along with all required documents up to date.

· Resolving problems or issues, if any – problems or issues that have an impact on the governance or operation of the BID programme.

38. The BID Policy sets an annual compliance deadline of 10 March for the information to be forwarded to the council, as summarised in the table below.

Table 1: Business associations’ compliance with the BID Policy as of 10 March 2021

Requirement Financial Year 2019/2020
Strategic Plan	2017 - 2021	2020 - 2023
Audited financials
Annual Report
Business Plan
Indicative budget
Board Charter
Annual Accountability Agreement
Annual meeting w/ local board	23 February 2021	23 February 2021
Programme Agreement	valid to November 2022	valid to December 2023
Incorporated society registration
2020 AGM minutes (provisional)
Resolving problems or issues	Nothing to record	Nothing to record

39. As Te Atatu Peninsula and Central Park Henderson business associations have sufficiently complied with the BID Policy, staff advise the local board to recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rate.

Both business associations retain the same BID grant amounts for 2021/2022

40. As shown in Table 2 below:

· Te Atatu Peninsula’s BID targeted rate for 2021/2022 - $102,000 - is unchanged from the current financial year.

· Central Park Henderson’s BID targeted rate for 2021/2022 - $400,000 - is unchanged from the current financial year.

41. Table 2: BID targeted rates comparison: 2021/2022 c.f. 2020/2021

BID

2021/2022

2020/2021

Increase / %

$102,000

$102,000

Nil increase

LAST INCREASED: 2020/2021

$400,000

$400,000

Nil increase

New BID in 2020

42. Of Tāmaki Makaurau’s 50 BID-operating business associations, 21 increased their targeted rates for 2021/2022 with the percentage increase ranging from between 1.7 per cent to 10 per cent. One reduced its income after a one-off increase (2020/2021) to fund America’s Cup-related activities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43. Through targeted rate-funded advocacy and activities, BID-operating business associations promote and often facilitate environmental sustainability programmes.

44. From running carbon-reducing ‘shop local’ campaigns to promoting online channels and championing waste reduction and recovery programmes, there are many examples of BID programmes leading the local business sector’s response to the climate change emergency.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45. Advocacy is a key service provided by business associations and those with BID programme-funded personnel are at an advantage. BID-operating business associations ensure the views and ambitions of their members are provided to elected representatives and council teams, including CCOs, on those policies, plans, programmes and projects that impact them.

46. The BID-operating business associations work with Auckland Unlimited (AU) on economic development initiatives, events and sustainability programmes.

47. The BID-operating business associations also work constructively with both Panuku and Auckland Transport on often controversial proposals and projects.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48. The local board’s views are most frequently expressed by its appointed representative on the board of each BID-operating business association. This liaison board member (or alternates) can attend BID board meetings to ensure there is a direct link between the council and the operation of the BID programme.

Visions, plans aligned

49. The BID-operating business associations and local board share an interest in the local rohe and are ambitious for its future and its people. They also share goals that include economic prosperity, community identity, placemaking and pride.

50. Henderson-Massey BID programmes tangibly support the vision and aspirations of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020, best expressed in Outcome 1 – Henderson-Massey is a great place to live, work and play.

Local rohe, local benefit, local funding

51. Recommending that the Governing Body sets the targeted rates for Te Atatu Peninsula Business Association and Central Park Henderson Business Association means that the BID programmes will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties within their respective rohe. They will provide services in accordance with their members’ priorities as stated in their strategic plans.

52. Henderson-Massey Local Board is among several local boards which provides additional funding to local business associations, however accountability for any grants is set by funding agreements between the local board and each business association. Those contractual obligations are separate from the requirements of the BID Policy and are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

53. Māori make up more than 17.2 per cent of the population living in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area, compared to 11.5 per cent of Auckland (SOURCE: 2018 CENSUS). Individual business associations may, through operating their BID programme, identify opportunities for niche support or development of any Māori business sector in their rohe.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

54. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in their district and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

55. The targeted rate is payable by the owners of the commercial properties within the geographic area of the individual BID programmes. In practice, this cost is often passed on to the business owners who occupy these properties. This cost may be harder to meet at a time when businesses continue to be financially impacted by the flow-on effects of the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

56. The council last year extended its Rates Remission and Postponement Policy to commercial property owners as part of the Annual Budget 2020/2021 to help mitigate the impact of the targeted rate on those who are struggling financially. This policy will continue for the 2021/2022 financial year.

57. If the Governing Body agrees with the BID targeted rates proposed by the local boards, the cost of grants will be met from the existing operational budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or the council that could result from this recommendation to endorse the BID targeted rates for these business associations.

59. To sustain public trust and confidence in the council, there needs to be a balance between the independence of the BID-operating business associations and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

60. The rules and obligations of the BID Policy are intended to help minimise the potential for business associations to misuse BID targeted rate funds by requiring each BID to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members and to have its accounts audited.

61. The council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy and this report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds.

62. Economic disruption created by the flow-on effects of COVID-19 lockdowns will continue to be felt in Auckland’s town centres and business precincts. The BID programme is an internationally proven approach to engage and empower local businesses.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63. If the local board supports this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rates be set as part of the Annual Budget 2021/2022.

64. After the Annual Budget is approved, the council collects the targeted rate funds and distributes them in quarterly BID grant payments, effective from 1 July 2021, to the Te Atatu Peninsula and Central Park Henderson BIDs. This enables each BID to implement programmes that improve their local business environment and support businesses as they recover from the flow-on effects from the COVID 19 lockdowns and help address the climate change emergency through sustainability initiatives.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Claire Siddens - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Adoption of the ‘Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi’ for the Henderson-Massey Local Board

File No.: CP2021/05288

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the ‘Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi’.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents the ‘Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi’ (referred to as the ‘action plan’ in this report) for the board’s consideration and adoption (see Attachment A).

3. In the 2019/2020 financial year, the local board allocated $20,000 of its locally-driven initiatives budget towards the development of a local climate action plan, to provide a road map for Henderson-Massey to become a low carbon community (resolution HM/2019/81).

4. The action plan was developed to align with ‘The Auckland Plan’ and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan’. These two plans lay the foundation for Auckland’s transformation to a resilient, zero carbon community which is actively adapting to the impacts of climate change. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

5. The action plan was developed in alignment with both the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017 and the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020. In particular, the action plan supports the local board aspirations for ‘everyone contributes to building resilience and living sustainably’ and ‘it’s easy to get around Henderson-Massey without using a car’.

6. The action plan is based on a stocktake of existing low carbon projects, a series of virtual meetings held with key community stakeholders, Auckland Council staff, and council controlled organisations, and input from a Henderson-Massey Climate Action Advisory Group comprised of community, business, youth, and council stakeholders. Based on this work and focusing on the priority areas outlined in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, the action plan comprises eight action areas. Each action area has recommended flagship projects with high-level targets, a list of actions to focus on, and monitoring requirements.

7. The action plan builds on existing initiatives of the council, local board, council-controlled organisations, and other organisations, links with regional Live Lightly climate change campaign themes, builds on successes of the Waitematā, Puketāpapa and Whau Low Carbon Plans, and responds to the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s key initiative to adopt and implement a local climate action plan under the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020.

8. The action plan identifies a number of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and specifies the role of the local board in the implementation of these opportunities. Once adopted, the action plan will be implemented, where possible, using a combination of support and advocacy for new and existing projects, and direct local and regional funding.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) adopt the ‘Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi’

b) note that an allocation of $40,000 from the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s 2020/2021 locally-driven initiatives budget has been requested to support the establishment of a Henderson-Massey Climate Action Activator through the board’s approval of its 2021/2022 environment work programme at the June 2021 business meeting.

c) delegate to the Chairperson the ability to make minor amendments to the ‘Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Auckland Plan and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan lay the foundation for Auckland’s transformation to a resilient, zero carbon community which is actively adapting to the impacts of climate change.

10. In 2019 Auckland Council declared a Climate Emergency and in 2020 Auckland Council launched ‘Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan’.

11. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out a decarbonisation pathway and core goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and to adapt to the impacts of climate change by ensuring we plan for the changes we face under our current emissions pathway.

12. The opportunity to examine the connection between the Auckland-wide plan and local action was identified by the Henderson-Massey Local Board. A local climate action plan has been developed which seeks to define focus areas at a local level that align with ‘Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan’ and will contribute to Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emission reduction target.

13. The action plan was developed concurrently with the recently adopted Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020 and directly responds to the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020 key initiative to adopt and implement a local climate action plan. The action plan also supports the board’s aspirations for ‘everyone contributes to building resilience and living sustainably’ and ‘it’s easy to get around Henderson-Massey without a car’.

14. A Henderson-Massey Climate Action Advisory Group was also formed with representatives from the Henderson-Massey Local Board, Auckland Council, Community Waitākere, EcoMatters Environment Trust, Te Atatū Peninsula Business Association, and youth. This group informed development of the plan and will continue to meet to support its implementation. Māori and Pasifika representatives will continue to be sought for the Climate Action Advisory Group, as well as further representation from the business community.

15. The action plan also draws strongly on the consultation undertaken for other plans and on insights drawn from community initiatives including:

· Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020

· Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan 2020

· findings from the Hāpai te Hauora Climate Hui

· insights from the Active Travel West Auckland Strategic Forum held in June 2020

· other existing plans and initiatives highlighted within each section of the action plan.

16. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic some of the planned public consultation could not proceed. As an alternative to a Climate Hui a series of virtual meetings and interviews were held with key stakeholders from the community, council-controlled organisations and council. This included a workshop with Henderson-Massey Local Board on 7 April 2020.

17. The action plan was then developed, which builds on existing initiatives of the council, local board, council-controlled organisations and other organisations, integrating suggestions from the consultation with community stakeholders, regional and global goals.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. The action plan focuses on promoting actions in households, businesses, infrastructure, buildings, consumption patterns and behaviour, which lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It gives effect to both local board and regional outcomes which relate to sustainability, carbon reduction and caring for the environment.

19. The action plan aligns with council’s regional Live Lightly programme launched in October 2017. The Live Lightly programme involves collaboration between community groups, Auckland Council, and partners to engage with Aucklanders about how they can take impactful action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and live a low carbon lifestyle.

20. Feedback from mana whenua on the Live Lightly programme indicated a need to focus on low or no-cost solutions and initiatives enabling behaviour change, and this feedback has been considered through the development of the action plan.

21. The action plan was developed in consultation with local community partners. The process for developing the action plan commenced in December 2019 and continued through to April 2021.

22. This development period for the action plan was longer than originally programmed due to periods of interruption stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic response. The longer development period was beneficial in that it enabled better synchronization to align development of the action plan with the development of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020 and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

23. Development of the action plan commenced with a stocktake of local and Auckland-wide low carbon initiatives, which make a positive contribution towards reducing Henderson-Massey’s carbon footprint, build community resilience, or assist with adaptation to climate change.

24. Over 90 existing initiatives were identified that respond to the climate emergency, with many of these already planned and underway. Some of the initiatives are provided as case studies within the action plan and a summary of all the initiatives is provided in Appendix 1 of the action plan.

25. Targets and actions contained within the stocktake which can be accelerated or expanded through the implementation of the action plan have been incorporated into the development of the action plan.

26. The action plan builds on Henderson-Massey’s existing environmental and sustainability initiatives, and focuses on the eight action priority areas from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. These action areas are listed below, and are further detailed in Attachment A to this report:

· Natural Environment

· Built Environment

· Transport

· Economy

· Community and Coast

· Food

· Te Puāwaitanga ō Te Tātai

· Energy and Industry.

27. For each of these action areas, the action plan includes:

· targets based on achieving regional, national and global greenhouse gas emission reduction targets

· opportunities to amplify existing regional and local initiatives

· actions suggested through consultation with community stakeholders, including:

o flagship climate action projects for which seed funding should be prioritised by the board where needed and as funding allows over the next three years

o a monitoring framework for measuring progress against these targets.

28. The action plan includes quantitative detail on specific targets, as well as a proposed programme to measure progress against these (see Attachment A).

29. The draft action plan was presented to the local board at workshops held on 24 November 2020 and 23 February 2021, and local board feedback was incorporated into the final version.

30. The intention of the action plan is for implementation and ownership by the whole community. The Henderson-Massey Local Board will support the implementation of the action plan where possible through a variety of mechanisms including:

· advocacy

· funding to enable local project delivery

· further investigation of potential climate initiatives

· leadership (delivering projects directly as well as enabling and encouraging others)

· partnerships

· promotion

· monitoring and recognition.

31. The Henderson-Massey Climate Action Advisory Group will inform this process.

32. Staff have requested $40,000 of the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s 2021/2022 locally driven initiatives budget to support the establishment of a Henderson-Massey Climate Action Activator through the board’s approval of its 2021/2022 environment work programme at the June 2021 business meeting. The establishment of the Climate Action Activator is the first step in implementing the action plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

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

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

34. The ‘Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi’ provides a roadmap for Henderson-Massey to become a low carbon community and deliver on the goals of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

35. The plan focuses on the priority areas from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan which include: Natural Environment, Built Environment, Transport, Economy, Community and Coast, Food, Te Puāwaitanga ō Te Tātai and Energy and Industry.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36. Key staff from across the council group contributed to the development of the action plan, including representatives from Chief Sustainability Office, Community Facilities, Community and Social Innovation, Environmental Services, Local Board Services, Park Services, Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, and Panuku Development Auckland.

37. Targets in the action plan relating specifically to the council group are those outlined in existing council group plans and strategies.

38. Input from key staff from across the council group will continue throughout the implementation of the action plan and will also contribute to periodic review and update of the action plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. The action plan supports the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s aspirations for ‘everyone contributes to building resilience and living sustainably’ and ‘it’s easy to get around Henderson-Massey without using a car’.

40. Henderson-Massey Local Board members considered the draft version of the action plan at workshops held on 24 November 2020 and 23 February 2021. Feedback received in the workshops from the Henderson-Massey Local Board was positive, with minor edits incorporated into the final version of the action plan.

41. The intention of the action plan is for implementation and ownership by the whole community. The Henderson-Massey Local Board will support the implementation of the action plan where possible with the Henderson-Massey Climate Action Advisory Group feeding into this process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. A Te Ao Māori lens was used for the development of the action plan to help frame thinking about and approaches to climate change. This helped ensure that taiao (nature), whenua (land) and tangata (people) remain the focal point for all climate related decisions. Key values and principles of the Te Ora ō Tāmaki Makaurau Wellbeing Framework developed by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in response to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan will be applied as the action plan is developed and implemented.

43. Engagement with local Māori in the development of the action plan included representatives of Te Atatū Marae Coalition Trust, Hoani Waititi Marae and Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Kotuku (Māori immersion school), as well as the participation of a Māori rangitahi member of the Henderson-Massey Climate Action Advisory Group. Communication also occurred with a representative of Te Kawerau ā Maki.

44. Individual projects noted in this report may impact on Māori well-being, and mana whenua will be consulted on these projects as part of the implementation of the action plan.

45. Feedback from mana whenua through the development of the regional Live Lightly programme indicated a need to focus on low or no cost solutions and initiatives enabling behaviour change, and this feedback has been considered through the development of the draft action plan.

46. The Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan describes some of the ways the local board will work with Māori in Henderson-Massey Local Board area, and these mechanisms will guide implementation of this action plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47. The ‘Henderson Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi’ is aspirational and as such, many of the proposed actions are not currently funded within regional or local board budgets. However, there are opportunities to leverage some programmes which are currently being delivered within the wider council group such as the Urban Ngahere strategy, Unlock Henderson, and Community Facility Energy Efficiency Upgrades, which will deliver on the aspirations of the action plan.

48. Delivery of the ‘Henderson Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi’ is not solely reliant on investment derived from Auckland Council-related funding. Central government incentives and programmes, philanthropic funding entities, as well as investment decisions of local businesses all have a part to play.

49. The intention of the action plan is implementation and ownership by the whole community. As such, flagship projects outlined in the action plan may be subject to change, due to community interest and any legislative changes.

50. Following the local board’s approval of the ‘Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan: Whakarauora Āhuarangi’, allocation of $40,000 of the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s 2021/2022 locally driven initiatives budget has been requested to support the establishment of a Henderson-Massey Climate Action Activator through the board’s approval of its 2021/2022 environment work programme at the June 2021 business meeting. The establishment of the Climate Action Activator is the first step in implementing the action plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. There is a risk that initiatives within the plan may not be implemented due to budgetary constraints from council and non-council sources. To minimise the risk, it has been communicated in the action plan that the intention of the plan is implementation and ownership by the whole community. As such, flagship projects outlined in the action plan may be subject to change, due to factors such as community interest, funding, and legislative changes. Establishing a Henderson-Massey Climate Action Activator will ensure early engagement with the Henderson-Massey community about the action plan.

52. Some of the planned consultation and engagement for the development of the action plan did not proceed as envisaged due to COVID-19 pandemic-related disruption. There is a risk that some parts of the community were not sufficiently represented in the formation of the action plan. To minimise this risk, the action plan incorporates consultation with the Henderson-Massey community carried out for the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020 and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, as well as findings from the Hāpai te Hauora Climate Hui. In addition, the action plan is designed as an evolving plan with regular updates in anticipation of a rapidly changing environment as Auckland and Aotearoa’s climate response accelerates. Establishing a Henderson-Massey Climate Action Activator will enable input from across the community as the action plan evolves.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. Allocation of $40,000 of the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s 2021/2022 locally driven initiatives budget has been requested to support the establishment of a Henderson-Massey Climate Action Activator through the board’s approval of its 2021/2022 environment work programme at the June 2021 business meeting.

54. The establishment of the Climate Action Activator is the first step in implementing the action plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan	269

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Nick FitzHerbert - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Economic Development Action Plan: Draft for feedback

File No.: CP2021/05641

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Economic Development Action Plan: Council’s role in Auckland’s recovery 2021-2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The council organisation and council-controlled organisations have worked collaboratively to develop the draft Economic Development Action Plan. This plan defines and agrees, for the next three years, the council family’s economic objectives and priorities and determines a coordinated course of action. The plan is limited to actions that are within the remit of council and council-controlled organisation (CCO) activities.

3. The draft plan aligns with the 10-year budget and will inform the work programmes of relevant council family departments. The work is supported by the chief executives of council and all substantive council-controlled organisations.

4. The draft plan outlines detailed actions within six areas of focus (‘workstreams’) as outlined in Attachment A. It reflects the guiding principles of transitioning towards a regenerative and low carbon economy, supporting economic opportunities for Māori, and responding to our communities of greatest need.

5. There will be targeted engagement on the draft plan, including with iwi, advisory panel members and business groups. Feedback will be sought until 14 June 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) provide feedback by 14 June 2021 for consideration in the final draft Economic Development Action Plan: Council’s role in Auckland’s recovery 2021-2024.

Horopaki

Context

6. In August 2020, the CCO Review Panel delivered its report alongside 64 recommendations which were endorsed in full by the Governing Body. The review stated that council and all substantive council-controlled organisations (CCOs) should together define the economic outcomes for Auckland and agree on how to achieve and measure them. The review also acknowledged the need for better coordination and definition of responsibilities for local economic development within the council family. The Economic Development Action Plan forms part of council’s response to that review.

7. The plan is not a long-term strategy and does not replace the Economic Development Strategy 2012. The priorities and focus over the next three years, however, consider direction from council’s existing strategies i.e., the Auckland Plan 2050, Economic Development Strategy 2012, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau: Council’s Māori Outcomes Framework.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. Comprehensive background work to support the development of the action plan has been completed by the Chief Economist Unit (CEU), the Auckland Plan Strategy and Research Department (APSR) and Auckland Unlimited. This includes a report from the CEU providing a profile of Auckland’s economy over the last 10 years, the impact of Covid-19 on the Auckland economy, and the main roadblocks to recovery. The same report also identified areas where the council group can have a material impact on economic development. Key areas are:

· assets

· procurement

· land use and zoning

· regulatory processes

· travel network

· town centres

· pricing

· skills and investment attraction

· tourism attraction

· social support services

· coordination of responses through partnerships.

9. There has also been an extensive review of plans and strategies across the council and CCOs to identify common economic development themes. These were: innovation and technology, Māori economy, regenerative, resilient, low carbon economy, workforce transition, competitive high-value sectors, local economic development, infrastructure, and culture and creativity.

10. This background work formed the basis for six workstreams:

· Destination Tāmaki Makaurau: attracting people and investment

· Local Tāmaki Makaurau: enabling thriving local economies

· Skilled Tāmaki Makaurau: supporting quality jobs and skill development

· Future Tāmaki Makaurau: preparing businesses for the future

· Enabled Tāmaki Makaurau: infrastructure enabling economic development

· Enabled Tāmaki Makaurau: regulations that enable economic development.

11. Each workstream has both council and CCO staff representation. These workstreams have developed a set of actions with responsibilities and timeframes as detailed in this draft plan. A monitoring framework will be developed to ensure roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of council and each CCO are clearly defined as they relate to the actions in the draft plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan has provided direction to the development of the draft plan, aspiring to a more resilient economy that is regenerative, inclusive, local and enables Aucklanders to thrive.

13. The draft action plan has embedded the guiding principle of ‘transitioning to a regenerative and low carbon economy’ into each of its six workstreams. The development of actions is underpinned by kaitiakitanga and considers how resources used give back to nature and increase value through reuse and renewal. Where applicable, actions broadly encourage a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, low carbon products and services, climate innovation, and less dependency on natural resources.

14. The actions presented in this draft action plan will go through a further climate impact assessment using tools developed by the Chief Sustainability Office. The results of this assessment will be incorporated into the final plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. The draft plan responds to the CCO review recommendation for council and all CCOs to together define the economic outcomes for Auckland and agree on how to achieve and measure them. The actions in the draft plan will be shared and accountabilities of council and each CCO well defined. Some CCOs will have a more active role than others.

16. The scope and development of the Economic Development Action Plan has been agreed to through the council and CCO Chief Executives’ group. This group is updated with progress on the plan as appropriate. The project team includes a representative and contribution from each CCO.

17. The scope of the plan is limited to actions that are within the remit of council and CCO activities. A review and discussion document of the council group’s levers that materially contribute to economic development formed the basis for this draft plan (refer to Attachment B).

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

Local impacts and local board views

18. Each workstream of the plan will have a local impact, acknowledging the interdependency of local economies and the regional economy. The draft plan includes the focus area ‘Local Tāmaki Makaurau: enabling thriving local economies’ and has been informed by the recent local board plans’ local economic priorities.

19. The Local Tāmaki Makaurau workstream seeks to clarify what the Auckland Council group will do to support the local economies of Auckland. This includes setting out the roles that each part of the group plays in delivering actions, while also setting the foundations to help the group identify the economic places (sub-regional and local) of Auckland and deliver outcomes at the local level.

20. A memo was distributed on 17 February 2021 to inform local board members of the development of council’s Economic Development Action Plan 2021-2024 and to outline the process for local board feedback to the plan. At the request of the local board chairpersons, the draft plan will be provided at all local board business meetings in May 2021 with written feedback by formal resolution provided to the project leads by 14 June 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau has provided direction to the development of the draft plan, in particular, the Kia ora te Umanga mahi objective of supporting economic opportunities for Māori businesses and iwi organisations. The draft plan has also considered direction from the Auckland Plan 2050, the Kaitiaki Forum’s strategic plan and the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Issues of Significance (2017) as they relate to Māori economic development.

22. The draft action plan has embedded the guiding principle of ‘supporting economic opportunities for Māori’ into each of its six workstreams. The development of actions will consider partnership opportunities with mana whenua and mataawaka, a focus on equity and addressing systemic barriers, and identifying new economic opportunities for Māori.

23. The project team have communicated with iwi from the commencement of the project to determine and initiate the preferred process of engagement for each iwi. This draft plan will be sent to all iwi for input and feedback through to 14 June 2021.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The scope of the Economic Development Action Plan states that actions will be funded within the existing 10-year Budget 2021-2031 and therefore, no additional funding is required. The draft plan identifies some actions that rely on external funding sources and partnerships.

25. At the advice of the finance division, budget alignment is demonstrated in the draft plan at both the group of activity and CCO / council directorate level.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. The draft plan outlines actions that require a commitment from the responsible directorate to include in their work programmes and within their existing budgets. The monitoring framework will include regular progress reporting to ensure effective implementation of the action plan.

27. This action plan is an internal document, outlining work to be done within the remit of council and its CCOs. The content of the plan builds on earlier consultation undertaken in the development of key strategies that have provided direction. Input and feedback for this action plan has therefore been targeted to key groups.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. The draft plan will be distributed to the key groups that have been engaged from the commencement of the project. Feedback will be considered until 14 June 2021.

29. The final Economic Development Action Plan: Council’s role in Auckland’s recovery 2021-2024 and its monitoring framework will be presented to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events committee on 8 July 2021 for adoption.

add 2^nd author James Robinson, Head of Strategy and Planning, Auckland Unlimited

Jacques Victor – GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason – GM Local Board Services

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Economic Development Action Plan	343
b ⇩	Auckland's economic recovery and council's role	377

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Janelle Breckell - Principal Strategic Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Local Board views on Variation 1 to Plan Change 5

File No.: CP2021/05764

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on the Draft Variation 1 to Plan Change 5 (PC5) Whenuapai Stage One.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Council is proposing a variation to PC5 to address matters that are based on new information received, but that are out of scope of PC5. Key matters that will be addressed include a response to updated aircraft engine testing noise contours from Minister of Defense, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPSUD) and further changes (to storm water provisions and the location of open space) that are based on new information.

3. Views of the Henderson-Massey Local Board are sought at this early non-statutory phase so that any comments can be placed before the Political Working Group which is delegated to finalize the variation for public notification.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) provide local board views on Variation 1 to Plan Change 5.

Horopaki

Context

4. Variation 1 to PC5 applies to the land outlined in Figure 1 below. The land is currently zoned future urban zone as shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Plan Change 5 boundary and surrounding area

5. The Council notified PC5 in September 2017 to introduce a new precinct into the AUP and rezone approximately 360 hectares of mostly Future Urban zoned land to a mix of business and residential zones.

6. Submissions closed on 19 October 2017 and further submissions closed on 23 November 2017. A hearing of submissions on PC5 was held on 4, 7 and 10 May 2018. The hearing was adjourned to allow the Independent Hearing Panel (the Panel) to undertake a site visit and to seek further clarification and comment from Council staff on several matters.

7. The Neil Group, a submitter to PC5 commenced declaration proceedings in the Environment Court on 5 April 2019, regarding the interpretation of and application of Designation 4310 – Whenuapai Airbase. The Court issued its decision on 16 September 2019 and this is referred to as (2019) EnvC 154.

8. On the 16 March 2021, a reconvened hearing for PC5 was undertaken. At the hearing, the following matters were put in front of the hearing:

(a) the chronology of events since the adjournment of the PC5 hearing in May 2018

(b) an outline the two process options that were available to the Panel in 2021

(c) a discussion of two matters, being the funding of arterial roading infrastructure and the management of the effects of aircraft engine testing noise at Whenuapai Airbase

(d) a discussion the content of a variation to PC5 and the timeframe for a variation.

9. Council staff requested that the Panel maintain the adjournment, so that the Council could proceed with a variation to PC5 to address the matters listed above.

Decision-making authority

10. For Council-led plan changes the view of the Henderson-Massey Local Board is sought at this early non-statutory phase so that any comments or views of local board members can be placed before the political working group which is delegated to finalise the variation for public notification.

11. These views help shape the variation at this early stage. Once the variation is finalised and publicly notified, local boards will have a second more formal opportunity to provide comments and speak at the hearing in the future.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The Variation to PC5 affects 82 hectares of commercial land (providing employment for approximately 2750 people) and land that has development capacity for approximately 4,500 - 6,000 houses residential activities. Some small portions of New Zealand Defence Force land on its southern boundary (that is not included within the designation for the Whenuapai Airbase) are also proposed to be rezoned as part of the Variation.

13. This Draft Variation to PC5 seeks to:

(a) rezone land within the PC5 area in response to:

i. updated information about aircraft engine testing noise from Whenuapai Airbase

ii. the recently gazetted NPSUD

(b) address other matters including:

i. the application of Open Space zoning to land recently purchased by the Council for sports fields re-zoning of specific sites in some locations;

ii. removing the proposed realignment of Trig Road.

14. Variation 1 relies upon the majority of the technical reports for PC5 that evaluate traffic, infrastructure, heritage, social, ecological effects which were prepared during the Whenuapai Structure Plan. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=6

15. Further technical documents have been supplied to the Council or commissioned, these are:

· Whenuapai Airbase – Engine Testing Noise Contours from Tonkin & Taylor prepared by of New Zealand Defence Force

· Whenuapai Proposed Plan Change 5 – Transport Alterations prepared by Flow Transportation Specialists 5 March 2021.

16. Please see the attached documents to assist the local board to understand the variation and prepare its views:

· Attachment A: Draft Section 32 Report – Proposed Plan Change 5 Variation 1

· Attachment B: Proposed Plan Change 5 Variation 1 – Whenuapai 3 Precinct 1

· Attachment C: Proposed Variation 1 – Draft Proposed Zoning Map.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. 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 and

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

18. The local board could consider whether PC5:

· 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)

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

19. Variation 1 to PC5 does change the approach taken in September 2017 in terms to responding to climate change. PC5 responds to the adverse effects of climate change by:

· applying the Single House Zone around the coastal edge, reducing the risk of coastal erosion

· locating the higher density zones within a walkable catchment to the Westgate metropolitan centres and the rapid/local public transport network. This is anticipated to lower the use of cars and provide housing near public transport networks.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Both Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited have been involved in the PC5 process: and relevant sections of Variation 1. Both Council Controlled Organisations have been sent copies of the variation and the supporting technical reports for feedback.

21. On 5 March 2020, the Ministry of Defence provided up dated aircraft engine testing noise contours and a technical report supporting this data. Auckland Council has permission to use this data and is currently having this the data and technical report reviewed.

22. The Healthy Waters department have helped update a number of Whenuapai 1 Precinct 3 provisions relating to stormwater. A number of changes to the precinct include updating the provisions to reflect the Regional Discharge Consent, and other Council technical documents.

23. Since 2017, Council Parks department have purchased a number of sites in the PC5 area for open space purposes. These sites are:

· Acquisition of land at 92 and 94A Trig Road, 161 and 167 Brigham Creek Road to be zoned Open Space – Sports and Active Recreation Zone

· Since pre-notification (19 March 2021) acquisition of land at 17a Clarkes Lane, to be zoned Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. PC5 relates to land in both Henderson Massey and Upper Harbour local boards.

25. Factors the local boards may wish to consider in formulating their view(s):

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

26. This report seeks the local board views for consideration by council staff prior to notification of Variation 1. Feedback at that stage is informal; and restrictions on delegations prevent that informal feedback from being considered to be the formal view of the local board.^{^[1]}

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. If the local board chooses to provide its views on PC5 it has the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview). 20,319 residents in the Henderson-Massey local board area and 3,210 residents in the Upper-Harbour local board area identify as Māori, in 2018 census results.

28. The Council identified, through the mana whenua-defined rohe maps, the following iwi authorities with whom the council is currently consulting on this draft Variation 1 to PC5:

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.

29. In the preparation of PC5, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Kawera Iwi Tribal Authority provided the Council with Cultural Values Assessments (CVA). These CVA were taken into account.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. There are no financial implications in the local board giving its views on the draft variation.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. There is a risk that there is incomplete evidence in regards to funding of arterial roading infrastructure in the plan change area. The impacts of the Covid-pandemic on Council’s usual revenue streams has been significant. The Council’s fiscal position since PC5 was publicly notified has therefore changed significantly.

32. The Council is currently also considering the submissions received on its Long-term Plan (LTP), entitled ‘Our Recovery Budget’ which is the 10-year Budget that sets out the activities, services and investments planned for the next 10 years, and how these assets will be funded. This will have funding implications for the infrastructure (particularly roading) required for the PC5 area.

33. The LTP may have some funding set aside for the North-West as a Spatial Priority Area but the Council will require additional infrastructure funding and financing to give effect to PC5. Currently this infrastructure financing and funding is not available. A solution to this could include the following options:

· Investment through the LTP

· Individual infrastructure funding and financing agreements with major developers and /or

· Application for finance under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020.

34. These options may or may not be successful in creating an infrastructure financing and funding solution.

35. On the 16 March 2021 Council staff advised the Panel that if parts of PC5 are unable to be supported with appropriate funding, the partial withdrawal of those parts is a potential option. Maintaining the adjournment of PC5 will enable the Panel to be better informed about infrastructure funding issues.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. Once the views of the Henderson-Massey Local board are received at this early stage, these will be summarised with the views from other stakeholders and considered by the political workshop group which will finalise the variation. It can then be publicly notified.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Section 32 Report - Proposed Plan Change 5 Variation 1	403
b ⇩	Propose Plan Change 5 Variation 1 - Whenuapai 3 Precinct 1	449
c ⇩	Proposed Variation 1 - Draft Proposed Zoning Map	481

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Todd Elder - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Local Board Views on Plan Change 60 - Open Space (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters

File No.: CP2021/05639

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite the local board to provide its views on the council-initiated Plan Change 60 – Open Space (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters (PC60).

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 that view is expressed by the whole local board.^{^[2]}

4. On 28 January 2021, Auckland Council notified Plan Change 60. Submissions closed on 1 March 2021. The plan change includes 105 sites (in some cases, a site comprises more than one lot) and aims to rezone land to:

(a) recognise land recently vested or acquired as open space

(b) correct zoning errors or anomalies (including rezoning land to better reflect its use)

(d) facilitate Kāinga Ora’s and Auckland Council redevelopment of certain neighbourhoods.

5. One hundred and six submissions have been received on the proposed plan change. The vast majority of these oppose Panuku’s rezoning and land disposal. In summary there are 15 submissions in support of the plan change, four in support but seeking amendments, 85 in opposition and two out of scope.

6. No iwi authority has made a submission in support or opposition to Plan Change 60.

7. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on Plan Change 60 should it wish to do so. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) provide feedback on Plan Change 60 - Open Space (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters.

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on Plan Change 60.

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

Horopaki

Context

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

12. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, should the local board decide to convey its views on plan change 60. 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.

13. The key theme from submissions is opposition to the proposed rezonings relating to Kāinga Ora/Auckland Council redevelopment and Panuku’s land rationalisation and disposal. Attachment A identifies the land parcels that are the subject of submissions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. Plan Change 60 affects land across the Auckland region.

15. The purpose of the proposed plan change is to rezone land to either:

(a) recognise land recently vested or acquired as open space

(b) correct zoning errors or anomalies (including rezoning land to better reflect its use)

(d) facilitate Kāinga Ora’s and Auckland Council redevelopment of certain neighbourhoods.

16. The Section 32 Report and details of the plan change are available from the council’s website at Plan Change 60. The council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· section 32 Report that accompanies the plan change

· submissions and

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

17. Submissions were made by 106 people/organisations as outlined below.

Submissions	Number of submissions
In support	15
In support but requesting change(s)	4
In opposition	85
Out of scope	2
Total	106

18. Key submission themes are listed below.

Oppose the rezoning of:

· 142 Triangle Road, Massey (Maps 4 & 37)

· 1-5 Lippiatt Road, Otahuhu (Map 73)

· 23 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington (Map 75)

· 12R Rockfield Road, Ellerslie (Map 76)

· 11R Birmingham Road, Otara (Map 77)

· 2R Keeney Court, Papakura (Map 78)

· Walkway adjacent to 45 Brandon Road, Glen Eden (Map 79)

· 45 Georgina Street, Freemans Bay (Map 81)

· 36 Cooper Street, Grey Lynn (Map 82)

· 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn (Map 85)

· 67 East Street, Pukekohe (Map 86)

· Princes Street West, Pukekohe (Map 87)

· R105 Stott Avenue, Birkenhead (Map 93)

· 26 Princes Otahuhu (Map 96).

Support the rezoning but request an alternative zone:

· 2157 East Coast Road, Stillwater (Map 71).

Both support for and opposition to the rezoning:

· 50 Mayflower Close, Mangere East (Map 100)

· 62 Mayflower Close, Mangere East (Map 105).

Support for rezoning or further information required:

· 1337 Whangaparaoa Road, Army Bay (Map 104).

19. The key reasons for submission opposing the plan change include:

· opposed to the rezoning of pocket parks – they are needed to support intensification and for social and environmental benefits

· loss of valuable reserve land

· few parks in the area

· significant negative effect on enjoyment of our neighbourhood/ adverse effects on property and locality

· park has significant cultural heritage associations and natural value

· contradicts Auckland Unitary Plan heritage policies

· inadequate public notification

· green areas needed in more intensive housing areas

· contrary to climate change/greenhouse effects – green spaces are needed for low carbon Auckland Council

· inconsistent with Auckland Unitary Plan objectives and policies

· park has trees which will be lost with rezoning and development

· site is an overland flow path and flood plain

· property values will be adversely affected

· loss of walkway and critical linkage

· sale of spaces is desperate re

· venue gathering/selling due to Covid is short-sighted

· subsequent building will severely impact on sunlight and amenities of adjoining sites

· contrary to Auckland Council’s declaration of a climate emergency, open space network plans, National Policy Statement – Urban Development – well functioning environments, open space provision policy, Auckland Plan 2050, the Urban Ngahere Strategy

· site is a Significant Ecological Area and part of a wildlife corridor and refuge

· inconsistent with Local Boards goal of increasing tree canopy.

20. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from council’s website: Plan Change 60.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. Several submissions raised specific climate concerns. These relate to the loss of locally accessible open space and the associated vegetation, particularly mature trees.

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 and

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

23. The local board could consider if Plan Change 60:

· prepare 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).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. Panuku is a council-controlled organisation that resulted from the merging of Auckland Council Property Limited and Waterfront Auckland. One of the roles of Panuku is the release of land or properties that can be better utilised by others.

25. In conjunction with Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team, Panuku have identified 26 council-owned parcels of land which are either surplus to requirements or they are part of a Panuku regeneration project (i.e. a series of projects and initiatives, designed to kickstart the transformation process and bring about changes that will help centres prosper in the future). Those parcels considered to be surplus to requirements have been cleared for sale by Auckland Council.

26. Auckland Council’s decision to dispose of or sell the land parcels is separate from the zoning of the land. Zoning is a method used to implement the Auckland Unitary Plan’s objectives and policies and to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The merit of any rezoning of land (from open space to residential or business) therefore must be assessed against the purpose of the RMA and the relevant Auckland Unitary Plan objectives and policies. Other relevant considerations which will be considered in the section 42A hearing report include the Auckland Plan 2050, Auckland’s Climate Plan and the Urban Ngahere Strategy and open space network plans.

27. Auckland Transport made a submission in relation to the rezoning of 1337 Whangaparaoa Road, Army Bay. The key matter raised is the traffic effects of rezoning the Whangaparaoa Golf course from Residential – Single House to Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The plan change affects sites throughout the Auckland region and feedback is therefore sought from all local boards.

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

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

30. A memo was sent to all local boards on 27 October 2020 outlining the proposed changes, the rational for them and the likely plan change timeframes.

31. 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

32. If the local board chooses to provide its views on Plan Change 60 it may also comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori generally. In the 2018 census, approximately 11.5 per cent (or 181,194) of the Auckland region’s population identified as Māori.

33. Plans and Places consulted with all iwi authorities when it prepared Plan Change 60. On 27 October 2020, a memorandum outlining the draft proposed plan change was sent to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities and the Tupuna Maunga Authority as required under the RMA.

34. Comments were received from:

· Ngāti Manuhiri – asking for an extension of time to 11 December 2020 to enable a discussion with their governance arm

· Waikato Tainui – they will support manawhenua to take the lead role on such plan changes

· Tupuna Maunga Authority – their interest is those sites that are within Height Sensitive Areas or regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts.

35. No iwi authorities made a formal submission.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. Panuku’s land rezoning and rationalisation (26 land parcels) is part of the Auckland Council’s financial recovery.

38. The draft Long-term Plan 2021-2031 proposes the selling of surplus properties and reinvesting the proceeds into critical infrastructure for the city. Over the next three years, Auckland Council is seeking to increase these sales to return $70 million a year to invest in Auckland.

39. The 26 land parcels that are part of this plan change form part of the $70 million return sought.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. 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 local board to express its views and preferences if it so wishes

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

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

42. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).^{^[6]} 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

43. The planner will include, and report on, any resolution(s) of the local boards 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.

44. The planner will advise the local boards of the decision on the plan change request by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	The land parcels in PC60 that are the subject of submissions	489

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason – GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 May 2021

Auckland Transport – Regional Land Transport Programme 2021

File No.: CP2021/03772

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to receive feedback on the proposed Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP) in the local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides summaries of what the RLTP is and the process of its development and what projects and programmes are planned for the local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the Regional Land Transport Programme.

Horopaki

Context

3. The RLTP is a 10-year investment programme for transport in Auckland. It includes the activities of Auckland Transport, Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) and KiwiRail.

4. It is reviewed and publicly consulted on every three years in a process led by the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (RTC).

5. The RTC is comprised of members of the Auckland Transport Board and representatives from Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail. During the review process the RTC seeks the views of Auckland’s elected representatives through the Governing Body. The Auckland Transport Board is responsible for the final approving of the RLTP.

6. The RLTP is the end product of a number of different local and central government processes and plans:

· Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP)

· The Auckland Plan 2050

· Auckland Council’s Long-Term Plan (LTP)

· National Land Transport Programme (NLTP)

· Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS).

7. It is worth noting that Auckland Transport is not a party to ATAP discussions but that the direction expressed in this document is a key driver for outcomes in the RLTP. Likewise, the LTP sets funding levels for key programmes in the RLTP, such as the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

8. The current transport programme is set out in the 2018 RLTP. This saw the introduction of the Regional Fuel Tax (RFT), that provided an additional $1.5 billion of direct revenue over 10 years. Including the RFT, the 2018 RLTP anticipated a $10 billion capital programme over ten years.

9. While the 2018 RLTP programme provided a sound investment base there have been an increasing number of challenges requiring attention in the 2021 RLTP. These include:

· the impact of growth and other demands creating a need for increased investment in upgrading existing infrastructure and for new investment to support growth

· a need for increased investment to ensure transport plays its role in meeting overall greenhouse gas reduction targets

· continuing to invest in public transport and to accelerate cycling network completion to support mode change

· a need to deliver further investment to support vision zero goals to provide reductions in deaths and serious injuries

· an increasing need for more responsive investment in the transport network at a local level.

10. Unfortunately, the response to these challenges is tempered by the impact of Council’s Emergency Budget, the effect of Covid-19 on public transport fares (leading to reduced operational funding for AT), and a strong likelihood that Waka Kotahi funding will not reach previously assumed levels.

11. It has been assessed that about 95 per cent of the available funding from Council and Government is needed to run the transport system, maintain the quality of the system (renewals and maintenance) and deliver committed/contracted /under construction projects. This means that there is very little headroom for new investment and that there will be hard trade-offs, including the deferring of many important projects.

12. At its meeting on 11 March 2021, the Planning Committee unanimously endorsed the draft RLTP. ATAP itself was released on Friday 12 March 2021. The RTC formally approved the draft RLTP for public consultation at its meeting on 23 March 2021.

13. The current timeline for development of the RLTP is as follows:

Date	Action
23 March 2021	RTC considers draft RLTP for public consultation
29 March-2 May 2021	Proposed dates for public consultation
May 2021	Evaluation of public consultation
27 May 2021	RTC review final draft RLTP
3 June 2021	Governing Body review RLTP for endorsement
June 2021	AT Board reviews RLTP for final approval
1 July 2021	RLTP operational

14. As a regional programme it is appropriate that the primary engagement focus sits with the Governing Body through the Planning Committee.

15. However, as the RLTP has important local impacts Auckland Transport recognises the importance of seeking local board views to ensure these are included in the information given to the RTC and Governing Body to inform their decision making. To this end, Auckland Transport has the following engagement planned:

Date	LB Engagement
15 February 2021	Auckland Transport attended the Chairs Forum to give an overview on the RLTP process, to outline how the RLTP is put together and finally what the process is for LB input.
29 March–2 May 2021	Workshops with all local boards to discuss the RLTP.
4–18 May 2021	Auckland Transport will write reports for local boards to pass resolutions to officially record their feedback on the RLTP.
3 June 2021	Local boards could use their statutory input slot at a Governing Body Meeting (Planning Committee) to give their views on the RLTP.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. The draft Long Term Plan proposal is to reinstate the Local Board Transport Capital fund back up to $20 million per annum for the next ten years. On this basis the proposed RLTP includes $200 million for Local Board initiatives. However, it should be noted that this is contingent on the Mayor’s proposed rates increase of 5 per cent.

17. The below tables summarises projects that are planned to be delivered in the Local Board area and surrounding areas and could be of benefit to residents from Henderson-Massey Local Board area.

#	AT Projects	Duration	10 Year Capital Expenditure ($M)
16	Huapai Improvements	2021/22 – 2022/23	17.5
18	Greenfield transport infrastructure – Northwest	2021/22 – 2030/31	142.0
18	Northwest Growth Improvements	2026/27 – 2030/31	185.5
19	Northwest Bus Improvements	2021/22 – 2022/23	85.0
20	Lincoln Road Corridor Improvements	2021/22 – 2027/28	106.2
76	Wolverton Culverts	2021/22	10.0

18. The below tables summarises projects within larger programmes, that are planned to be delivered in the local board area and surrounding areas and could be of benefit to residents from Henderson-Massey.

#	Project from a Programme	Underlying Programme
23	New Lynn to Avondale Shared Path	Urban Cycleways (AT)
29	New North Road and Sandringham Road corridors	Connected Communities (AT)
67	Ash Street and Rata Street	Safety (AT)
78	Residential Speed Management – Te Atatu Peninsula, Henderson Home Zone	Safety (AT)

19. The below table summarises projects being delivered by Waka Kotahi that are planned to be delivered in the Local Board area and surrounding areas and could be of benefit to residents from Henderson-Massey.

#	Non-AT Projects	Responsible Agency	10 Year Capital Expenditure ($M)
15	SH16 Brigham Creek-Waimauku	Waka Kotahi	137.0
17	SH18 Squadron Drive interchange upgrade	Waka Kotahi	68.0
21	Te Whau Pathway	Auckland Council	30.3

20. The below map corresponds to the above tables and shows the location of the projects:

21. The table below outlines objectives from the local board plan that are approached in the RLTP.

Objectives	RLTP outcomes
Increased tree canopy in Henderson-Massey	Opportunities for green infrastructure to be incorporated into the road network include rain gardens to filter road runoff before it discharges to the harbour and trees to provide shade, reduce runoff volumes and provide habitat and pollination pathways for insects and wildlife. The RLTP includes $20 million for environmental sustainability infrastructure.
More opportunities for local alternatives to car travel.	Over $300 million is allocated to delivering Auckland Transport’s on-going Cycling Programme, which is intended to follow the completion of the Urban Cycleways Programme early in the RLTP period. This is in addition to the allocation to cycling included in the Connected Communities programme. This programme is expected to deliver 200km of new and upgraded cycleways and shared paths across the region by 2031, the majority of which is included as part of the strategic cycling network. Between 100km-125km of new cycleways will be generated from Auckland Transport, 15km from Auckland Council and 59km from Waka Kotahi. Some existing cycle lanes will also be retrofitted with appropriate safety barriers. There is also: · $49 million to continue delivering new footpaths in high priority locations. · a new $30 million programme for minor improvements for cycling and micromobility. A key element of this package will be delivering ‘pop up cycleways’ which will retrofit a range of existing painted cycle lanes with appropriate safety barriers. This programme will also address other issues on the existing cycling network to improve useability and enhance safety. · On-going funding for a programme of tactical urbanism initiatives such as those brought to life through Waka Kotahi’s Innovating Streets Programme. · operational funding for the ongoing delivery of the Bike Safe programme which teaches primary, intermediate and secondary school children how to ride their bike safely. · $100 million for minor improvements across the network.
More use of existing walking and cycling networks.	A ten-year investment of $3.93 billion has been included in this RLTP to cover the cost of renewing Auckland Transport’s asset base. This RLTP has $900 million more in Auckland Transport renewals than the $3.05 billion included in the 2018 RLTP. There is also continued investment in the Auckland Transport’s Community Bike Fund which supports communities and groups delivering activities, events and projects that encourage more people to ride bikes more often.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. The approach set out in the RLTP conforms with the direction expressed by Council through the Long-Term Plan. However, Auckland Transport notes that far more needs to be done to reach the Auckland Council climate change emissions targets.

23. This investment programme is only one of a comprehensive set of measures needed to reduce transport emissions. The RLTP does not exist to set government policy and additional measures are needed that are beyond its scope to implement. A comprehensive approach to emission reduction will therefore require a range of actions from across government and industry sector.

24. In the context of this challenge, Auckland needs a Climate Plan for its transport system which sets out the preferred pathway to meeting Auckland Councils emissions targets. This plan, along with a Climate Change Programme Business Case will be developed as part of this RLTP

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. The RLTP is the product of several Auckland Council processes and plans including:

· Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP)

· The Auckland Plan 2050

· Auckland Council’s Long-Term Plan (LTP).

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. Auckland Transport has used local board plans to inform the development of the RLTP.

27. Opportunities for local boards to engage on the RLTP have included:

· Chair’s Forum on 15 February 2021

· A workshop with the Henderson-Massey Local Board on 21 April 2021

· Highlighting the opportunities for local board feedback to the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. Iwi and mataawaka have been engaged through Auckland Transport’s Maori engagement team.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The are no direct financial implications for the local board in receiving this report.

30. Local board feedback on the RLTP and any changes made as a result of that feedback could have financial implications depending on that feedback. Further information about AT’s priorities for funding and implications of changes to funding levels can be found on page 81 of the RLTP consultation document, which is stated below.

Table

Description automatically generated

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. AT’s capital programme within the RLTP is contingent on the Mayor’s proposed rates increase of 5 per cent. If this is not adopted there will be significant impacts on plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Once the local boards have resolved their feedback on the RLTP, Auckland Transport will review all feedback from local boards and the public. This feedback, and any proposed changes, will be compiled into a feedback report for the consideration of the Governing Body and the Regional Transport Committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	RLTP Local Board Feedback template	499

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport.

Authorisers

Hamish Bunn - GM Investment, Planning & Policy, Auckland Transport.

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

1. Have we accurately identified the issues and challenges facing Auckland?

Focus areas.	Page reference	Local Board Feedback
Climate change. Emissions and other consequences of Auckland’s transport system today are harming the environment and contributing to the transport system becoming increasingly susceptible to the impacts of climate change. Tackling climate change will require a very significant change to the way we travel around our region. · Auckland Transport is proposing investment in projects and programmes that encourage Aucklanders to switch to sustainable travel modes and reduce the increase in private vehicle travel associated with population growth.	22-24
Impacts of climate change on the transport system. Auckland needs to focus on managing the current and future impacts of climate change on the transport network. Climate changes are expected to generate seal level rises, more frequent and intense storms and longer, hotter, dry periods. Significant investment will be required to ensure the network remains resilient and adaptable as these changes are magnified. · Changes include more green infrastructure – using natural systems to provide shade, and improved connections to storm water.	25
Travel Choices. Better and faster public transport options are needed to give Aucklanders more choices in the way they travel. Congestion will continue to get worse if we don’t provide more desirable transport options than the car. · Continue improving the public transport customer experience making it simpler and easier to use · Continue to serve the growth of the City Centre as an employment destination · Extend the catchment of the RTN across Auckland’s urban area and developing greenfield areas · Effectively serve a wider range of key destinations beyond the City Centre · Improve the coverage of the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) by increasing investment in services · Increase the speed and reliability of bus services by moving more of them into dedicated bus and transit lanes, separated from general traffic · Continue improving the resilience and reliability of the rail network through the catch-up renewal programmes · Replace ageing ferries required to deliver existing ferry services	27
Active Transport. There is significant potential for walking and cycling to play a much greater role in meeting Auckland’s transport needs. Past urban development patterns, and a lack of investment in safe environments or facilities, has created barriers to Aucklanders walking and cycling more. · Continue the delivery of the Urban Cycleway Programme to progress development of the cycle network · Deliver cycleways in areas associated with the Cycling Investment Programme · Deliver important travel behaviour change programmes such as Safe Schools and Travelwise to encourage more people to use active transport · Continue to develop and improve safe cycling infrastructure on the cycle and micromobility strategic network · Increase the comfort and safety of people on bikes across the wider transport system · Make some historical cycling infrastructure fit-for purpose and consistent with customer requirements.	28
Safety. The transport system has the potential to cause both direct and indirect harm to the people of Auckland. The most direct form of harm is through Deaths and Serious Injuries (DSI) because of a crash. However, there are also a number of indirect ways in which the transport system impacts on human health. These include harm caused by air and noise pollution originating from the transport system, and chronic health issues which are exacerbated by a transport system that has historically been designed to prioritise car travel. Auckland has the highest rate of DSI per kilometre of road when compared to all other New Zealand regions. While DSI on the Auckland road network had generally declined over recent decades, this trend reversed in 2013 and there was an alarming increase in road trauma between 2013 and 2017. In response, a significantly enhanced and accelerated safety programme was provided for in the 2018 RLTP, and Auckland adopted the Vision Zero for Tāmaki Makaurau Transport Safety Strategy in 2019.	29-30. 73
Access and connectivity. Our population and the amount of kilometres we travel in our cars is leading to congested roads and high travel times. Further development of our transport network is needed to increase the use and speed of public transport and walking and cycling facilities as well as improve freight productivity. This is needed to provide better access to employment and social opportunities for more people.	31-32
Managing transport assets AT is the regional guardian of $21.1 billion of publicly owned assets. This includes 7638km of arterial and local roads, 7431km of footpaths, 348km of cycleways, a growing fleet of electric trains, rail and busway stations, bus shelters, ferry wharves and two airfields on the Gulf Islands. In addition, Waka Kotahi manages transport assets valued at around $15.9 billion which includes state highways, bridges, road tunnels and other structures. Maintaining and renewing these assets is a significant undertaking. The temporary closure of the Auckland Harbour Bridge last year (due to an accident caused by freak wind gusts) and ongoing issues encountered with the rail network clearly demonstrate the importance of ensuring the resilience and reliability of our infrastructure. Since the last RLTP, a number of factors have placed increased pressure on the local road and asset network: · Auckland’s increasing population and demand for travel, leading to faster deterioration of road pavements · Increasing numbers of heavy vehicles operating on the network including growth-related construction, · service-related (e.g. waste collection) traffic and heavier axle weights from double decker buses · An increasing local network asset base – which is growing by around 1.5 percent every year through · the delivery of new transport infrastructure (e.g. roads in new subdivisions, new transport facilities) · Significant increases in construction costs and the cost of renewals, in particular road rehabilitation which makes up the largest share of AT’s renewal spend · Low renewal expenditure over the 2018-2021 period (including due to budget impacts from Covid-19) which has created a renewal backlog · Increased renewal requirements relating to climate resilience, seismic retrofit and slip remediation. Without action to address the impact of these factors, the local network asset base will fall below standard leading to increased reliability issues and higher costs to resolve over the long-term.	34

2. Have we allocated available funding to the highest priorities?

Focus areas.	Page reference	Local Board Feedback
Travel choices · Rapid transit - fast, frequent, high capacity bus and train services separated from general traffic · Additional and more frequent rail services · New train stations · New and improved bus stations · Accessibility improvements at bus, train and ferry facilities · New and extended park and ride facilities	38-44
Walking and cycling · New cycleways and shared paths and improved road environments to make cycling safer · New or improved footpaths	45-46
Climate change & the environment · Electrifying the rail line to Pukekohe · Increasing the number of electric/hydrogen buses · Starting decarbonisation of the ferry fleet · Funding to support the uptake of electric cars	47-51
Safety · Safety engineering improvements, like red light cameras and safety barriers · Ensuring speed limits are safe and appropriate · Improving safety near schools · Road safety education	52-53
Access and connectivity · Improving the capacity of our roads for people and freight to improve productivity · New bus/transit lanes · New roads to support housing development · Unsealed road and signage improvements	53-57
Auckland’s growth · Providing transport infrastructure for new housing developments and growth areas · Improving transport infrastructure in redevelopment locations	58-59
Managing transport assets · Maintaining and fixing footpaths, local roads and state highways · Maintaining the rail network · Works to address climate change risk e.g. flooding, earthquake and slip prevention requirements	60
Other · Funding for community projects which is shared amongst the 21 local boards. This enables smaller scale transport projects decided upon by each local board. · Funding to undertake long-term planning for the future · Customer experience and technology improvements – this includes things like AT HOP card and real-time travel information for customers.	61

3. Have we excluded any projects or activities from the proposed transport programme that should be included?

Local Board Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

Chairperson	Vanessa Neeson, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Brenda Brady, JP
Members	Chris Carter
	Peter Chan, JP
	Dr Will Flavell
	Matt Grey
	Brooke Loader
	Ingrid Papau

Authors	Brenda Railey - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager