Agenda of Planning Committee - Thursday, 3 June 2021

Planning Committee

03 June 2021

Local board feedback on the draft Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2024

File No.: CP2021/07025

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an overview of local board feedback on the proposed Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031 (RLTP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4. A recent recommendation from the CCO review added a new expectation to the process for approving this RLTP, requiring that it be prepared jointly between the council and Auckland Transport. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff collaborated to jointly develop the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) package over the last 12 months, and to align the draft RLTP both to ATAP and the council’s draft 10 -Year Plan. Staff have also worked closely with Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail to bring together an integrated draft RLTP. As part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model, the Governing Body has a statutory obligation to consider the views and preferences of the local boards if the decision affects, or may affect, the responsibilities or operations of the local board or the wellbeing of communities within its local board area.

5. This report summarises feedback from local boards on the RLTP and focuses on common themes. A complete set of the local board resolutions and minuted feedback on the RLTP is provided in Attachment A.

6. Key themes arising from local board feedback on the RLTP include:

· universal support for the reinstatement of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund

· significant support for infrastructure that supports active modes, particularly footpaths and Greenways Plans

· significant support for improved public transport, particularly separated bus lanes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) consider feedback from local boards, as shown in Attachment A of the agenda report, when making recommendations on the Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031.

Horopaki

Context

7. 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 and KiwiRail.

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

9. 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.

10. The process for approving this RLTP has changed somewhat since the 2018-2021 RLTP, following the recommendation of the CCO Review Panel that “Auckland Transport and the council jointly prepare the regional land transport plan, the draft of which the council endorses before going to the CCO’s board for approval.”

11. As part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model, the Governing Body has a statutory obligation to consider the views and preferences of the local boards, if the decision affects, or may affect the responsibilities or operations of the local board or the wellbeing of communities within its local board area.

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

13. Local board members have been able to participate in the RLTP process in the following ways:

· 15 February 2021: Auckland Transport attended the Chairs’ Forum to give an overview on the RLTP process, to outline how the RLTP is developed and the process for local board input

· 29 March to 2 May: workshops held with all the local boards

· 4 to 18 May: formal feedback resolved by the local boards at business meetings

· April: some boards presented directly to the RTC during the public hearing

· 26 May: the chairs of the local boards attend a Planning Committee workshop on the RLTP

· 3 June: local boards present to the Planning Committee.

14. From 29 March to 2 May 2021, Auckland Transport consulted with the public on the RLTP. Unfortunately, the RLTP timeframe has not allowed local boards to consider community feedback ahead of resolving formal feedback for the consideration of both the RTC and the Governing Body.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

16. 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.

17. Local board feedback responding to these challenges and their proposed solutions has been summarised below and organised into the following categories:

· Local Board Initiatives Fund

· Climate change and the environment

· Travel options

· Safety

· Access and connectivity

Local Board Initiatives Fund (previously Local Board Transport Capital Fund)

18. All local boards endorse the proposed investment package in the RLTP to reinstate the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to $20 million, with many noting that this fund has been crucial in achieving smaller scale local improvements, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.

19. In addition to returning to pre-Covid-19 levels of funding, five boards also requested the reinstatement of previously allocated funds that were held over due to Emergency Budget constraints.

Climate change and the environment

20. Local boards broadly support the key shift from the previous RLTP to respond to climate change and its impacts, but observe that the actions outlined will not reduce emissions enough to achieve the targets outlined in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan.

21. This is summarised by one local board as such: “if implemented, the RLTP will result in an increase of 6 per cent of greenhouse gasses during a time where the council wants to halve the region’s greenhouse gas output. To do this there has to be a fundamental rethink of priorities.”

22. Feedback from local boards on climate change focusses predominantly on reducing vehicle kilometres travelled and increasing mode shift, by ensuring that investments and renewals are undertaken through a climate change lens.

23. Other key elements of the climate change challenge include mode shifts, urban sprawl, electric vehicles, and the impact that climate change will have on infrastructure.

Mode shift

24. Ten boards support 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.

25. Four boards noted that public and active transport is not a choice available for many Aucklanders, particularly for those in greenfield development, semi-rural and rural areas.

26. Three boards noted that public and active transport are more geared to getting people into the central city, and that to make a meaningful impact on emissions the transport network needs to have a stronger focus on access to local destinations and amenities, as well as connections to the citywide cycle network.

27. Waitematā Local Board recommends developing a Regional Facilities Transport Strategy to make it easier to reach our cultural and environmental taonga (the zoo, Museum, West Coast beaches and regional park network) by sustainable modes.

Electric/hydrogen buses

28. Eight local boards support a funding acceleration of the Low Emissions Bus Roadmap to ensure at least half of Auckland’s bus fleet is low emissions by 2031.

Funding to support the uptake of electric cars

29. Seven local boards support the inclusion of funding to support the uptake of electric cars.

30. Most boards see the appropriate role for Auckland Transport as providing and supporting charging infrastructure, and several local boards would like to see this extended to electric bicycles and other micro-mobility users as well.

31. Rural and island boards request more detailed planning be undertaken on how charging networks will operate in their areas.

32. Waitematā Local Board does not support this proposal on the basis that it is contrary to the goal of reducing congestion and encouraging mode shift.

33. Papakura Local Board sees this proposal as being an area more suited to central government funding.

Electrifying the rail line to Pukekohe

34. Four local boards support the electrification of the rail line to Pukekohe.

Impacts of climate change on the transport system

35. Eight boards support investment in projects that mitigate the impact of climate change on the transport system.

36. Their concerns include sea level rise, extreme weather events (including drought), wave inundation, flood-prone areas and run-off systems, and slips. This is especially so in those rural and island areas where there are no alternative access points. Significant investment will be required to ensure the network remains resilient and adaptable as these changes are magnified.

Green Infrastructure

37. Ten local boards support increased investment in infrastructure that reduces negative environmental impacts and increases restoration and regeneration of the environment.

38. Waiheke Local Board supports investment in drainage and culvert upgrades which slow stormwater and filter pollutants before reaching the marine environment.

39. Puketāpapa Local Board would like to see green infrastructure in the transport corridor such as rain gardens become standard in road design.

40. Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board would like to see investment in the modification of road culverts for fish passage migration.

41. Kaipātiki Local Board and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board support improved connections to the storm water network; ensuring maintenance and operational practices minimise impacts on the environment; improving waste practices across infrastructure construction and facilities management, including consideration of using low impact materials during construction (for example, recycled materials).

42. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board recommend Auckland Transport put increased investment into innovative recycling of infrastructure materials.

Other concerns about the environment

43. Four local boards highlighted support for more trees and plantings along the road corridor and as part of infrastructure development and noted that this will be critical for the future place-shaping of the city as well as for mitigating carbon emissions.

44. Local boards with non-urban environments highlighted the need for ecological areas to be managed to protect biodiversity values, including through the control of pest plants.

45. Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board would like to ensure investment in lighting design/infrastructure that supports their role as an International Dark Sky Sanctuary.

Travel choices

46. Local boards are broadly supportive of the strong focus on providing Aucklanders with better travel choices to enable more sustainable and economically productive transport options.

47. Kaipātiki and Franklin local boards support the proposal to effectively serve a wider range of key destinations beyond the city centre. These boards do not support the continued emphasis on the city centre as the primary employment destination and would like to see an approach that considers significant employment development in areas such as Auckland Airport and Albany.

Rapid Transit

48. Twelve local boards support investment which increases the speed and reliability of bus services by moving more of them into dedicated bus and transit lanes, separated from general traffic

49. Local boards emphasise the important of local connections to rapid transit hubs, including for pedestrians and cyclists.

Active transport

50. Fourteen local boards support initiatives that enable increased safety of people on bicycles across the wider transport system.

51. Nine local boards support investment in walking and cycling as core business for Auckland Transport, and would like to see greater investment in this space.

52. Ten local boards would like to see Auckland transport invest more in creating and maintaining safer footpaths and walkways.

53. Five local boards support delivering important travel behaviour change programmes such as Safe Schools and Travelwise to encourage more people to use active transport.

54. A small number of boards explicitly support the delivery of cycleways in areas associated with the Cycling Investment Programme, but several more would like to see this investment extended to areas beyond the scope of the Cycling Investment Programme.

55. Four local boards would like to see more resources invested into Greenways Plans.

56. Six local boards support making historical cycling infrastructure fit-for purpose and consistent with customer requirements, including space for bikes on trains and ferries, charging stations, and secure, sheltered parking at transport hubs.

Accessibility improvements

57. Six local boards support investment in accessibility improvements at bus, train and ferry facilities.

58. This feedback speaks to accessibility for different communities including those with disabilities, the elderly, families with pushchairs, as well as for those participating in both active transport and public transport, for example those wanting to transport bicycles on a ferry.

59. Five local boards support measures that expand travel choices through assistance to lower income residents, and those living in more deprived areas, to increase their use of public transport.

Bus shelters

60. Manurewa and Orakei local boards support increased investment in more bus shelters.

New park and rides

61. Eight local boards support investment in new and extended park and ride facilities.

62. These facilities need to be well-connected to active transport routes and local feeder buses, should include charging facilities for electric vehicles and bicycles.

63. Seven local boards support increased frequency of connector and feeder buses serving transport hubs.

64. Henderson-Massey Local Board supports the approach that new park and rides should be located at the periphery of the public transport network to avoid the congestion effects of additional car travel.

65. Papakura Local Board supports trialling more on-demand bus services.

Ferry services

66. Nine local boards support the inclusion of funding to start decarbonising the ferry fleet.

67. Four boards would like to see an increased focus on the ferry network and associated infrastructure (including feeder buses) to enable coastal communities to engage in off-road transport options.

68. Two boards support replacing ageing ferries required to deliver existing ferry services.

69. Kaipatiki Local Board request investigation of wake-free ferries to minimise impact on the coastal environment from ferry wake.

Safety

70. The investment programme in this RLTP will build on recent progress in reducing deaths and serious injuries (DSIs) on Auckland roads, and aims to deliver on the Vision Zero for Tāmaki Makaurau transport safety strategy adopted in 2019.

71. Six local boards support safety engineering improvements, like red light cameras and safety barriers.

Community Safety Fund

72. Thirteen out of 21 local boards endorse the inclusion of $10 million over ten years for the Community Safety Fund.

73. Local boards had consulted on several projects with communities that could not be delivered when the funding was discontinued.

Schools

74. Nine local boards support investment which improves safety near schools.

Speed limits and traffic calming measures

75. Ten local boards support measures that address speed limits and other traffic calming measures.

Public health

76. Eleven local boards support continued delivery of the safety programme as set out in the Vision Zero for Tāmaki Makaurau Transport Safety Strategy in 2019, and support investment in transport that reduces DSIs, noting that the proposed RLTP investment aims to reduce DSIs by 67 per cent over the next ten years.

77. Four local boards identified other harms caused by the transport system such as via air and noise pollution.

78. Local boards also recognised the opportunity that active transport provides for improving public health, with reference to the Healthy Streets framework.

Access and connectivity

79. Local boards support providing transport infrastructure for new housing developments and growth areas so long as this is focused on public transport and connections for active modes.

80. Four local boards support the concentration of investment into existing urban areas, both for climate change reasons and to ensure that there is adequate funding to continue renewals at the required rate.

Managing transport assets

81. Several local boards noted that low renewal expenditure over the 2018-2021 period (including due to budget impacts from Covid-19) has created a renewal backlog and support increased investment in road renewal, rehabilitation and maintenance.

82. Local boards see “like-for-like renewals” as a risk in terms of affecting transformational shifts to meet the challenges of growth and climate change. The renewal approach should include a review process that tests for mode shift opportunities rather than a default to like-for-like replacement (or that the budget allocated for road renewal and road improvements be combined so that roads can be assessed for improvement or renewal at the time of renewal).

Unsealed roads and chip seal

83. Five local boards support investment in unsealed road and signage improvements.

84. Several local boards request changes are made to sealing methods, particularly with cycling in mind.

85. Franklin and Rodney local boards advocate for increased funding renewal, rehabilitation and maintenance funding to be made available to Auckland Transport to renew at least 12 per cent of Auckland’s sealed roads and bridges in any given year (currently below nine per cent) i.e., an increase to the 2021/2024 budget of approximately $10 million.

Grade separation

86. Albert-Eden, Manurewa, and Waitākere Ranges local boards support additional funding for grade separation of rail crossings. Conflicts between traffic and level rail crossings need to be addressed, particularly if there is to be increased train frequency, both for safety reasons and network effectiveness.

Congestion Charging

87. Five local boards expressed their support for congestion charging.

Process and communication

88. As governors in the shared governance model of Auckland Council, local boards are responsible for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in their local board area.

89. Local boards had little input into the preparation of the draft RLTP prior to it being approved for public consultation. The opportunity to speak directly to the RTC during the public hearing was prior to the local boards formally resolving their feedback and consequently local boards were required to provide formal feedback before receiving the reports on feedback from their communities.

90. Several boards have requested that the process and timeframes for local boards to input effectively into the RLTP are improved further, including the opportunity for more input into the draft RLTP and ensuring that timeframes enable boards to formally resolve their feedback after receiving feedback from their local communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

91. The approach set out in the RLTP conforms with the direction expressed by Auckland Council through the Long-term Plan. However, Auckland Transport has noted that investment in transport infrastructure and services can only achieve so much on its own, and other tools are needed to reach the Auckland Council climate change emissions targets. A comprehensive approach to emission reduction will therefore require a range of actions from across government and industry sectors, and Auckland Transport and Auckland Council will work collaboratively with other key partners to identify a pathway for transport emissions reduction.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

92. 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

93. Local board resolutions and minuted feedback are included as Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

94. Local board views on the RLTP relate to issues or projects that are of specific interest to Māori.

95. Auckland Transport has engaged with Iwi and mataawaka throughout the development of the draft RLTP.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

96. There are no direct financial implications for the Planning Committee in receiving this report.

97. Any changes made to the draft RLTP based on this 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

98. The Governing Body must consider the views and preferences expressed by local boards when making decisions that affect those local board areas, as this is a legislative requirement and part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

99. Auckland Transport are currently reviewing 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 RTC later in June 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Board Feedback on draft Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031	21

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Helgard Wagener - Acting Policy and Planning Manager

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 June 2021

Downtown Car Park strategic transport outcomes

File No.: CP2021/07335

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To obtain approval for strategic transport outcomes for the Downtown Car Park site which, together with strategic outcomes previously agreed by the Planning Committee will inform a competitive market process.

2. To update the committee on the engagement with the Waitematā Local Board, mana whenua, Heart of the City and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Downtown Car Park site is identified in the Auckland Council (the council) City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) as a significant site that should be redeveloped to enhance the quality and experience of this part of Auckland’s city centre waterfront. The high pedestrian volume in this area requires any development to carefully consider and integrate pedestrian permeability, multimodal transport initiatives and vehicular access requirements. Within the CCMP, the Access for Everyone (A4E) concept is dependent on good public transport access to the city centre.

4. The Planning Committee (the committee) approved strategic outcomes for the Downtown Car Park site for land use, urban form and quality design, movement and access, environmental and social responsibility, and Māori in December 2020 (Resolution PLA/202/120).

5. The Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of the Downtown Car Park in December 2020 and requested the Eke Panuku Board, supported by the Auckland Transport (AT) Board, lead a competitive market process to select a development partner to purchase and redevelop the site to achieve the strategic outcomes agreed by the committee. The Finance and Performance Committee also requested wider engagement on all the strategic outcomes, and for the results to be reported to the committee (Resolution FIN/2020/104).

6. Workshops have been held with the Waitematā Local Board (local board), Heart of the City, and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board to discuss the strategic outcomes for the site. Mana whenua were also informed through the Eke Panuku Mana Whenua Forum.

7. The local board resolved to support the proposed draft transport outcomes and recommended that a local network plan be developed to enable the demolition of the lower Hobson Street flyover and that redevelopment prioritises mixed-use development with a significant amount of affordable housing. It also recommended that the majority of housing be primary homes.

8. Heart of the City supports the strategic transport outcomes, in principle. It requested the inclusion of short stay car parking on the site to ensure accessibility for all Aucklanders, at least until there is universal public transport access. It noted that it did not have enough information on the provision of a bus facility to comment but noted that it isn't included in the Bus Reference Case 2020.

9. Members of the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board provided feedback that covered aspects of the competitive market process, realising the vision of the CCMP and transport outcomes for the site. The impact of City Rail Link (CRL) and micro mobility on transport access, along with the appeal of the site as a key destination in the city centre were highlighted.

10. The committee requested staff provide more detailed advice on a flexible, multimodal transport hub to enable finalisation of the strategic transport outcomes.

11. Travel into the city centre by bus will remain an important means of access to the city centre, regardless of the investment expected in CRL and Auckland Light Rail (ALR) projects.

12. Currently around 30,000 people come into the city centre by bus, train, and ferry in the AM peak period. This figure is expected to more than double by 2038 with many passengers still arriving by bus. The number of passengers arriving by bus is set to increase from around 22,000 to around 30,000-35,000 in future years, even with the effect of ALR. Additional investment in bus facilities is needed to accommodate this growth.

13. Prior to the Downtown Car Park development opportunity, AT had been considering options within the City Centre Bus Plan^{^[1]} to reduce the impact of buses on the downtown area and address the issues identified. This plan looks at potential changes to the bus network as well as possible sites for additional dedicate bus facilities. No other viable sites have been identified in the vicinity of the downtown area.

14. Two major bus route groups require access to the downtown area, with Lower Albert Street Bus Interchange (LABI) the sole facility. The number of buses running into LABI by 2028 is expected to increase (compared to today), putting pressure on existing facilities. This will result in additional circulating buses within the downtown area as well as additional buses to layover on Sturdee Street.

15. Without providing additional bus facilities future bus operations will have compromised customer, urban realm and placemaking outcomes, as well as ongoing capacity and operational constraints.

16. In respect of Downtown Car Park, a wide range of high-level concepts have been explored to accommodate the need to provide additional capacity for buses in the city centre. Two concepts have sufficient merit to explore further.

17. The first concept is to incorporate a bus facility in the Downtown Car Park site redevelopment with the second being the removal of the Lower Hobson Street flyover to create space for a bus facility off-site, like the one in Lower Albert Street. Both concepts include an allocation of space in the redevelopment to accommodate a flexible, multimodal transport hub.

18. There will be no requirement in the proposal to provide AT-managed car parking in the development. Responses will be requested to outline what parking they will provide to meet the needs of the market, likely to include parking for the development, short stay parking requirements, and existing lease commitments.

19. Each concept has a different impact on the potential sales proceeds. The provision of a bus facility within the redevelopment site will likely have a material impact and the concept of removing the Lower Hobson Street flyover is likely to have a low impact on the sales proceeds. Both options will have implementation costs and ongoing operating costs. The actual impact will not be known until the completion of the competitive market process.

20. In summary, as part of the competitive market process, potential development partners will be requested to provide proposals that address the strategic transport outcomes, namely:

· provision of a bus facility, either as part of the site redevelopment or by removing the Lower Hobson Street flyover and replacing it with a bus facility;

· provision for a flexible, multimodal transport hub that supports public access to micro mobility including end of journey facilities, mobility parking, and a micro freight distribution hub;

· no specification or requirement on the number of short stay car parks. Responses to include details of the car parking required to meet the needs of the market, including parking for the development, short stay parking requirements, and existing lease commitments.

21. Work undertaken to date indicate that alignment to the CCMP and the strategic outcomes for the Downtown Car Park site can be achieved.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) note its previous endorsement of strategic outcomes for the Downtown Car Park site in respect of land use, urban form and quality design, movement and access, environmental and social responsibility, and Māori (Resolution PLA/202/120).

b) note that the Finance and Performance Committee has approved a competitive market process to select a development partner to purchase and redevelop the Downtown Car Park site, subject to the strategic outcomes agreed by the committee being materially achieve (Resolution FIN/2020/104) d.

c) agree that there is a need for a bus facility to cater for future growth in the downtown area and that the competitive market process is an opportunity to test the efficacy of this site and surrounds for this purpose.

d) agree the strategic transport outcomes for a redeveloped Downtown Car Park site:

i) provision of a bus facility, either as part of the site redevelopment or by removing the Lower Hobson Street flyover and replacing the space underneath it with an on-street bus facility;

ii) provision for a flexible, multimodal transport hub that supports public access to micromobility, including end of journey facilities, mobility parking, and a micro freight distribution hub;

iii) with no specification on the number of short stay car parks but responses to include details of the car parking required to meet the objectives of the development and any additional public short stay car parking they propose to provide

e) note the feedback provided by Waitematā Local Board, Heart of the City, and members of the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board regarding the redevelopment of the Downtown Car Park site.

Horopaki

Context

Process to date

22. The Downtown Car Park site^{^[2]} is identified in the council’s CCMP as a significant site that should be redeveloped to enhance the quality and experience of this key part of Auckland’s city centre waterfront. The high volume of people walking and cycling in this area requires the development to carefully consider and integrate pedestrian permeability, multimodal transport initiatives and vehicular access requirements.

23. At its meeting on 3 December 2020, the committee agreed the strategic outcomes sought from a development on the Downtown Car Park site (Resolution PLA/202/120). The strategic outcomes agreed by the committee on 3 December 2020 were grouped as follows:

· Land use

· Urban form and quality design

· Movement and access

· Environmental and social responsibility

· Māori

· Transport

24. The transport outcome agreed by the committee was for “a multimodal transport hub as part of the overall strategic transport network to meet the future needs of the city centre and future travel demand.” The committee requested staff report back in March 2021 with further information on this outcome.

25. At its meeting on 15 December 2020, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the sale of the Downtown Car Park (Resolution FIN/2020/104). It also approved the Eke Panuku Board, supported by the AT Board, to lead a competitive market process to select a partner to purchase and redevelop the car park site to achieve the strategic outcomes.

26. The Finance and Performance Committee also requested wider engagement on the strategic outcomes and for the result of this engagement and the strategic transport outcomes to be reported to the committee.

27. A steering group comprising of senior staff from the council, AT and Eke Panuku was formed to oversee the implementation of the decisions of both committees. This group is led by the Chief Executive of Eke Panuku.

Strategic Planning Context

28. The Auckland Plan 2050 is council’s over-arching strategic planning document. The three ‘directions’ stated in the Auckland Plan 2050 relating to transport and access are to:

· Direction 1: Better connect people, places, goods, and services

· Direction 2: Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant, and equitable Auckland

· Direction 3: Maximise safety and environmental protection

29. Building on the directions in the Auckland Plan 2050, in March 2020, the council adopted a refreshed CCMP. A core concept of the refreshed plan is Access for Everyone (A4E). A4E is a coordinated response that manages Auckland's city centre transport needs by:

· limiting motorised through-traffic

· prioritising access to city centre destinations

· creating new spaces

· improving access for servicing, freight, and delivery

· favouring public transport, walking, and cycling

30. A4E integrates long-term planning, city management and investment and provides an opportunity to transform how people and freight moves in the city centre. By enabling a decisive mode shift away from private vehicles, it aims to make better use of limited city centre space and improve the quality of the environment. The core elements of A4E are:

· city centre managed as a series of low-traffic neighbourhoods, restricting through-traffic

· 30 per cent reduction in peak-time traffic levels to enable new traffic network

· mode shift towards public transport, walking, cycling and micro mobility

· easier access for people with accessibility and mobility needs

· better conditions for freight access, including construction, deliveries, and rubbish collection

· more reliable access for emergency services

· growth in use of smaller, zero emissions vehicles for city centre transport of people and goods

· zero emissions areas in Waihorotiu Queen Street Valley, enabled initially via pilot projects to prioritise pedestrians.

31. The CCMP identifies some specific transport, movement, and public realm outcomes for the western downtown area. It notes that the transformation of the area remains key to integrating the city centre downtown core with the waterfront neighbourhoods in Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Quarter waterfront neighbourhoods to the west. The eventual removal of the Lower Hobson Street flyover, and aspiration to redevelop the council-owned Downtown Car Park site are initiatives identified as having the collective potential to add:

· greater intensity

· higher value

· more active uses

· a more engaging and connected public realm to realise the potential of this prime location.

City centre transport context

32. The last decade has seen major change in the nature of the transport network supporting the city centre. Public transport has improved dramatically, with rapid transit improvements through the Northern Busway and an upgraded rail system running modern electric trains. The bus network has been substantially upgraded and improved with the increased frequency of services into the city , particularly on the rapid transit network. Almost 50 per cent of travel into the city centre at peak times is on public transport and active modes.

33. A range of investments are either underway or have been identified to support the outcome and direction of the CCMP and A4E, including:

· improved public transport infrastructure and services to increase capacity into the city centre and support mode shift towards public transport

· additional safe cycling and walking infrastructure to support mode shift towards active modes

· investment in the A4E project to prioritise active modes and restrict access to discretionary traffic

· rationalising the bus system within the city centre to encourage mode shift, improve efficiency of operations and minimise the impact on surrounding activities

· aligning car parking strategy and operations with A4E, including reallocation of both on-street and off-street car parking space to other modes or purposes.

34. The combined impact of these measures is forecast to enable growth in journeys to the city centre while supporting a shift to more sustainable transport modes. Any additional trips to the city centre (over current levels) will need to be made by active modes and public transport. Modelling forecasts predict car mode share into the city centre will reduce from 44 per cent of AM peak motorised trips in 2016 to 25 per cent in 2038, while the interpeak reduces from 66 to 42 per cent.

35. The future transport network needs to have sufficient capacity to support the growth and changing needs of the city centre, including mode shift to more sustainable transport choices. Investment in rapid transit links (including CRL and ALR), improved bus capacity and walking and cycling all support this.

City centre parking context

36. AT currently controls 13 per cent of city centre car parking. This is currently 6,649 car parks, of which 4,189 are off-street and 2,460 are on-street. Around 5,000 are dedicated as short stay parking. Investment in the city centre transport network has resulted in re-allocation of road space to other transport modes and purposes with on-street parking reducing from 5,000 spaces over the past few years.

37. Private car parking provision is generally focused on early bird commuter parking and long-term lease parking. AT has been filling a market gap for affordable short stay parking which supports car trips for business, entertainment, dining or retail purposes.

38. The Downtown Car Park has 1,944 parks, of which 1,148 are for short stay parking and 796 are for lease. Analysis shows that the Downtown Car Park attracts use from around north, west, and central Auckland. Most short stay parking use occurs during the inter-peak period and weekends with surveys indicating that 75 per cent of people parking at Downtown Car Park during the interpeak were there for entertainment, dining, or shopping. Pre-COVID-19 and before the completion of Commercial Bay the peak occupancy was around 85 per cent.

39. The parking strategy for the city centre seeks to support A4E objectives by transitioning away from car parking to support mode shift and more effective use of city centre space. In the medium term on-street parking spaces will continue to be reduced and reallocated to active modes, public transport, or other purposes, such as loading zones.

Bus strategy

40. ‘Connecting the City Centre’ is a City Centre Bus Plan that AT aim to release in 2021, outlining the development of the city centre bus network in a way that delivers on the CCMP. It includes three high-level objectives for buses in the city centre:

· Improved customer experience – ensuring buses are part of an integrated transport system in the city centre, so regardless of which mode Aucklanders use, they can connect, transfer, and reach their destination

· Operational efficiency – delivering bus services which are more efficient and effective with the space necessary to operate with other modes in the city centre

· Strategic alignment – delivering the bus related outcomes of the CCMP and A4E and support the future shape of the city

41. Peak period bus travel into the city centre is space efficient. 450 buses arrive in the city centre every morning, carrying the same number of people as 30,000 cars. However, the way buses currently operate in the city centre is leading to poor customer experience, compromised operations, and a misalignment with the wider strategies for the city centre. There is a need for each bus to layover for up to ten minutes to allow for time between trips, and this operation is currently facilitated through a multitude of on-street facilities, often in unsuitable locations, requiring more than 1.2km of kerbside space in the city centre.

42. Buses will continue to be a key travel option into the city centre (see below). Even after both CRL and ALR are in place, buses are forecast to bring more people into the city centre during the peak period than any other transport mode. Forecasting that includes the impact of ALR shows that of the 450 buses currently arriving in the city centre every morning, the two concept schemes are only expected to remove approximately 42 buses per hour – less than 10 per cent of the total.

43. The expected reduction in buses from ALR is:

Post-2028 with light rail – departing bus volumes per hour

ALR corridor^{^[3]}

Buses removed

(PM peak)

Proposed terminus

City Centre to North West

Downtown / Lower Albert Street

City Centre to Māngere

Downtown / Lower Albert Street

44. The number of people that came into the city centre in February 2020 by bus, train and ferry was around 30,000 in the AM peak period (07:00-09:00). Around 22,000 of these people arrive by bus. Overall, the number of people expected to arrive by public transport is set to more than double to over 60,000 by 2038. Even in 2038, after both light rail corridors are assumed, around 31,000 people will arrive by bus – 40 per cent more than today.

45. The figure below illustrates the current and future travel patterns for customers arriving in the city centre on bus. There are some corridors that simply cannot be served by train or light rail and are dependent on buses to access the city centre via public transport. Corridors such as Tāmaki Drive and College Hill are never likely to be served by heavy or light rail.

46. In conclusion, travel by bus is expected to remain an important means of access to the city centre, regardless of the investment expected in CRL and ALR.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The challenge for bus operations in the downtown area

Bus operations in the downtown area

47. By 2028 (after CRL) the downtown area / Lower Albert Street Bus Interchange (LABI) will need to cater for an estimated 97 buses per hour.

· inner west (routes - 18, 195, 105, 106) which in 2028 is estimated to be 26 buses an hour in the PM peak (would be 44 without ALR)

· central isthmus (routes - 22s, 24s, 27s) which in 2028 is estimated to be 63 buses an hour in the PM peak. (would be 87 without ALR)

· other minor services (routes - 321, 755) which in 2028 is estimated to be 8 buses an hour in the PM peak

48. LABI has 11 stops and currently accommodates around 85 buses per hour at peak times. At times, LABI is operating at capacity and future growth is constrained, particularly when considering:

· There is currently around 75 per cent of usual patronage due to COVID-19 (additional patronage will lead to longer times spent at each stop)

· Fewer pedestrians in the city centre: more pedestrian activity at three very closely spaced intersections will constrain capacity and the throughput of buses due to more frequent pedestrian crossings

· Increasing the number of buses requires increased space allocation. To operate 97 buses would require at least an additional six layover spaces. There is no more space for bus layover on Sturdee Street - there are currently 14 bus layovers and there is no space to increase this.

49. To accommodate increased bus movements while supporting the CCMP, ‘Connecting the City Centre’ proposes three key steps, as outlined below. These initiatives are supported by the current Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), which allocates $350m for downtown and midtown bus improvements.

Step 1

Create dedicated reliable bus corridors along Customs Street and Wellesley Street

Improve bus stop quality and accessibility

Step 2

Provide new customer centric bus facilities which will:

· include dedicated driver facilities, bus layover areas and electric charging points

· improve customer experience and safety

· provide cycling, micromobility and other active mode facilities

Step 3

Change services so that bus routes run through the city centre instead of just to the city centre

50. These steps will improve the overall experience for customers, including simplifying transfers and improved legibility of the system. They will also reduce the impact of bus movements, stops and layovers within the core city centre.

51. One of the key moves (Step 3) changes the way bus services operate in the city centre. The figure below indicates how buses operate currently (on the left) and how they would run in the future (on the right). At present, buses terminate at various disparate on-street stops within the downtown area (grey box below). Transfers between services are not aligned.

52. In the future, buses will be routed through the city centre, with buses terminating at new off-street passenger facilities on the edge of the city centre. New high-quality bus stops will facilitate excellent transfers and improved connectivity between services on Customs Street and Wellesley Street.

53. Some bus routes cannot cross the city centre. The western and isthmus routes, which run from the south, cannot be extended due to geographical constraints, meaning that some buses will continue to terminate in the city centre. These routes result in the 97 buses per hour^{^[4]} referenced in paragraph 47 and are set to use the recently opened LABI and supporting layovers on Sturdee Street.

54. For these routes to be of most benefit to customers, they need to terminate where passengers are wanting to go. Both passenger surveys and AT HOP card data show that many passengers are heading to downtown. The recent extension of the western bus routes to Lower Albert Street has shown the value in:

· taking passengers to where they want to go, and

· having high quality waiting environments and stops.

Impacts of buses on customers and the downtown area

55. The current arrangement for western buses starting at Lower Albert Street requires buses to take a convoluted, circuitous route from their final stop inbound (Albert Street northbound) to the start of the next trip outbound (Lower Albert Street southbound).

56. The green lines on the image below indicate the routing necessary for western services. It is around 1km from the end of the inbound trip (Albert Street) and the start of the next outbound trip (Lower Albert Street), leading to additional operating costs and impacting air quality. This is the current arrangement and, without intervention, will become permanent.

57. As part of the current routing, buses are required to layover on Sturdee Street for up to ten minutes. This dedicates significant road space (around 14 layovers or 225m of kerbside space) in the city centre, compromising objectives of the CCMP. The current layout on Sturdee Street is shown below.

58. In addition, ‘Connecting the City Centre’ envisages buses from the isthmus^{^[5]} using Lower Albert Street northbound stops (red lines above). As indicated, these services also need to circulate using Quay Street, Lower Hobson Street and Customs Street.

59. The current arrangements require all these buses to continue using Quay Street in both directions. By 2028, almost 100 buses per hour will need to use Lower Albert Street, which is greater than its design capacity. Although these buses are expected to be zero emission by 2030, ongoing operating costs and poor urban outcomes are expected.

60. In summary, without intervention, future bus operations will have compromised customer, urban realm and placemaking outcomes, as well as ongoing capacity and operational constraints. In particular:

· There will be insufficient capacity to accommodate future western and isthmus bus services, even with ALR reducing the need for some bus services

· An increasing volume of buses will be required to use Sturdee Street for layover, with no space available for additional layover facilities

· a high volume of buses will be required to circulate on Quay Street in both directions

· future electric buses are unable to receive charging at the current facilities

· there are very poor or non-existent driver facilities available

· there is a misalignment with wider city centre strategy as set out in the CCMP

Addressing the impact of buses on the downtown area

61. Prior to the Downtown Car Park development opportunity, AT had been considering options to reduce the impact of buses on the downtown area and address the issues identified. This work will be presented in ‘Connecting the City Centre’.

62. Kerb space is at a premium with Sturdee Street at capacity and there are no viable sites in the vicinity of the downtown area, as illustrated in the map below, except for the Downtown Car Park.

63. Changes to bus routes heading to downtown was considered and discounted as part of ‘Connecting the City Centre’. To address the impacts identified the only option is to reduce the number of buses into the city centre, and as a result taking fewer people to where they want to travel.

Downtown Car Park as potential solution

64. The figure below shows the Downtown Car Park and the adjacent Lower Hobson Street flyover.

65. The Downtown Car Park site is uniquely located to reduce the impacts of buses in the city centre. The benefits of utilising space in a redeveloped Downtown Car Park site are:

· Improved customer experience. Opportunity for high quality passenger facility, with pleasant waiting environment, protected from the elements and with high quality information.

· Operational efficiency. There is potential for a downtown bus facility to result in:

o additional capacity for increased bus services in the city centre

o reduced operating costs

o improved operational facilities in the form of charging infrastructure and driver facilities

· Strategic alignment. There is the potential to create better quality places in the city centre, in line with the CCMP. Use of a dedicated facility frees up kerbside space at Sturdee Street and reduces circulation on Lower Albert Street, Market Place and Lower Hobson Street.

International examples of bus facilities integrated into wider developments

66. Examples of integrated bus facility developments in high density urban areas exist in several locations around the world. A recent example is at the Perth Busport, which opened in 2016. A bus facility has been created where buses run to an underground basement level, with passenger access at ground level and over-site development above.

Supporting mode shift via a flexible, multimodal transport hub

67. The inclusion of a bus facility and proximity to Britomart Station provides the opportunity for Downtown Car Park to support the shift to more sustainable modes of transport and support the implementation of A4E. The proposal is to include a flexible, multimodal transport hub approximately 3,000m² in size that can cater for car/ride share, micro mobility (cycling and e-Scooters), mobility parking, micro freight distribution and dispatch and end of trip facilities.

68. The advantages of the flexible transport hub include:

· providing greater flexibility to adapt to changing transport needs with an off-street space that can be tailored to requirements over time

· supporting cycling use through bike parking and end of journey facilities

· making it easier to remove some on-street vehicle or other transport related parking or loading/servicing requirements in the downtown area if there is an off-street alternative

· the proximity to Britomart Station and proposed bus facility, enabling easy transfers

69. To date, no other viable opportunities have been identified in proximity to Britomart Station to provide a transport hub (and proposed bus facility).

Supporting mode shift by reducing car parking

70. The redevelopment of Downtown Car Park will result in a reduction in the number of short stay car parks. This reduction is consistent with the CCMP in supporting mode shift.

71. The future development is expected to have some car parking.

72. No specific requirement for short stay parking will be required as part of the strategic transport outcomes, leaving the determination of quantity and purpose to the competitive market process and any consents required under the Auckland Unitary Plan^{^[6]}.

73. There will be three to four years before the redevelopment will commence, allowing the developer time to complete design, consenting and procurement. During this time, the site would continue to operate as a car park. This provides time for transitional arrangements to be determined prior to the demolition of the existing car park structure. During the construction period, there will be no car parking available on the site, enabling further behaviour change.

Including the transport outcomes as part of the development

74. To maximise the value from the redevelopment opportunity and ensure significantly improved benefits for Aucklanders, a mixed model has been adopted to determine the strategic transport outcomes for the site that will form part of the market approach.

75. It is considered unlikely that leaving the determination of the transport facilities to the developer in line with the relevant Auckland Unitary Plan provisions would deliver the required strategic transport outcomes.

Transport outcome	Proposed market approach
Bus facility	Council specified. Developers to respond to two concepts outlined below.
Flexible, multimodal transport hub	Council specified. Developer to determine where in the development this will be provided.
Parking provision	Developer specified. Developer to determine how many and where in the development this will be provided.

Technical feasibility of a bus facility

76. The technical feasibility of how to integrate a bus facility into a redevelopment of the Downtown Car Park site has been investigated with a wide range of concepts (including using half or full site) using multi-criteria assessment. The criteria were based on the six strategic outcomes for the Downtown Car Park, agreed by the committee in December 2020. All concepts include a circa 3,000sqm flexible, multimodal transport hub and assume the continued use of LABI.

77. Using the ground floor for the bus facility was discounted as it would compromise the other strategic outcomes in relation to movement and access, and urban form.

78. Two concepts have emerged as being potentially capable of providing a bus facility:

· Concept One — bus facility on-site: Full Downtown Car Park site redevelopment with bus facility in either the basement or on an upper floor (accessed via Fanshawe Street)

· Concept Two — bus facility off-site: Remove the Lower Hobson Street flyover and establish a bus facility at grade on the street without any bus requirements on the redevelopment site. This would function like the one on Lower Albert Street

79. Overview of Concept One — bus facility on-site, full redevelopment of site:

· provides sufficient capacity to accommodate all active and layover bay requirements (six active stops and 11 layover bays). An upper floor option would allow around 50 buses per hour to be removed from on-street facilities and removes around 50 circulating bus movements per hour

· improves network operations. This concept also provides the opportunity to centralise charging and driver facilities in one location

· a likely material impact on cost and sales proceeds. An on-site bus facility in the basement or on the upper floor has an impact on the design and configuration of a redevelopment to the extent that development economics will be materially impacted

· a negative impact on the urban form of the redevelopment. The upper floor option has buses crossing above laneways and ramping from Fanshawe Street. Ramping from Fanshawe Street splits the podium at the Fanshawe Street level resulting in high floor-floor requirements

· positive operating cost reduction. Bus operating cost savings from current budget of $500k per annum forecast.

80. Overview of Concept Two — bus facility off-site, removing the Lower Hobson Street flyover:

· delivers capacity, network, and circulation benefits to accommodate future growth in bus demand. An on-street solution will provide approximately 14 layover bays and reduce circulation. AT have indicated that if a right-turn was enabled from Customs Street West to Lower Hobson Street once the flyover is removed, then circulation would be improved further. This is consistent with initial investigations as part of the A4E project

· is unlikely to adversely impact development economics of the site and would maximise proceeds from the sale of the Downtown Car Park. This option is likely to increase the value and market attractiveness of the site

· has the positive impact of removing the flyover (envisioned in the CCMP), and facilitating high quality public realm, with no negative impact on laneways, activated edges and pedestrian movements

· provides less opportunity for vehicle charging and driver facilities which could be provided under concept 1

· facility would be under the control of AT and not subject to third party related constraints, delay, or delivery risk

· positive operating cost reduction. Bus operating cost savings from current budget of $500k per annum forecast.

81. More work needs to be done on this concept to test the feasibility and wider implications, such as addressing the traffic flow and providing for property access.

Flexible, multimodal transport hub

82. The development partner will be requested to ensure the space is designed in a way that is commercially feasible for conversion to different transport and non-transport uses, as required, in the future. It is anticipated AT will manage the transport hub.

Impact on sales proceeds of each concept

83. PwC has completed a high-level feasibility analysis of the commercial (value) impact on the sales proceeds for each concept. These value impacts are based on indicative massing studies and construction costs prepared by quantity surveyors.

84. PwC’s high-level analysis indicates that the combined costs and commercial impact of integrating a bus facility within a redevelopment of the Downtown Car Park will negatively impact sale proceeds. The indicative impacts are:

Bus facility concepts

Impact on sales proceeds

Concept One (bus facility incorporated into redevelopment)

Material impact

Concept Two (remove flyover to accommodate on-street bus facility)

Low impact

85. The actual impact on sales proceeds can only be determined via the competitive market process which will assess this impact and inform the business case cost-benefit analysis.

86. Both options will incur additional capital and operating costs which will be determined for the business case.

87. The site is subject to existing occupancy interests. The sales proceeds impact assume that the legal interests can be resolved and do not account for any commercial settlement.

88. These concepts are based on 'high-level' design, massing and circulation analysis undertaken by the technical team. These shortlisted concepts will need significantly more design development and value engineering and market testing.

Approach to competitive market process

89. A two-stage competitive market process was outlined in the report to the Finance and Performance Committee. Prior to the formal commencement of the market process Eke Panuku will engage with potential development partners to test the two bus facility options and to understand the value drivers from a developer perspective.

90. The pre-market engagement will inform the approach to the competitive market process. At this stage it is envisaged to have an expression of interest (EOI) followed by a request for development proposal for those short-listed after the EOI.

91. Proposals will be requested that deliver all the strategic outcomes agreed for the Downtown Car Park site including the strategic transport outcomes.

Meeting the objectives of the CCMP

92. The strategic outcomes already agreed to by the committee in respect of land use, urban form and quality design, movement and access, environmental and social responsibility, and Māori outcomes are directly linked to the CCMP. In terms of strategic transport outcomes, as previously discussed, the CCMP has a strong emphasis on improving public transport access to the city centre. While the CCMP does not specifically refer to a bus facility in the downtown west area, for the reasons outlined above, achieving the objective of improving public transport access requires a bus facility in the area. The package of strategic outcomes (including the proposed strategic transport outcomes) aligns strongly with the objectives of the CCMP, and the A4E approach of:

· limiting motorised through-traffic

· prioritising access to city centre destinations

· creating new spaces

· improving access for servicing, freight, and delivery

· favouring public transport, walking, and cycling

93. In addition, including the potential removal of the Lower Hobson Street flyover provides a direct link to a key project identified in the CCMP.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

94. Climate impacts were considered in determining the strategic outcomes. Future development could have a positive impact on the wider environment and on the people living, working, and visiting any future development of the site.

95. The reduction in the number of car parks available in the long-term helps reduce the reliance on private motor vehicles and therefore support emission reduction.

96. The proposed bus facility will support climate change objectives by encouraging mode shift away from private vehicles. The bus facility (either concept) also provides the option for rapid charging facilities for electric buses in the downtown area, which will greatly assist with the proposed full electrification of the bus fleet in the city centre by 2030.

97. The provision of a flexible, multimodal transport hub is likely to be positive in encouraging greater cycling take up and the use of electric and micro freight options to support the downtown area. Both concepts will see less driving into the city centre, compared to the status quo, however it is difficult to estimate how much of this will displace to other locations. Increased use by electric vehicles could mean that ultimately the facility generates zero emissions.

98. Any form of construction and development can increase emissions during the construction phase. Emissions associated with any potential redevelopment can be reduced through development standards agreed through a future development agreement.

99. The strategic outcomes will include minimum environmental standards. Commercial and retail development should achieve a minimum 5 Green Star rating certification and residential development should achieve a minimum 8 Homestar rating certification.

100. The development partner will be expected to have best practice construction and demolition waste management and procurement practices to reduce waste and maximise carbon reduction.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

101. Eke Panuku will lead the development opportunity on behalf of the group working closely with AT and council staff. The boards of both Eke Panuku and AT will approve the business case and final development proposal. This approach is consistent with the council-controlled organisation (CCO) review recommendation of appointing a lead agency when working jointly on projects.

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

Local impacts and local board views

102. Following the Finance and Performance Committee resolution (FIN/2020/104) in December 2020, workshops were held with the Waitematā Local Board, Heart of the City, and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board. Feedback gathered from these local stakeholders is presented below.

Waitematā Local Board

103. At the local board’s 18 May ordinary meeting, it resolved (Resolution WTM/2021/101):

a) to endorse the draft transport outcomes for the Downtown Car Park site, namely for a bus facility and a flexible, multi-use transport hub, designed to support a range of transport uses like some short stay car parking, car/ride share, micromobility, mobility parking, freight distribution and end of trip facilities (and allow for the space’s change over time) and to provide feedback on the outcomes.

b) provide the following feedback on the draft transport outcomes:

i. That it supports the inclusion of a bus facility and recommend that it and any other motorised transport provision (except for micromobility transport) should be kept to the southern end of the site to not prevent the activation, development, streetscape, and amenity of the site

ii. Car parking provision should be limited to short stay car parking

iii. support including high level of bike and micromobility parking on the site

iv. recommend that a local network plan be developed and implemented to enable the demolition of the lower Hobson Street flyover and achieve a major streetscape improvement there

c) recommend that any redevelopment should improve the streetscape and amenity in the area and:

i. provide principally for a mixed-use development including office and residential accommodation

ii. that a significant amount of affordable housing is provided in the development

d) recommend considering the wider economic ramifications of the project and to favour developers who will ensure the great majority of housing are primary homes.

Heart of the City

104. Heart of the City is the business association for the city centre, which includes commercially rated properties and businesses, with a strategic objective to see a successful city centre as a vibrant, accessible, safe, and welcoming urban community. It provided the following feedback:

Strategic/Flexible approach to transport function

105. Regarding a flexible transport hub:

· Supportive of proposed approach to allocate space for transport function, enabling use to change over time to reflect needs and strategic direction.

· Considers it important that the redevelopment includes short stay parking to ensure accessibility for all Aucklanders, at least until there is universal public transport availability, both day and night with appropriate means for people to access it (for example the elderly).

· Is not aware how the starting balance [of parking provision] has been determined but notes that there needs to be sufficient provision of space for other modes such as cycle parking so the starting balance as presented should be reviewed

Access for Everyone

106. Thinks the findings from the current A4E business case process would likely influence the strategic transport use for this building, and therefore the development agreement process should anticipate this.

Transport recommendations

107. Thinks that once the strategic outcomes are agreed, they must be integrated into the final development agreement. Thinks that the strategic outcomes for the project, not price should dictate the direction for the project and that the benefits of universal access to the city centre must be considered.

108. Noted that there are different models to ensure that the allocation of transport space will be secured for as long as it is required. Considers this to be important, as is having a clear mechanism in place to ensure there is a strategic approach to transport allocation and use over time.

Bus facility

109. Does not see any reference to the need for a bus facility in the Bus Reference Case 2020 and would appreciate more information about the strategic need for this site to host this activity. Notes that it is difficult to comment without having more information on this.

Auckland City Centre Advisory Board

110. The Auckland City Centre Advisory Board is a key advisory body that supports the CCMP’s vision. The Advisory Board assists and advises on city centre issues, achieving the vision and strategic outcomes of the CCMP and Auckland Plan, as well as how to spend the city centre targeted rate, which is paid by city centre businesses and residents to upgrade and develop the city centre.

111. The Advisory Board didn’t resolve to provide collective feedback, but individual members provided feedback in various forms including meetings and emails. The following is a summary of the themes rather than verbatim comments:

Process

112. Regarding the competitive market process:

· That any encumbrances or conditions on the site will lower the sale or lease value, and the city may decide if there are trade-offs worth making

· That offers are sought that both meet and don’t meet the conditions, giving elected members the ability to discover the potential cost to council of those conditions

City Centre Masterplan

113. Regarding the realisation of the CCMP:

· Supportive of the CCMP and expect the council family to give effect to the stated strategic outcomes and transformational moves in the masterplan

· That the CCMP has been subject to very wide public discussion, review, consultation and agreement and there is confidence that this high level of consensus represents the city centre we all want

· That the Harbour Edge Stitch transformational move in the CCMP is not realised by including a bus terminal that occupies half of a city block in the most valuable land in New Zealand

Transport

114. Regarding the transport functions on the site:

· That AT see transport amenity as ‘outcomes’ not ‘inputs’ on the site, as the draft strategic transport outcomes [as previously outlined] don’t give effect to delivering the CCMP vision

· That for the vision of the CCMP to be possible and most effective, the necessary transport system changes need to lead, not follow

· That we cannot wait for demand to change before changing supply, as supply shapes demand

· That the CRL will facilitate people coming into the city centre without a car, so including car parking facilities as part of the redevelopment works against that goal

· That nothing the council family does should incentivise more vehicles, more emissions or more parking – either cars or buses in the city centre

· That the focus should be on developing the city centre into a zero emissions area that provides safe, clean, and interesting spaces for residents, visitors, pedestrians, cyclists, and shoppers to enjoy

· That public bike parking is provided at scale.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

115. The committee has previously agreed Māori outcomes for the redevelopment. This included the early engagement with mana whenua to explore the potential for incorporation and expression of Māori identity and values including Te Aranga design principles.

116. Mana whenua have been informed of the redevelopment proposal through the Eke Panuku Mana Whenua Forum. Further engagement will occur during the development and mana whenua will also be invited to express potential commercial interest in the development opportunity for the Downtown Car Park.

117. Provision will be made in the development agreement for the development partner to provide employment and sub-contract procurement opportunities. This may include sourcing of aspects of the project from mana whenua authorities or Māori businesses.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

118. The Downtown Car Park was approved for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee in December 2020 (Resolution FIN/2020/104). The full financial implications of the redevelopment will not be known until the completion of the competitive market process.

119. PwC’s high-level analysis demonstrates that there is probably a material impact on value from the inclusion of a bus facility in the redevelopment on the Downtown Car Park site. The exact value trade-off will not be known until completion of the competitive market process.

120. The boards of Eke Panuku and AT have requested that a business case is developed which will include the full implications of the development proposal which are currently unknown. These include:

· Indicative proceeds from the sale

· Impact on AT’s budget from the loss of all or some car parking revenue (either in total or just during the development phase)

· Operating cost of bus facility (not currently included in the RLTP or Long-Term Plan budget)

· Impact on the council group borrowing capacity due to the reduction in car parking revenue

· Increase in rates revenue following redevelopment of the site.

Risks and mitigations

121. There are risks associated with undertaking any form of development. These will need to be carefully managed with following key risks identified relating to the strategic transport outcomes.

Risk (If…)	Consequence (Then…)	Mitigation
Reduction in short-stay public parking in the downtown area may negatively impact access for some existing users of the car park	Reduced accessibility to the downtown area	· Council providing affordable public transport alternatives · Long transition period for behaviour changes · Reducing lease parking at Fanshawe Street to provide for more short stay parking
Funding for fit-out and maintenance of bus facility is not included in current budgets	Bus facility will not be provided in this location and bus operations in the downtown area will be compromised	· Commence planning for inclusion in future RLTP
Sub-optimal strategic outcomes achieved	Value for Auckland and the council is not maximised	· Oversight from Eke Panuku and AT Boards · Developer selection criteria to select credible partner · Development agreement outlining council expectations
Financial value is impacted by priority to other strategic outcomes	Value for Auckland and the council is not maximised	· Oversight from Eke Panuku and AT Boards · Development of business case

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

122. Should the committee approve the strategic transport outcomes, work preparations will be finalised for the competitive market process.

123. The high-level timeline has been updated from that included in the Finance and Performance Committee report.

Activity	Timing
Pre-market engagement	July 2021
Expression of interest	August to September 2021
Request for development proposal	October to December 2021
Development agreement	March 2022

124. Progress updates will be provided to elected members during the development process as appropriate.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ross Chirnside – Programme Lead - Finance

Authorisers

David Rankin – Eke Panuku Chief Executive

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 June 2021

Council's submission on The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission 30-year draft Infrastructure Strategy consultation document

File No.: CP2021/06372

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To delegate authority to members of the Planning Committee to approve Auckland Council’s submission on Tūāpapa ki te Ora: Infrastructure for a Better Future, The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, Te Waihanga’s draft 30-year Infrastructure Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 12 May 2021 the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, Te Waihanga, released its draft 30-year Infrastructure Strategy (Tūāpapa ki te Ora: Infrastructure for a Better Future) for public consultation, which can be found here. Submissions close on 24 June and council will be making a submission.

3. The Commission’s proposed priorities are:

· Institutional and governance reforms (including water, health and local government)

· Pricing mechanisms

· Supporting housing

· Supporting a zero-carbon economy and preparing for climate change

· A digital future (open data, transparency)

4. The action areas recommended in the Commission’s consultation document are categorised as:

· Building a Better Future: Delivering infrastructure that is resilient to stresses and shocks and ready for change.

· Enabling Competitive Cities and Regions: Ensuring that our infrastructure systems support the needs of people living in cities and regions and improve our connections both within New Zealand and with our markets overseas.

· Creating a Better System: A step change in how we plan, design, fund and deliver infrastructure.

Key council submission points

5. Due to timeframes staff have not yet developed a draft submission for Committee’s consideration. Delegated authority is therefore sought to finalise council’s submission. Staff have completed a preliminary review of the Commission’s consultation document. At this stage it is proposed that the following key points are included in the submission.

6. Staff note there are enabling actions for infrastructure investments to undergo less control and time spent understanding the effects and benefits (i.e., S7.3 Develop a planning system that is more enabling for infrastructure) but in other sections, with respect to understanding climate and improving our cost-benefit analysis to evaluate environment and social costs, there are actions to increase scrutiny, impact analysis and optioneering requirements.

Intention to be guided by Te Tiriti o Waitangi

7. The Commission proposes that all decision-making about infrastructure must be guided by Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its principles, but specifically the obligation to partner with Māori. Staff consider this statement on partnership is well aligned with Auckland Council’s commitments to Māori outcomes, however Auckland Council have not yet determined how our infrastructure decision-making will be guided by Te Tiriti. The actions laid out in the Infrastructure Commission’s proposal on Partner with Māori: Mahi Ngātahi (F5) and the associated consultation questions, indicate there is more development required as to how this would be done.

8. Staff note there is more work to do in this space as is recognised by the Crown on enacting the principles of Te Tiriti Mana Whenua. “The five principles are: The Principle of Government or Kawanatanga; the Principle of Self-Management, or Rangatiratanga; the Principle of Equality; the Principle of Reasonable Co-operation; and the Principle of Redress”^{^[i]}

9. Staff propose to offer support in our submission as to how council’s experience could be used as an example of how to work towards better outcomes for Maori (including from infrastructure). Council can provide information on our approach to identifying and prioritising Maori outcomes through resourcing a specific department with Executive Leadership Team representation, where Māori determine their desired outcomes and priorities, and are working towards well-resourced engagement with Iwi. Staff also recommend that along with any feedback received from Māori organisations and individuals through their submission process, the Commission work with Iwi to determine what decision-making that’s guided by Te Tiriti looks like.

Alignment with council’s draft 2021 Infrastructure Strategy on improving our decision-making

10. The Commission proposes a set of outcomes and guiding principles which are well aligned to council’s draft 2021 Infrastructure Strategy. The outcomes are efficient, equitable and affordable, and the decision-making principles are future-focused, transparent, focused on options, integrated and evidence-based. Council’s draft Infrastructure Strategy lays out the actions that council propose to achieve this level of improved decision-making and focuses on improving our ability to guide project and programme creation and prioritise our investment decisions across the council group.

A proposed vision for infrastructure

11. The Commission’s proposed vision for infrastructure 2050 (Te tirohanga marohi mō te hanganga 2050) is that “Infrastructure lays the foundation for the people, places and businesses of Aotearoa New Zealand to thrive for generations. E whakatakoto ana te hanganga i te tūāpapa o te ora o te tangata, o ngā wāhi, me ngā pakihi o Aotearoa kia ora rawa atu mō ngā whakatupuranga”.

12. Council’s draft Infrastructure Strategy identified that a vision for infrastructure was missing and proposed that a vision be created for Auckland’s infrastructure, taking a Te Ao Māori view of what infrastructure provides. Staff suggest the National Infrastructure vision could provide a foundation to the council vision for infrastructure.

Alignment with the Auckland Plan on Outcomes

13. Public feedback on issues for New Zealand’s infrastructure through the Commission’s survey ‘Our Aotearoa 2050’ was that:

· our environment is the top priority when it comes to making infrastructure decisions,

· new transport infrastructure takes too long to build

· improving public transport is the preferred solution

· affordable housing and our ageing schools and hospitals are holding us back as a country

· that more investment in our water networks is needed and we could be using technology to save water

· that we create too much waste.

14. Staff consider that these issues align well with the strategic priorities and outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050, the priorities used in council’s recovery budget and our group-wide capex prioritisation for the 2021 Long-term Plan. As identified in the Auckland Plan 2050, these are not outcomes that Council can achieve on its own. The Commission’s support for these priorities, and the development of actions in these areas may strengthen council’s ability to invest to achieve these outcomes.

Equity

15. Staff note an additional priority for the Commission could be equity. The Commission proposes their decisions will be guided by the outcomes of efficiency, equity and affordability, but do not note it as a priority. Council’s draft Infrastructure Strategy identifies this as one of the top five issues facing infrastructure and that investment prioritisation and project creation processes must value something quite different to what they do now to enable infrastructure to contribute to equity. This is an emerging area of research and policy development and council’s draft Infrastructure Strategy includes an action to understand this more and develop options for the 2024 Long-term Plan.

Climate change

16. The Commission’s proposed action area on preparing infrastructure for climate change is far reaching and includes discussion of transport, waste, water, energy, the Emissions Trading Scheme, infrastructure design, planning and funding. Staff support the Commission’s various proposed actions including requiring all infrastructure projects to directly assess climate change impacts; requiring that proposals for new major capital works are subject to modelling that indicates the infrastructure will withstand future shocks; enabling active modes of travel; driving a culture of waste minimisation; efficient pricing of waste; and requiring local government to consider information from insurance markets to inform climate-risk-related planning policy.

17. Of note are the proposed actions for a bright-line (pass/fail) infrastructure resilience test to withstanding future shocks, and their proposal to require all infrastructure projects to apply a consistent cost of carbon (that is commensurate with New Zealand’s international commitments) in business case appraisals and decision-making.

Infrastructure funding and financing

18. The criticality of infrastructure funding and financing is highlighted by the Commission however staff suggest there are areas that could be further expanded on. The Commission acknowledges there is a significant gap between the infrastructure needed and what can be afforded. The Commission also note that there are limits to what we can spend, and we will not be in a position to build all the infrastructure that communities want, meaning we need to make better use of existing infrastructure and consider non-built solutions.

19. The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act is noted as a tool to assist with the infrastructure financing and funding gap.

Supporting housing supply

20. The Commission presents options such as consistent national planning rules, regional spatial planning, merging regional and district plans, creating targets for new housing development in cities, setting housing requirements through national direction.

Staff recognise that upholding democracy and local decision making, recognising positive placemaking outcomes and respecting the specific context when delivering infrastructure is important. Staff suggest a top-down planning approach that focuses on delivering quantity rather than quality be balanced with providing high quality urban environments. The concern is what the setting of targets for housing and business development capacity to accommodate growth, and that taking precedence over subjective amenity barriers would mean for Auckland.

Pricing mechanisms/ getting the price right

21. The Commission proposes implementation of congestion pricing, water metering, waste disposal charges and including the full cost of carbon in infrastructure business case appraisals.

22. The Commission’s position on congestion pricing is generally aligned with that of council’s which, in principle, supports implementation of congestion pricing in Auckland, conditional upon various issues being addressed. We acknowledge that further work is needed to understand the mitigation of equity impacts, the role of pricing in helping reduce Auckland’s transport emissions and the need to ensure appropriate public and active transport alternatives are in place in affected corridors prior to the introduction of congestion pricing.

23. Staff are supportive of efficient pricing of waste, as it aligns with council’s advocacy for a significant, progressive increase to the current waste levy and support for the expansion of the levy to apply across all classifications of landfill.

Reforms

24. The Commission identifies extensive reviews and reform that are already underway, including the Review into the Future for Local Government, reform of our health and disability system and the Three Waters (drinking water, stormwater and wastewater) Reform Programme. They note that “decision-making across the infrastructure system is currently fragmented and lacks coordination. Better integration and coordination between local and central government infrastructure functions could significantly improve New Zealand’s infrastructure system”. They propose that further options to improve New Zealand’s governance of infrastructure need to be explored.

25. The reform discussions in the Commission’s proposal are in many ways driven by a value for money (economic efficiency) lens. For example, water reform is noted as being driven by safety and efficiency but also to enable urban development. Staff note council are actively engage in these discussions to ensure good outcomes can be achieved for Aucklanders and the natural resources and ecosystems we are responsible for.

A digital future

26. The Commission proposes updating the national digital strategy, better data collection and transparency to understand existing infrastructure performance, costs and impacts, as well as future requirements. Staff support taking a long-term approach in planning for digital infrastructure and ensuring everyone has equitable access. To realise the benefits of improved connectivity for all, infrastructure needs to be supported by interventions that increases digital literacy. Coverage for digital infrastructure in Auckland is generally good but there are many barriers for digital inclusion, especially for those disadvantaged groups of Aucklanders (such as low-socio economic communities, people with disabilities, new migrants, seniors and people who lack core digital skills).

Local Boards

27. Local boards have been sent a memorandum outlining the consultation document, the submission development process and opportunities to provide input and feedback. Due to the short consultation timeframe, it is likely to be difficult to obtain formal views from all local boards.

Mana Whenua

28. Staff have sought guidance from Ngā Matārae and intend to use the direction of existing agreed positions to support the direction of the submission. Staff have also invited the Independent Māori Statutory Board staff to provide feedback for inclusion in the preparation of the submission or to append feedback.

29. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum has been alerted to the Commission’s consultation document and the proposed submission development process. Staff are preparing a memorandum for the Forum for inclusion on the Wellbeing Pou and Economic Pou agendas for their hui on the 3^rd of June. The memorandum and the draft submission will also be included on the agenda of the monthly Forum hui on the 17^th of June. Given the short consultation timeframe, the intention is for the Forum to provide feedback to be appended to the submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, the Deputy Mayor and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve Auckland Council’s submission on Tūāpapa ki te Ora: Infrastructure for a Better Future, The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission’s draft 30-year Infrastructure Strategy.

b) note that the final submission will be provided to the Planning Committee for information.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Isobel Jennings - Advisor Infrastructure Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 June 2021

Auckland Unitary Plan Schedule 10 Notable Tree Schedule - Correction of Error (8 Eglinton Avenue, Mt Eden)

File No.: CP2021/06604

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to prepare and notify a plan change to add a pōhutukawa located at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mt Eden to Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule and the corresponding mapped overlay in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The tree has been identified as being omitted in error.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The pōhutukawa located at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mt Eden was scheduled in the legacy Auckland City Council District Plan (Isthmus section) but was not included in the notable tree schedule of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) when it was notified in September 2013, and it is not scheduled in the Auckland Unitary Plan Notable Tree Schedule (Schedule 10). This means the tree is currently not afforded any protection under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). When the PAUP was being prepared it was intended that all existing legacy scheduled trees (both notable trees and historic trees) worthy of being protected would be transferred into the PAUP.

3. An investigation into this discrepancy was unable to provide any evidence that the omission of the pōhutukawa located at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mt Eden from the notable tree schedule in the PAUP was intentional. It was concluded that the omission was indeed an error, and the tree should have been scheduled in the PAUP as notified, as it was in the legacy planning documents.

4. On 30 April 2021, the Tree Council lodged an application with the Environment Court to request that council correct its plan in regard to this tree under section 292 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). This application also requested an urgent interim enforcement order be put in place to prevent any damage to or removal of the tree. The Environment Court issued the interim enforcement order on the same day. The tree was protected from damage, injury or removal as directed by the Judge and continues to be protected until the Court made any other determination in this matter with regards to the s292 application.

5. Before the hearing, which was set down for 24 May 2021, the parties (the property owner, the council and the Tree Council) reached an agreement on an alternative proposal that would remove the need for a hearing in the Environment Court (Attachment A). The agreement is that if the council notifies a plan change to add the tree to Schedule 10 before 1 October 2021, then the interim enforcement order described in paragraph 5 will remain in place until this plan change decision has been made.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree to prepare and notify a plan change to add the pōhutukawa at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mt Eden to Schedule 10 Notable Tree Schedule of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to ensure it is protected as originally intended.

Horopaki

Context

Schedule 10 Notable Tree Schedule

6. The council’s main regulatory technique for managing and protecting trees is the AUP. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) within the AUP contains several objectives and policies relating to the natural environment, including trees. It recognises the importance of Auckland’s distinctive natural heritage and the numerous elements that contribute to it, with trees being an integral component. The AUP is supported by a suite of non-regulatory council and private initiatives under Auckland’s Urban Ngāhere Strategy that contribute to the management and protection of trees. Some examples include: Local Board Plans, the Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy and the “Million Trees programme”.

7. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) amendments in 2012 prevented the use of general (or blanket) tree protection in urban areas. In response council continues to advocate to central government for the re-introduction of the general tree protection mechanism.

8. Prior to the creation of the AUP, each legacy council had its own schedule of notable/historic trees. These varied in number and extent according to the local area. The trees were evaluated using different criteria (depending on the council involved) at the time they were included in the legacy district plans. Many of the legacy schedules had not been updated for many years when they were incorporated into the PAUP.

9. As part of the AUP process council prepared a Draft Auckland Unitary Plan (DAUP) which had pre-notification public consultation in March 2013, and then the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) was publicly notified in September 2013.

10. In developing the DAUP significant work was undertaken to consolidate these schedules. The scale of the exercise in the context of the development of the DAUP meant this was principally a desktop exercise. Reliance was placed on the historic information contained in council’s database with limited ground truthing. Consequently, there are now almost 3000 individual line items representing close to 7000 trees or groups of trees regionally. The council’s intention at that time was that all existing legacy scheduled trees worthy of being protected be transferred into the PAUP. This intention is reflected in paragraph 11 of the attached Auckland Plan Committee agenda from 2012 (Attachment B). The assessment or re-evaluation of trees was outside the scope of this exercise.

The omission of the pōhutukawa (8 Eglinton Avenue) from Schedule 10

11. Recently it was brought to council’s attention that the previously scheduled pōhutukawa at 8 Eglinton Avenue was not carried over into the PAUP as it should have been, and it is not currently included in Schedule 10 of the AUP.

12. An investigation into this matter was conducted by staff that involved reviewing historic records, corporate property files and PAUP documentation. As outlined above, consultation on first the DAUP and then the PAUP means there were two rounds of comprehensive consultation. A total of 198 submitters made 893 submission points on Topic 025 – Trees during the PAUP process. Feedback on the DAUP indicate that there was no request to have the pōhutukawa at 8 Eglinton Avenue omitted from the notable tree schedule in the PAUP, nor was there any submission seeking to add/reinstate the tree to the notable tree schedule in the PAUP following notification in September 2013. There is also no record of this omission being discussed in the Independent Hearing Panel recommendation report (Attachment C).

13. Staff have been unable to find any evidence that the omission of the pōhutukawa located at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mt Eden from the notable tree schedule in the PAUP as notified was intentional. The conclusion was drawn that this must have been a data extraction error that was not picked up through any data verification exercise undertaken prior to notification of the PAUP.

Environment Court proceedings

14. On 30 April 2021, the Tree Council lodged an application with the Environment Court to request that council correct its plan in regard to this tree under section 292 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). This application also requested an urgent interim enforcement order be put in place to prevent any damage to or removal of the tree. The interim enforcement order was originally issued by the Environment Court to protect the tree until it made any other determination on the s292 application that had been sought by the Tree Council, and this was on the basis that a hearing was set for 24 May and a decision would follow this hearing. An agreement made between parties (Attachment A) has seen the hearing date vacated and the enforcement order made on 30 April extended until such a time as the decision is made on a plan change to add the tree to Schedule 10.

15. The tree is protected from injury, damage or removal by the enforcement order under the condition that a plan change to include the tree in Schedule 10 of the AUP is notified before 1 October 2021. If the plan change is not notified by this date the Tree Council will seek to bring on its application under s292 and the interim enforcement order will continue until that application is finally determined.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. There are two key options available to the council:

· prepare and notify a plan change to add the pōhutukawa at 8 Eglinton Avenue to the Schedule 10 of the AUP; or

· do nothing and be a party to the Tree Council’s application under s292.

17. Given the agreement reached between the property owner, the council and the Tree Council, the plan change process is considered to be the most appropriate way to address the error.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. Notable trees form 1 to 1.5 per cent of Auckland’s urban canopy cover. While the notable tree criteria do not include considering the climate change mitigation potential of a tree, and notable trees will always only be a small component of the trees in the region, they do nevertheless make a positive contribution. This includes increasing carbon sequestration and reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed in the report to the Planning Committee in November 2020, a change in the legislative context by reintroducing general tree protection would have a far more positive impact than individually scheduling additional notable trees.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Preparing a plan change to add the pōhutukawa at 8 Eglinton Avenue to Schedule 10 will not have any impact on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. 8 Eglinton Avenue is in the Albert-Eden local board area. The local board has advocated for and strongly supports the protection of the pōhutukawa.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. The protection of trees is an issue important to many Māori. No specific consultation has been undertaken with Māori in relation to this report, however, based on past consultation with mana whenua, it is highly likely mana whenua would want to see corrections made to ensure any omitted listings within their rohe are protected.

22. In relation to the tree at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had sought to join the s292 application proceedings as a section 274 party, with their interested party notice advising that they support the correction of the error relating to protection of the pōhutukawa at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mt Eden (Attachment D).

23. If the committee agrees to notify a plan change, staff will consult specifically with mana whenua and they will be able to make submissions and attend the hearing should they so wish.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. Progressing a plan change to add the pōhutukawa at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mt Eden to Schedule 10 Notable Tree Schedule of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can be managed within the current Plans and Places department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. There are no risks associated with the recommendation made in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. Staff will prepare the section 32 report in support of the plan change and notify it for submissions before 1 October 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇩	Joint memorandum of counsel seeking consent orders ENV-2021-AKL-0047 & 0048	1823
b ⇩	Auckland Plan Committee Agenda Report from 6 November 2012 meeting	187
c ⇩	Independent Hearing Panel Recommendation Report (Topic 025 Trees)	193
d ⇩	Notice of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei wish to be party to proceedings ENV-2021-AKL-0047	211

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Teuila Young - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Plan Change 46: Drury South - Decision	219

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Plan Change 35 Foster Crescent Snells Beach Decision	327

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward work programme	345
b ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – May 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Auckland Council’s submission on the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Memo: Great North Road car transporter parking update (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Memo: Auckland Council group staff feedback on the natural wetland definition exposure draft in relation to the Essential Freshwater package (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Memo: He Tūāpapa ki te Ora: Infrastructure for a Better Future, Aotearoa New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy Consultation Document (Under Separate Cover)

Planning Committee

03 June 2021

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

Forward Work Programme 2021

This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use, transport and infrastructure strategies and policies relating to planning, growth, housing and the appropriate provision of enabling infrastructure, as well as programmes and strategic projects associated with these activities. The full terms of reference can be found here.

Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2021
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Unitary Plan Monitoring including Climate response (led by Plans and Places)
Auckland Unitary Plan Monitoring Report Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under section 35 of the Resource Management Act to provide a comprehensive monitoring report five years from date the Auckland Unitary Plan became ‘operative in part’ (i.e. by November 2021). This work will consist of interim monitoring reports ahead of November 2021. Examples of monitoring topics include urban growth and form, quality built environment, historic heritage, indigenous biodiversity, Maori economic, social and cultural development, natural hazards (including flooding) and climate change. This work may result in plan changes being recommended ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.	Decisions required: Interim reports seeking committee feedback and decisions on possible plan changes ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.
	Enabling Rainwater Tanks Plan Change	Decisions required: Progress to date: Delegated authority to approve notification of the plan change PLA/2020/47
	Mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations – staff to report back to Planning Committee with options (May 2021)	Decisions required: committee to consider options and recommendations
Auckland Plan 2050
Auckland Plan Annual Scorecard and Annual Update APSR	To report annual progress against the 33 measures of the Auckland Plan 2050	Decision on possible changes to measures (if none required, could be a memo)
Resource Management Act framework reform
Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill (exposure draft) Chief Planning Office	The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) to provide for land use and environmental regulation (this would be the primary replacement for the current RMA) The exposure draft will provide input into the Select Committee Inquiry which will inform the final bill	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation period will be May/June 2021
Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill Chief Planning Office	The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) to provide for land use and environmental regulation (this would be the primary replacement for the current RMA) Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation period will be second half of 2021
Resource Management system reform – Strategic Planning Bill Chief Planning Office	The Strategic Planning Act (SPA) to integrate with other legislation relevant to development (such as the Local Government Act and Land Transport Management Act) and require long-term regional spatial strategies. Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation period will be second half of 2021
Resource Management system reform – Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Bill Chief Planning Office	The Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act (CAA) to enable and address issues associated with managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation. Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation period likely mid-2022
National Policy Statements
National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 – implementation approach Chief Planning Office	The NPS-FM was adopted by central government in September 2020. Auckland Council’s implementation approach needs to be reworked to take into account the greater expectations required of councils and other parties to give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai, preceding plan changes required before the end of 2024	Decision required: to receive an updated council implementation approach for the NPS-FM and associated instruments Progress to date: high-level implementation plan approved, working group formed to provide political oversight PLA/2021/12 Report seeking endorsement of consultation approach due July 2021.
Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Lands Chief Planning Office	The finalisation of the proposed NPS-HPL is due to be considered by central government in 2021. If adopted, this will have implications for land use in the Auckland region, and how highly productive lands are recognised and managed.	Decision required: to consider council’s approach to implementation of any finalised NPS-HPL in the Auckland region.
Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity Chief Planning Office	The finalisation of the proposed NPS-IB is due to be considered by central government in 2021. If adopted, this will have implications for how biodiversity outcomes are managed in the Auckland region, particularly through planning frameworks.	Decision required: to consider council’s approach to implementation of any finalised NPS-IB in the Auckland region.
Urban Growth and Housing
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Chief Planning Office	The NPS UD was gazetted by the government on 20 July 2020 and comes into force on 20 August 2020 with ongoing timeframes for implementation. The purpose of the NPS UD is to require councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations	Decision required: consider the significant policy and implementation issues that are presented by the NPS UD, approve the detailed work programme for Phase 2 Progress to date: Work programme endorsed PLA/2021/8 Workshops held Feb – Jun 2021. Report due July 2021 seeking endorsement of the implementation approach.
Government Policy Statement – Housing and Urban Development Chief Planning Office	The GPS will communicate the Government’s long-term vision for the housing and urban growth system. It will provide specific direction to Kainga Ora – Homes and Communities and broad expectations on other government agencies	Decision required: approval of council’s submission Consultation period will be mid-2021
Unit Titles Act Chief Planning Office	Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, seeks to update and modernise the current Act.	Decision required: approve council’s submission (due 29 April 2021) Progress to date: Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/27
Affordable Housing Chief Planning Office	To progress the resolution (PLA /2019/17) on Auckland Council’s role and position on affordable housing in phases: Progress report and approach to advice	Decision required: receive Affordable Housing progress update and insights Progress to date: Forward work programmed approved PLA/2020/65

	Research findings	Decision required: consider research and implications
	Consider options	Progress to date: Housing for older people PLA/2020/92, Inclusionary Zoning PLA/2020/93, PLA/2020/94
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office	Ongoing Kainga Ora implementation issues and relationship management	Decision required: to be confirmed
Crown Auckland Council Joint Work Programme Chief Planning Office	Quarterly update on the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Work Programme on Urban Growth and Housing.	Decision required: Generally none. Receive updates by memorandum on JWP and any proposed changes to the workstreams.
Transport Strategy Programme (led by Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO in conjunction with others)
Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)	Now that ATAP has been adopted for the next decade staff will commence work on a recommended indicative package for 2031-2051.	Decision required: consider indicative funding packages for outyears 2031-2051 in the third or fourth quarters of 2021
Regional Land Transport Plan	Including climate lens and monitoring. Provide direction for RLTP 2021-2031. Phase 1 of this process, being run by AT, is called ‘Future Connect’ and involves definition of focus areas for planning and investment and ranking of issues. AT’s focus is the period 2028-2031 and future priorities.	Decision required: Agreed funding package for consideration of RLTP committee and AT board Progress to date: Considered at Extraordinary Planning Committee 11 March 2021 PLA/2021/16 Next steps: Post consultation on the RLTP 2021-2031 – workshops required under LTP funding, prior to this committee endorsing ahead of consideration of Regional Transport Committee.
Regional Fuel Tax		Decision required: approval of components and changes to current status Progress to date: Considered at Extraordinary Planning Committee 11 March 2021 PLA/2021/17
Congestion Question	The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is calling for public submissions on its inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland. Submissions close 20 May 2021	Decision required: consider and approve submission to the select committee Progress to date: Authority delegated to provide direction and approve submission PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37
City Centre to Mangere light rail	Subject to Cabinet consideration. Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: subject to Cabinet consideration
Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)	Status update to be confirmed	Decision required: to be confirmed
Public Transport Operating Mechanism review	Following direction from the Mayor and Chair, Transport Strategy will be working with MoT and AT as part of the PTOM review process. Transport Strategy is waiting on public release of the MoT’s PTOM review, anticipated in the near future. Following release, Transport Strategy will prepare a memorandum summarising key points from the review and relating these to advice provided previously (e.g. bus driver contract conditions and vehicle procurement).	Decision required: to be confirmed
Hamilton to Auckland High Speed Rail business case	Status update to be confirmed.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Auckland Transport
Northwest Interim Bus Improvements	AT advancing bus improvements and responding to consultation. Strong councillor interest	Receive updates
Access for Everyone business case	AT progressing business case in line with Council’s CCMP.	Receive updates and provide feedback on draft
Northern Busway enhancements	AT progressing business case as early part of Additional Waitemata Harbour Connections. High profile project	Receive updates and provide feedback on draft
Regional parking strategy review	AT has started work on updating some parts of its 2015 parking strategy. The indicative completion date is late-2020.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Infrastructure
Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy work programme APSR	Engagement with Ministers and engagement with the work underway ahead of report back to Cabinet (previously scheduled for May 2020). Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Infrastructure Strategy APSR	30 Year Infrastructure Strategy – strategic insights and direction (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee – forms part of LTP)	Decision required: timeframe and decisions to be confirmed in line with LTP
National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy APSR	This will replace the current national 30-year plan. It will consider how infrastructure might support environmental, social, cultural, and economic wellbeing	Decision required: to be confirmed Consultation period will be May/June 2021
Auckland Unitary Plan oversight
Making Plan Changes Operative Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under the Resource Management Act to make council and private plan changes operative once the decision on the plan change is made and any appeals are resolved.	Decision required: Make plan changes operative.		As and when required


Private Plan Changes Plans and Places	Private plan change requests not dealt with under staff delegation. These will be brought to committee as and when required.	Decision required: Accept/adopt/reject/deal with the request as a resource consent application.		As and when required
Plan Change – Residential Plans and Places	Monitoring of the Auckland Unitary Plan has indicated that some improvements can be made to the provisions for residential development.	Decision required: Provide direction on the scope and timing of a potential plan change. Progress to date: Endorsed the preparation of a plan change for IRD provisions PLA/2020/115
Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space Plans and Places	Scoping report identifying opportunities to offer unutilised areas of road reserve and unformed legal roads back to Māori former landowners	Decision required: Consider recommended approach.
Auckland Housing Programme – area plans and potential plan changes Plans and Places	Kainga Ora has prepared a spatial development strategy for the Mt Roskill and Mangere areas. These may need area plans for consultation with the community and local boards. Some plan changes may come out of this work for parts of these areas.	Decision required: Endorsement of draft area plans for public consultation.
Panuku Priority Location Programme
Wynyard Point Masterplan & Plan Change Panuku Development Auckland	Refreshed Wynyard Point masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.	October/November 2021 workshop direction required: Support for the Wynyard Point Final Masterplan incorporating public consultation feedback. November 2021 committee decision required: Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Final Masterplan and proposed plan change for notification.
Onehunga Wharf Masterplan & Plan Change Panuku Development Auckland	Onehunga Wharf masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.	Aug 2021 committee decision required: Endorsement for proceeding with preparation of a plan change.
Unlock Uptown Panuku Development Auckland	Foundation Outcomes and Precinct Development Plan to guide the regeneration delivery of Council and Crown land surrounding CRL Karangahape and Maungawhau stations.	Jul 2021 workshop direction required: Support for the proposed Foundation Outcomes. Dec 2021 workshop direction required: Support for the proposed Precinct Development Plan prior seeking formal approval. Feb 2022 committee decision required: Endorsement for the proposed Precinct Development Plan.
Unlock Haumaru Panuku Development Auckland	Programme delivery completed and forward programme update.	2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.
AT TOD Programme Panuku Development Auckland & Auckland Transport	Panuku and Auckland Transport joint work programme to investigate transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities around established transport hub and park & ride sites.	2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.
Unlock Northcote Panuku Development Auckland	Update on market process to select a preferred development partner and proposed regeneration delivery pathway.	2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.

Completed

Lead Department	Area of work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
CPO	Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities second Bill	Approval process for council’s submission	Political working group established to develop and approve submission by Planning Committee 5 December 2019 PLA/2019/92
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	Submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/9
CPO	Submission on the Urban Development Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/10
CPO	Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/15
Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring	Receive an update on the Auckland Plan 2050 and the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress report	Updates received by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/16
Auckland Design Office	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adoption	Consider and adopt refreshed City Centre Masterplan	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adopted by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/17, PLA/2020/18, PLA/2020/19
Financial Strategy and Planning	Submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/20
DPO	Shovel-ready projects for Central Government	Agreement on list for submission to central government	Process agreed at Emergency Committee 9 April 2020 EME/2020/13
CPO	Submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 16 April 2020 EME/2020/23
CPO	Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan	Consider and approve the final structure plan	Final structure plan approved by Governing Body 30 April 2020 GB/2020/38
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund	Approval of council approach and submission	Endorsed first round of funding and approved process for developing the second round at Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund	Approval of second round funding bids to NZTA	Approved Council and AT proposed list of projects for further development and refining, and authority delegated to approve the final submission, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/30
CPO	Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021-2031, and draft National Rail Plan	Approve council submission on GPS and Draft national rail plan	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/56
Plans and Places	National Environmental Standards on Air Quality – council submission	Approve council submission	Council’s draft submission endorsed, and authority delegated to approve final submission, Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/31
CPO	Resource Management Act Framework Fast-track consenting legislative change	Approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/32
Plans and Places	Strategic Land Use Frameworks for Dairy Flat and Kumeu Huapai Future Urban Areas	Approval to prepare strategic land use frameworks for Wainui Silverdale Dairy Flat and Kumeu-Huapai.	Approved preparation of spatial land use frameworks, and established a Political Working Party to approve the draft spatial land use frameworks, at Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/37
Plans and Places	Plan Change - Whenuapai	Approve next steps.	Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/44
Plans and Places	Plans Change – Events on Public Space Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.	Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.	Notification of plan change approved at Planning Committee 3 September 2020 PLA/2020/68
Plans and Places	Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule	Consider the timing of a full review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees in the context of resourcing constraints and priorities	Options for reviewing the schedule in future considered at 5 November Planning Committee. PLA/2020/95, PLA/2020/96, PLA/2020/97
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Additional Harbour Crossing	Consideration of finalised business case. The business case is a joint piece of work between Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council.	Business case considered, findings noted and support given to continue council’s involvement in the project, at 5 November Planning Committee PLA/2020/100
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question	Consideration of findings in the Congestion Question project final report.	Noted that phase two of the project is completed, received the report findings, considered scope of phase three and requested approvals and updates to return to the committee PLA/2020/116
Panuku Development Auckland, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council	Downtown Carpark development outcomes	Establish agreement on the Auckland Council group development outcome requirements for the Downtown Carpark to enable site sale through a contestable market process.	Considered in confidential section of the December 2020 Planning Committee meeting PLA/2020/120
Auckland Transport	Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case Review	Agree committee members to participate in an Auckland Transport-led political reference group.	Members delegated to the political reference group PLA/2021/7
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Project	Agree funding package.	Approved the recommended ATAP 2021-31 indicative package PLA/2021/15
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Plan Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measure confirmation	Confirm new Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome measures	New measures confirmed PLA/2021/26

[1] [1] The plan will be known as ‘Connecting the City Centre’

[3] If North Shore Light Rail is also considered, a further 40 buses are freed up, but these would be services using other termini – not Downtown or Lower Albert Street

[4] Note that this figure assumes both light rail schemes are in place and excludes any facility for inter-regional coach facilities. AT will explore options for the future of inter-regional services through a business case process in the next 12-18 months

[5] Covers buses from Mt Eden Road, Sandringham Road and New North Road

[6] If the developer proposes parking that is not permitted as of right under the Resource Management Act/Auckland Unitary Plan, then the council would have a regulatory decision-making role in respect of any resource consent application.

[7] Item 16 Local Board views on Plan Change 46 (Private) Drury South, Resolution number FR/2020/97, Franklin Local Board Open Minutes, 27 October 2020

Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Richard Hills
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Tracy Mulholland
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Pippa Coom	IMSB Member Liane Ngamane
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Shane Henderson

Date	Workshops
26/5/2021	CONFIDENTIAL Planning Committee Workshop: Regional Land Transport Plan Consultation feedback and amendments
26/5/2021	CONFIDENTIAL: Decision making for the National Policy Statement Urban Development - Infrastructure and housing capacity

Date	Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item
May 2021	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – May 2021
29/4/2021	Auckland Council’s submission on the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
13/5/2021	Memo: Great North Road car transporter parking update
19/5/2021	Memo: Auckland Council group staff feedback on the natural wetland definition exposure draft in relation to the Essential Freshwater package
20/5/2021	Memo: He Tūāpapa ki te Ora: Infrastructure for a Better Future, Aotearoa New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy Consultation Document

Author	Kalinda Iswar - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy