I hereby give notice that an extra meeting of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 4 May 2021

10.00am

Local Board Office
7-13 Pilkington Road
Panmure

 

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Maria Meredith

 

Deputy Chairperson

Chris Makoare

 

Members

Don Allan

 

 

Debbie Burrows

 

 

Nerissa Henry

 

 

Peter McGlashan

 

 

Tony Woodcock

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Tracey Freeman

Democracy Advisor

 

29 April 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 021 537 862

Email: Tracey.Freeman@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Local board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 7

5          Decision-making responsibilities policy                                                                   23

6          Auckland Transport – Regional Land Transport Programme 2021                       45

 

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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.

 

 

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

Local board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

File No.: CP2021/05022

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive consultation feedback from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area on:

·    proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local board agreement 2021/2022. 

·    regional topics for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

2.       To recommend any local matters to the Governing Body, that they will need to consider or make decisions on in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 process.

3.       To provide input on the proposed regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4.       Local board agreements set out annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives for each local board area. Local board agreements for 2021/2022 will be included in the Council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

5.       Auckland Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031. This included consultation on the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2021/2022, and advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031 to be included in their local board agreement.

6.       Auckland Council received 19,965 submissions in total across the region and 850 submissions from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local board area.

7.       610 submissions were received on Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives. The majority of respondents support most of the local board priorities (37 per cent).

8.       The results for regional topics are explained more in-depth in the analysis section of this report. The local results to the regional topics were:

·    10-year Budget proposed investment package, 52 per cent were not supportive of the proposal

·    additional investment to respond to climate change challenges, 63 per cent support

·    water quality extension and increase, 53 per cent support

·    new approach for community services/ community investment, 56 per cent support.

9.       On the numerous proposed rating changes impacting different properties across Auckland, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board residents supported:

·    extending the Natural Environment targeted rate (66 per cent support)

·    extending the Urban Rating area (68 per cent support)

·    charging farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area residential rates (63 per cent support)

·    extending the City Centre targeted rate (53 per cent support)

·    introducing the Rodney Drainage targeted rate (57 per cent support).

10.     In the 10-year Budget process there are matters where local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body, for consideration or decision-making. This includes:  

·    any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

·    any new/amended local targeted rate proposals 

·    proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

·    release of local board specific reserve funds

·    any local board advocacy initiatives.

11.     The Governing Body will consider these items as part of the 10-year Budget decision-making process in May/June 2021.

12.    Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide input into regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive consultation feedback on the proposed Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board priorities and activities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031.

b)      receive consultation feedback on regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 from people and organisations based in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local board area.

c)      approve its advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement

d)      recommend to the Governing Body the release of the local board specific parking reserve funds of $515,000 to the following projects:

i)          release $170,000 of parking reserve fund for Ian Shaw parking project (FY21/22)

ii)         release $345,000 of parking reserve fund for Glen Inness parking project (FY22/23)

e)      provide input on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to the Governing Body.

 

Horopaki

Context

13.     Each financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the Governing Body and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board) for each local board area. This local board agreement reflects priorities in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2020 through local activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives.

14.     The local board agreements 2021/2022 will form part of the Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

15.     Auckland Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031, as well as local board priorities and proposed advocacy initiatives to be included in the local board agreement 2021/2022.

16.     Due to the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, significant pressure has been placed upon the council’s financial position. This has created significant flow on effects for the council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031, in particular in the first three years.

 

17.     This report includes analysis of consultation feedback, any local matters to be recommended to the Governing Body and seeks input on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Consultation feedback overview 

18.     As part of the public consultation Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels to reach and engage a broad cross section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback and input into regional and local topics.    

19.     In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 19,965 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

·    written feedback – 18,975 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters.

·    in person – 607 pieces of feedback through 61 Have Your Say events (38 in person and 23 online webinars). Due to the Covid-19 lockdowns 26 events were affected (either cancelled, postponed or moved to an online platform). This included the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local board area, where all events were postponed and subsequently cancelled due to Covid-19 lockdowns.

·    telephone interviews – two people made submissions via our telephone interview option.

·    social media – 78 pieces of feedback through Auckland Council social media channels

20.     All feedback will be made available on an Auckland Council webpage called “Feedback submissions for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031” and will be accessible from 3 May 2021 through the following link: akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/submissions-budget-2021-2031.

 

Information on submitters

21.     The tables and graphs below indicate the demographic categories people identified with from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

          Ethnic demographic of submitters

         

Age and gender demographics of submitters

22.     The following seven mana whenua provided submissions on the local board’s priorities and advocacy items:

·    Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Trust,

·    Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua (Regional Body)

·    Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust,

·    Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust,

·    Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society,

·    Waikato-Tainui,

·    Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority.

23.       Five submissions were received from mataawaka:

·    Mataatua marae,

·    Ruapōtaka marae,

·    Te Kotahi a Tāmaki,

·    Te Roopu Waiora,

·    Whenua Warrior.

Feedback received on the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives

24.       The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board consulted on the following priorities for 2021/2022:

Priority 1:

Support placemaking initiatives in our town centres by working with the business improvement districts (bids)

Priority 2:

Support social enterprise and innovation projects that have a positive social or environmental impact

Priority 3:

Support initiatives that build our community’s resilience and preparedness

Priority 4:

Investigate a feasibility study for a Pasifika Fale

Priority 5:

Continue building on our strategic partnerships’ activity

Priority 6:

Support initiatives that celebrate our diverse communities, such as Te Kete Rukuruku

25.     The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board also consulted on the following key advocacy initiatives:

Initiative 1:

For equity and accessibility to be the overarching principles that guide Auckland council’s decision-making

Initiative 2:

To prioritise the provision of community services in Mount Wellington

Initiative 3:

To continue support for the Ruapōtaka marae relocation and rebuild

Initiative 4:

To support investment in the implementation of the Waikaraka Park Masterplan, including the investigation and design of the motorsport precinct and shared multi–use facilities with sports

Initiative 5:

To retain and bring forward growth funding for the Tāmaki Reserves development

Initiative 6:

To progress the redevelopment of the civic space and community facility in the Panmure Town Centre

Initiative 7:

For the local board transport capital fund to be re-instated to the pre-emergency budget level, and previously allocated funding to be fully restored

26.     610 submissions were received on Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives. The majority of local respondents were supportive of most local board priorities (37 per cent). 19 per cent supported all priorities, 17 per cent did not support most priorities, 15 per cent responded don’t know, 7 per cent did not support any priorities and 5 per cent responded other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27.     The respondents who supported most of the priorities, generally expressed support for the local board and what it is trying to achieve with interest in developing local reserves and developing Panmure Town Centre.

28.     Respondents who supported all priorities noted that they were generally supportive of the priorities as they are practical, reflective of the diverse community (Pasifika Fale), and are in the best interest of the community.

29.     Respondents who chose do not support most priorities commented on governance and support. Some commented how they are against rates increases and how the priorities were in the wrong area. They wanted focus on core infrastructure growth and more development in the Onehunga waterfront. “…. priorities are in the wrong area. More needs to be done in Onehunga waterfront development, transport hubs, lawncare and footpaths.”

30.     Respondents who did not support any priorities commented on how there is a need to focus on environmental management and more to be done on local planning. “Need to focus on fresh water, working sewage, rubbish collected, and roads repaired when need be.”

31.     There was a small percentage of submitters who responded other or don’t know. They discussed how Council needs to spend within their current budget, prioritise other initiatives such as transport and climate change. “…so many new builds in the Glen Innes area but does not appear to be any new schools, no optometrists, no expanded infrastructure, bus routes have been cut out of roads where the population is a lot more than previously.”

32.     Six out of seven mana whenua entities who submitted stated that they support all Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local board’s priorities and advocacy initiatives. One out of seven did not state their position but had commented on the local board’s priorities and advocacy initiatives.

33.     The five mataawaka entities indicated that they support most of the local board’s priorities and advocacy initiatives.

34.     Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement between the 14-18 June 2021. Local board key advocacy initiatives will be considered in the current report.

Key themes

35.     Key themes of note across the feedback received (through written and in-person channels) included:

·    Local Planning: more needing to be done in terms of transport (bus routes) and developing areas such as Onehunga waterfront “...and developing the Panmure Town Centre, which is dated and poorly maintained.”

·    Environmental management: needs to be an increase of funding for environmental services. “Please allocate more funding to improve green spaces and create better playground/recreational areas for children.”

·    Financial concern: concern about rates increase and comments on how the board needs to be “...efficient with their spend” and focus on priorities such as “climate change, housing, transport, [and] infrastructure.”

·    Arts, culture and events: There were varying views on the feasibility study for the Pasifika fale, implementation of Waikaraka Park and relocation of Ruapōtaka mare. Some commented on how they support it as “diversity and equality are important…” Others commented on how it is nice to have as “there is a strong Pasifika presence within Maungakiekie-Tāmaki” but to focus on other priorities like water and climate change first.

Requests for local funding

36.     There were no requests for local funding through the 10-year budget 2021 – 2031 consultation.

Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the 10-year Budget from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area

37.     The proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 sets out Auckland Council’s priorities and how to pay for them. Consultation on the proposed 10-year Budget asked submitters to respond to five key questions on:

1.   The proposed investment package

2.   Climate change

3.   Water quality

4.   Community investment

5.   Rating policy.

38.     The submissions received from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area on these key issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Key Question 1: Proposed investment package

39.     Aucklanders were asked about a proposed $31 billion capital investment programme over the next ten years, allowing the council to deliver key services and renew our aging assets. The proposal includes a one-off 5 per cent average general rates increase for the 2021/2022 financial year, rather than the previously planned 3.5 per cent increase, before returning to 3.5 per cent increases over the remaining years.

40.     The proposal also includes higher borrowings in the short term, a continuation of cost savings and the sale of more surplus property. Without the greater use of rates and debt, around $900 million of investment in Auckland would be delayed from the next three years.

41.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42.     From the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area there were 796 submitters for this question. Of those, 282 support the proposed 10-year Budget, 412 do not support, 52 selected other and 50 said I don’t know.

43.     167 pro-forma submissions were received on this question from Auckland Rates Alliance, GenZero and CNSST foundation.  

44.     The four themes from submitters were: financial hardship, infrastructure is needed now to support Auckland’s growth, use the current budget more efficiently and dissatisfaction with council management or direction, “still too much wasted expenses on non-essential council spending and on council overheads.”

 

Key Question 2: Climate Change

45.     Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to provide additional investment to respond to climate change challenges. This includes enabling a quicker transition from diesel to cleaner electric and hydrogen buses, diverting more waste from landfill and enabling significant planting initiatives.  

46.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47.     From the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area there were 652 submitters for this question. Of those, 413 support the proposed increased investment, 166 do not support increased investment, 51 said other and 22 said don’t know.

48.     14 pro-forma submissions were received on this question from GenZero and CNSST foundation.  

49.     The top five themes from submitters were: support for public transport, climate change is critical, not the right time to spend additional budget, mistrust in council spending, support but have concerns re the approach and detail, “climate change is a critical issue and should be one of the very top priorities of Council.”

 

Key Question 3: Water quality

50.     Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to extend and increase the Water Quality Targeted Rate for another three years – from 2028 until 2031 – as well as increasing the targeted rate annually in line with proposed average increases in general rates. The Water Quality Targeted Rate funds projects to improve water quality in Auckland’s harbours, beaches and streams.  

51.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

52.     From the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area there were 670 submitters for this question. 355 supported the extension and the increase of the water quality targeted rate, 177 supported the extension only, 81 do not support either change, 18 said other and 29 said I don’t know.

53.     16 pro-forma submissions were received on this question from GenZero and CNSST foundation.

54.     The top five key themes were: necessary and important, support the extended focus on the Manukau Harbour, financial hardship, environmental concerns and to find other revenue/savings, “improving water quality in more areas means better water quality in New Zealand overall. Important for humans and wildlife.”

 

Key Question 4: Community investment

55.     Aucklanders were asked to provide feedback on a proposal that would see council adopt a new approach for community services to enable them to reduce building and asset maintenance related expenditure. The proposal involves consolidation of community facilities and services, increased leasing or shared facility arrangements, and an increased focus on providing multi-use facilities and online services in the future.

56.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57.     From the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area there were 635 submitters for this question. 358 support the community investment proposal, 183 do not support, 53 said other and 41 said don’t know

58.     The top five themes from submitters were: it is an efficient and practical approach, generally support, keep local facilities/services (libraries), against privatisation of services, to involve affected communities, “there are a lot of wonderful facilities available to communities, but they do cost money to operate. Having multi-purpose facilities that can be used more efficiently are a great idea. I know that some facilities are not utilised all day, everyday & consolidating some older less used facilities into a new multi-purpose option makes sense.”

 

Key Question 5: Rating policy

59.     Aucklanders were asked for their feedback on a raft of proposed rating changes impacting different properties across Auckland differently. Proposed changes also included, for example, the extension of the Natural Environment Targeted Rate until June 2031, along with options to extend the Urban Rating Area and reinstatement of the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate.

Extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate

60.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61.     The results are, 66 per cent support, 23 per cent do not support, 10 per cent other and 1 per cent don’t know.

62.    There was minimal commentary received (eight comments), however feedback highlighted general support for this targeted rate.

Extending the Urban Rating Area:

63.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64.     The results are, 68 per cent support, 16 per cent do not support, 15 per cent don’t know and 0 per cent said other.

65.     11 comments were made. The comments were mainly from submitters who did not support. They commented on needing to protect Pukekohe and the surrounding area for “agriculture/horticultural land only – no more housing on sold farms. We need to protect this land...”

Charging farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area residential rates

66.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67.     The results are 63 per cent support, 23 per cent do not support, 1 per cent other and 14 per cent don’t know.

68.    Six comments were made. These comments were not in support of the targeted rate and did not believe farmers should be charged the same as people who live in urban areas. It would encourage more farms to convert to dwellings.

Extending the City Centre Targeted Rate

69.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70.     The results were, 53 per cent support, 32 per cent do not support, 14 per cent other, 2 per cent don’t know.

71.     18 comments were made. Majority of submitters who commented were not in support of the city centre targeted rate. They commented on how enough investment has gone into the city centre and other areas need to be prioritised. 

 

Introducing the Rodney Drainage targeted rate:

72.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73.     The results were 57 per cent support, 13 per cent do not support, 1 per cent other and 29 per cent don’t know.

74.     Minimal comments were made (4 comments). Three out of four comments that were made were not in support of the Rodney Drainage targeted rate. A reason for this was to focus on Covid-19 recovery first.

Other targeted rates:

75.     There were very low responses on Accommodation provider targeted rate, Electricity network resilience targeted rate, Waitakere rural sewage targeted rate and Clevedon water connection targeted rate.

 

Other feedback

76.     Aucklanders were asked what is important to them and if they had any feedback on any other issues.

77.     The respondents who indicated Maungakiekie-Tāmaki as their local board highlighted the following key themes:

·    Libraries: they are key spaces for local communities and should be kept as actual physical spaces rather than an online service alone.

·    Public transport: more is needing to be done in providing alternative transport, for example prioritising the East West link to progress. In addition, for public transport to be more reliable for people to use.

·    Housing: to ensure infrastructure are adequate to keep up with housing developments and that new housing going in neighbourhoods are linked to the local communities to provide more community pride.

·    Environment: Climate change is an important priority. Need to preserve reserves and mangroves as well as providing fresh clean water to the local community and the wider Auckland region.

Recommendations on local matters 

78.     This report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the 10-year Budget process, in May 2021. This includes:

·    any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

·    any new/amended local targeted rate proposals 

·    proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

·    release of local board specific reserve funds.

·    approve its advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement

Local targeted rate and business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals

79.     Local boards are required to endorse any new or amended locally targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals in their local board area. Note that these proposals must have been consulted on before they can be implemented.

Glenn Innes business improvement district extension proposal

80.     The proposal was unsuccessful as it did not meet the minimum threshold of 25 per cent of eligible voters returning their ballots by midday 31 March 2021.

81.     It means that the Glen Innes Business Association’s (GIBA) BID programme will remain entirely within the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area (and not enter the Ōrākei rohe).

82.     GIBA now has a two-year stand down period before it can attempt another ballot, as per BID Policy.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

83.     Local boards are allocated funding for local driven initiatives (LDI) annually, to spend on local projects or programmes that are important to their communities. Local boards have decision-making over the LDI funds but need approval from the Governing Body where:

·    operational LDI funding is to be converted into capital LDI funding.

·    the release of local board specific reserve funds is requested, which are being held by the council for a specific purpose.

·    a LDI capital project exceeds $1 million.

84.     The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board are requesting $515,000 local board specific Parking Reserve Fund be released to the local board to deliver the following activities:

·    Ian Shaw Reserve – upgrade carpark FY21/22 - $170,000

·    Glen Innes Pool and Leisure Centre – develop carpark in the FY22/23 - $345,000

Local board advocacy

85.     Local boards are requested to approve any advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to their 2020/2021 Local Board Agreement, taking into account the consultation feedback above. This allows the Finance and Performance Committee to consider these advocacy items when making decisions on the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 in May/June. 

Local board input on regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

86.     Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws, and any proposed changes to be made to them. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

87.     Local board plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide the development of local board agreements (LBAs), local board annual work programmes, and local board input into regional plans such as the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

88.     The decisions recommended in this report are part of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 and local board agreement process to approve funding and expenditure over the next 10 years.

89.     Projects allocated funding through this 10-year Budget process will all have varying levels of potential climate impact associated with them. The climate impacts of projects Auckland Council chooses to progress, are all assessed carefully as part of council’s rigorous reporting requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

90.     The 10-year Budget 2021-2031 is an Auckland Council Group document and will include budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation items and updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new information may include items from across the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

91.     The local board’s decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.

92.     Local boards play an important role in the development of the council’s 10-year Budget. Local board agreements form part of the 10-year Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee workshops on the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

93.     Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the 10-year Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

94.     Local board plans, developed in 2020 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local board area priorities. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and the wider Māori community.

95.     Analysis provided of consultation feedback received on the proposed 10-year Budget includes submissions made by mana whenua and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

96.     Ongoing conversations between local boards and Māori will assist to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

97.     Some projects approved for funding could have discernible impacts on Māori. The potential impacts on Māori, as part of any project progressed by Auckland Council, will be assessed appropriately and accordingly as part of relevant reporting requirements.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

98.     This report is seeking the local board’s decisions on financial matters in the local board agreement that must then be considered by the Governing Body.

99.     The local board also provides input to regional plans and proposals. There is information in the council’s consultation material for each plan or proposal with the financial implications of each option outlined for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

100.   The council must adopt its 10-year Budget, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2021. The local board is required to make recommendations on these local matters for the 10-year Budget by mid May 2021, to enable and support the Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the 10-year Budget on 25 May 2021.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

101.   The local board will approve its local board agreement and corresponding work programmes in June 2021.

102.   Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be provided to the relevant Governing Body committee for consideration during decision making at the Governing Body meeting.

103.   The final 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 22 June 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Simone Tongatule - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04927

 

  

 

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 have informed the proposed changes in the draft policy. (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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

No.

Title

Page

a

Decision making responsibilities policy

31

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza – Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

Auckland Transport – Regional Land Transport Programme 2021

File No.: CP2021/05024

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of this report is to outline the outcomes of the proposed Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP) in the local board area and provide an opportunity for the board to resolve feedback for the attention of the Governing Body and the Regional Transport Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report covers:

·    A summary of what the RLTP is and the process of its development.

·    A summary of what projects and programmes are planned for the local board area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport – Regional Land Transport Programme report

b)      provide feedback on the Regional Land Transport Programme as per Attachment A to this report.

 

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 AT 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 AT 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 AT 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 $1.5bn 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% 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 the Planning Committee unanimously endorsed the draft RLTP.  ATAP itself was released on Friday 12 March. 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

RTC considers draft RLTP for public consultation

29 March-2 May

Proposed dates for public consultation

May

Evaluation of public consultation

27 May

RTC review final draft RLTP

3 June

Governing Body review RLTP for endorsement

June

AT Board reviews RLTP for final approval

01 July

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 AT recognizes 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, AT has the following engagement planned:

 

 

Date

LB Engagement

15 Feb

AT 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

Workshops with all local boards to discuss the RLTP.

4 – 18 May

AT will write reports for local boards to pass resolutions to officially record their feedback on the RLTP.

3 June

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 $20M per annum for the next ten years. On this basis the proposed RLTP includes $200M for Local Board initiatives. However, it should be noted that this is contingent on the Mayor’s proposed rates increase of 5%.

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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

#

AT Projects

Duration

10 Year Capital Expenditure ($M)

31

Meadowbank Kohimarama Connectivity Project

2021/22 - 2023/24

22.1

32

Tamaki Regeneration

2022/23 - 2030/31

40.9

33

Eastern Busway

2021/22 - 2025/26

873.9

34

Sylvia Park Bus Improvements

2024/25 - 2026/27

19.9

71

CRL Day One – Level Crossing Removal

2021/22 – 2026/27

220.0

74

Tamaki Drive/ Ngapipi Road safety improvements            

2021/22

6.8

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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki.

#

Project from a Programme

Underlying Programme

23

Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive Shared Path

(joint project with Waka Kotahi)

Urban Cycleways (AT)

23

Links to Glen Innes

Urban Cycleways (AT)

29

Mount Eden Road, Manukau Road, Ellerslie-Panmure Highway & Pakuranga Road corridors

Connected Communities (AT)

32

Tamaki Spatial Priority Area

Projects Supporting Auckland Housing Programme (AT)

35

Mount Wellington Highway/SH1 Southbound Onramp

Network Performance / Optimisation

36

Mount Roskill Spatial Priority Area

Projects Supporting Auckland Housing Programme (AT)

68

Mount Albert Road

Safety (AT)

69

Atkinson Avenue

Safety (AT)

79

Oranga Spatial Priority Area

Projects Supporting Auckland Housing Programme (AT)

19.     The below table summarizes 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki.

 

Non-AT Projects

Responsible Agency

10 Year Capital Expenditure ($M)

28

Glen Innes to Tamaki Cycleway (joint project with AT)

Waka Kotahi

49.0

37

Old Mangere Bridge Pedestrian & Cycling Link

Waka Kotahi

12.6

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

 

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

Objectives

RLTP outcomes

More people have the choice to use public or active transport to go about their daily lives

The RLTP includes:

·    Over $300 million is allocated to delivering AT’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 AT, 15km from Auckland Council and 59km from Waka Kotahi. Some existing cycle lanes will also be retrofitted with appropriate safety barriers.

·    $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.

·    Ongoing funding for a programme of tactical urbanism initiatives such as those brought to life through Waka Kotahi’s Innovating Streets Programme.

The RLTP also highlights that the rapid transit network (RTN) is a key investment priority and forms the largest category of capital investment in this RLTP. The proposed transport programme in this RLTP will deliver a step-change in the coverage and performance of the RTN over the next 10 years. This RLTP will also see the RTN continue to diversify away from the City Centre.

People and traffic move more freely and safely around our area

A ten-year investment of $3.93billion has been included in this RLTP to cover the cost of renewing AT’s asset base. This RLTP has $900 million more in AT renewals than the $3.05 billion included in the 2018 RLTP.

It also includes:

·    Over $650million of AT investment to deliver the AT Safety Programme, which will delver improvements targeted towards s[peed management, high risk intersections, high risk corridors and vulnerable road users.

·    $100 million for minor improvements across the network.

·    $193 million of Waka Kotahi investment to deliver the state highway Safer Networks Programme.

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, AT 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 the 15th February 2021

·        A workshop with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on the 30th March 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 AT’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 80 of the RLTP consultation document.

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%. If this is not adopted there will be significant impacts on plan.

Next steps

32.     Once the local boards have resolved their feedback on the RLTP, AT 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

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy – Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Hamish Bunn – GM Investment, Planning & Policy, Auckland Transport

Victoria Villaraza – Local Area Manager