Agenda of Planning Committee - Thursday, 30 September 2021

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Private Plan Change 43 decision re-issued	15

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Private Plan Change 56: Mitchelson Street, Ellerslie - Decision	89

Planning Committee

30 September 2021

Auckland Unitary Plan - Request to make Plan Change 25 (Private) - Warkworth North operative in part

File No.: CP2021/14021

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative in part Plan Change 25 (Private) – Warkworth North to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 25 is a private plan change request that rezones 99 hectares of land north of Warkworth from Future Urban Zone to a mix of residential and business zones and applies a new precinct called the Warkworth North Precinct. The plan change request went through the formal notification, hearing and decision-making process.

3. The decision by independent commissioners was publicly notified in March 2020 and four parties appealed the decision. Following negotiations, all except one party were able to agree to a set of provisions for Plan Change 25 and these provisions were signed off by the Environment Court through a consent order. The matters that the one party did not agree on are largely site specific and have been able to be legally separated from the other matters in the consent order. Those matters were the subject of an Environment Court hearing in July 2021 and a decision from the court is pending.

4. Making operative the vast majority of Plan Change 25 will provide a more enabling planning framework so that the land in Warkworth North can be developed for new housing and business land.

5. The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP(OP)) can now be amended and made operative in accordance with the Environment Court consent order.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Plan Change 25: Warkworth North as set out in the Environment Court consent order in Attachment A to the agenda report.]

b) request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make operative in part Plan Change 25 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

c) report back to the Planning Committee once the decision from the Environment Court on the remaining appeal to Plan Change 25 is received.

Horopaki

Context

What is Plan Change 25?

6. Plan Change 25 (Private) – Warkworth North rezones approximately 99 hectares of Future Urban zoned land to a mix of residential (73.4ha), business (23.4ha), and open space zones (2.5ha). This will provide for approximately 1,000 - 1,200 dwellings and a new Local Centre. The proposed private plan change as notified introduced a new precinct over the land with additional controls to provide for an integrated stormwater solution, protection of ecological values, and provision of open space and future road connections such as the Western Link Road. The land covered by Plan Change 25 is shown on the map in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Location of the land covered by Plan Change 25

Plan Change 25 process and decision

7. Plan Change 25 was requested by Turnstone Capital Limited. Council accepted the plan change request and publicly notified it on 5 February 2019. Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the RMA, Plan Change 25 was:

· publicly notified on 16 May 2019

· open for public submissions until 5 July 2019

· open for further submissions until 12 September 2019

· heard by independent commissioners on 6, 7, 8, and 21 November 2019

8. An independent hearing panel was delegated the authority to make decisions by the Regulatory Committee. The panel’s decision was dated 18 March 2020. The decision was publicly notified on 26 March 2020.

9. Overall, the decision approved the plan change with modifications. The decision largely rezoned the Plan Change 25 area and added in a new precinct in accordance with the request of Turnstone Capital Ltd. However, the decision did not rezone some areas of Plan Change 25 and instead left the zoning as Future Urban.

Plan Change 25 appeals

10. The Plan Change 25 decision from the hearing panel was appealed by four parties – Turnstone Capital Limited (the requestor), Robert White, Atlas Concrete, and Middle Hill Ltd.

11. Atlas Concrete later withdrew their appeal, while Turnstone Capital and Robert White were able to mediate an agreed set of provisions with the council. The agreed provisions are included in the Environment Court consent order in Attachment A.

12. There was no resolution to the Middle Hill appeal and it was the subject of an Environment Court hearing in July 2021. The Middle Hill appeal was in relation to the zoning of the land outlined in red and hatched on the map below.

Figure 2 – Land subject to the Middle Hill appeal on Plan Change 25 (outlined in red and hatched)

13. A decision from the Environment Court on the Middle Hill appeal is pending. It is noted that any decision from the court could be appealed to the High Court on a point of law – so there is no guaranteed end date for the appeal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Making Plan Change 25 operative in part

14. Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), a private plan change has no legal effect until it is made operative. The council’s standard process for a private plan change would be to wait until all appeals are resolved before making it operative.

15. However, in this case the zoning and provisions for the vast majority of the Plan Change 25 area have already been resolved through an Environment Court consent order. The only outstanding matter is the discrete area of the Middle Hill appeal.

16. If the majority of Plan Change 25 is not made operative now, it will hinder the development of this land by retaining the Future Urban zone over it, without any specific precinct provisions. It is noted that this land has been the subject of interest for potential developers in various discussions with council.

17. It is therefore recommended that the parts of Plan Change 25 covered by the Environment Court consent order be made operative as soon as possible. This will provide a more enabling planning framework so that the majority of land in Warkworth North can be developed for new housing and business land in the immediate future.

18. Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes. Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’ [emphasis added]. As outlined above, the Environment Court has issued a consent notice that resolves a large ‘part’ of the appeals. On this basis, the area covered by the consent order can now be made operative.

19. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning Committee’s resolution.

20. Plans and Places staff will report back to the Planning Committee once the Middle Hill appeal has been resolved.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. As this report only relates to a procedural step, climate change is not directly relevant to the recommendation to approve Plan Change 25.

22. However, it is noted that the plan change enables a mix of housing and employment opportunities in the northern part of Warkworth inside the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB). Enabling housing and employment opportunities inside the RUB (rather than more dispersed development) has the benefit of reducing travel distances to work, education, goods and services, and therefore reducing emissions from private vehicles. In terms of adapting to climate change, it is noted that the land subject to Plan Change 25 is not in an area that will be impacted by sea level rise, and measures are in place within AUP to address the impacts on development of more severe rainfall events resulting from climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. As this report only relates to a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 25.

24. However, it is noted that all relevant council groups were notified of the plan change request and had the opportunity to make submissions. Watercare and Auckland Transport both made submissions and presented evidence in support of those submissions at the hearing. Auckland Transport was a section 274 party in the appeals and agreed to the content of the Environment Court consent order.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. As this report only relates to a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of this plan change.

26. However, it is noted that the Rodney Local Board was briefed on Plan Change 25 in November 2019. Feedback at the time was that the Rodney Local Board did not support the private plan change request. At that time, the board considered it could undermine the draft Warkworth Structure Plan and result in a future land use pattern which is not necessarily best placed or scaled to serve the long-term future of Warkworth.

27. These matters were included in the planner’s section 42A report and it is noted that the council officer hearing report recommended that Plan Change 25 be declined for similar reasons to those outlined by the Rodney Local Board. However, the hearing panel decision was to approve the plan change with modifications.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. As this report only relates to a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of this plan change.

29. However, it is noted that the applicant circulated the plan change to Mana Whenua groups recognised as having an interest in the area in June 2018. A site visit was held with both Ngāti Manuhuri and Te Kawerau a Maki and both mana whenua groups prepared Cultural Values Assessments.

30. All iwi authorities were sent letters when Plan Change 25 was publicly notified. Ngāti Manuhuri lodged a submission as part of the notification of Plan Change 25. The submission sought that the plan change be accepted subject to ensuring that mana whenua values were incorporated into the precinct provisions.

31. There were no appeals by any iwi authorities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving Plan Change 25 in part and amending the AUP(OP) is a statutory requirement and is cost recoverable from the private plan change requestor.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. There are no risks associated with making Plan Change 25 operative in part. The Environment Court has issued a consent notice that settles three of the four appeals and therefore these provisions are beyond challenge. The remaining provisions that are still being appealed by Middle Hill Ltd are discrete from the rest of Plan Change 25. Therefore, the provisions around the Middle Hill Ltd appeal can be ‘carved out’ from the remaining area of Plan Change 25 (which is to be made operative).

34. If the council did not make Plan Change 25 operative in part, there would be reputational risks to the council of being seen as unnecessarily hindering new housing development in Warkworth North.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. The final step in making Plan Change 25 operative in part is to publicly notify the date on which the relevant provisions will become operative, and to the update the AUP(OP).

36. Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Change 25 operative in part, including the public notice and seals. The update of the AUP(OP) is expected to occur in October 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Environment Court Consent order	101

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

30 September 2021

Plan change for notification - Amendments to Auckland Unitary Plan Historic Heritage Schedule

File No.: CP2021/08153

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve for public notification a plan change to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan) Chapter L, Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers the notification of a plan change to amend Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps of the Unitary Plan. The purpose of the plan change is to amend the category of 91 Category A* historic heritage places that are already included in the Unitary Plan Historic Heritage Overlay and to update the information in the Unitary Plan for these places.

3. The plan change proposes amendments to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage (Schedule 14.1), Schedule 14.3 Historic Heritage Place maps (Schedule 14.3) and the Unitary Plan maps (planning maps). The amendments proposed include the deletion and/or merging of some historic heritage places.

4. The reason for these amendments is to ensure information about the heritage values of Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s significant historic heritage places is up-to-date, accurate and robust. The historic heritage places that are the subject of this plan change are Category A*. The Unitary Plan states that Category A* is an interim category until a comprehensive re-evaluation of these places is undertaken and their category status is addressed through a plan change process.

5. Outdated or inaccurate information in the Unitary Plan about the values of scheduled historic heritage places has the potential to put Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s significant historic heritage at risk or impose unnecessary costs on landowners and the council.

6. It is recommended the proposed plan change is notified for submissions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the notification of the plan change to amend 91 historic heritage places in Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan, included as Attachments A, B and C to the agenda report

b) endorse the section 32 evaluation report included as Attachment D to the agenda report

c) delegate to the Manager Heritage the authority to approve minor amendments to the proposed plan change, if required, in advance of public notification.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Unitary Plan contains objectives, policies and rules to protect Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s significant historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. The provisions also seek to allow historic heritage places to be used appropriately.

8. The provisions are contained in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the Historic Heritage Overlay sections of the Unitary Plan and in Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps.

9. The Historic Heritage Overlay is a management approach where activities anticipated to have a greater effect on the values of a historic heritage place are subject to more rigorous management.

10. Significant historic heritage places in the Unitary Plan are identified in Schedule 14.1. For some places, a map in Schedule 14.3 provides additional information about the place. The location and spatial extent of each place is shown by the Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place (extent of place) in the planning maps.

11. Historic heritage places in Schedule 14.1 are identified in one of four categories: A, A*, B and historic heritage area.

12. Category A historic heritage places are those that are of outstanding significance well beyond their immediate environs. Category B places are those that have considerable value to a locality or beyond. Historic heritage areas are groupings of interrelated historic heritage places and features.

13. The historic heritage places that are includes in the plan change are all identified in the Unitary Plan as Category A*. Category A* places are the most significant scheduled historic heritage places from legacy plans where the total or substantial demolition or destruction was a discretionary or non-complying activity (rather than a prohibited activity). This category was allocated to places when the historic heritage schedules from legacy council plans were merged into the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in 2013. The Unitary Plan advises that Category A* is an interim category and that these places need to be comprehensively re-evaluated.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. The reason for notifying a plan change is to update the category status for 91 Category A* historic heritage places, following the re-evaluation of these places. The plan change also proposes amendments to ensure information in the Unitary Plan (Schedule 14.1, Schedule 14.3 and the planning maps) is accurate and reflects the historic heritage values of each place, so that each place can be managed according to its values.

15. The RPS includes policies to identify and evaluate historic heritage places. There are eight evaluation criteria: historical, social, Mana Whenua, knowledge, technology, physical attributes, aesthetic and context. Historic heritage places may be included in Schedule 14.1 if they have considerable or outstanding value in relation to one or more of the evaluation criteria and if the place has considerable or outstanding overall significance to its locality or a greater geographic area.

16. There are 186 Category A* historic heritage places in the Unitary Plan Schedule 14.1. 91 of these have been re-evaluated for the proposed plan change. Evaluation of the remaining 95 Category A* historic heritage places will recommence once the special character survey work associated with the National Policy Statement on Urban Development has been completed.

17. Each place that has been re-evaluated was visited, either from the public realm or, where appropriate and possible, viewed from within the site.

18. A report was prepared for each Category A* place that was re-evaluated. Each report sets out the planning background, the history of the place and a physical description of it. The report evaluates each place against the RPS criteria and identifies the category for each place. The report also provides recommended amendments to Schedule 14.1, Schedule 14.3 and/or the planning maps, as necessary, to refine the management of the place based on the heritage values identified in the re-evaluation, and to ensure all information in the Unitary Plan is correct.

19. Mana whenua, landowners and occupiers and other stakeholders have been engaged in the process and invited to provide feedback on the draft reports for the Category A* places that have been re-evaluated. Feedback has been incorporated into the re-evaluation reports, where appropriate.

20. Of the 91 historic heritage places re-evaluated for this plan change, 19 are proposed to be Category A and 59 Category B.

21. Ten places are proposed to be deleted from Schedule 14.1 and the planning maps. The re-evaluation of these places showed that the historic heritage values do not meet the criteria and thresholds in the RPS for a place to be eligible for scheduling.

22. The re-evaluation of some individual historic heritage places has resulted in a recommendation to merge some places, where the values of individual places are closely related:

· Four scheduled historic heritage places that commemorate historical events in Devonport are proposed to be merged into one place, to be called the Windsor Reserve commemorative landscape. The four individual places, being Hydrographic Survey Station and mast (ID 01150), Fountain (ID 01152), Memorial to J.P. Mays and H. Frankham (ID 01154) and Nothing Happened plaque (ID 01168), are all located within Windsor Reserve.

· The Red Bluff/Castor Bay Battery recreation hut (former) (ID 02686) is proposed to be merged with the Castor Bay Battery complex (ID 01060). The former recreation hut is part of the wider battery complex and will be identified as a primary feature within the complex.

23. The merging of these places means individual entries for the historic heritage places will be deleted from Schedule 14.1 and the planning maps.

24. As stated, the reason for notifying a plan change is to update the category status for 91 Category A* historic heritage places and to ensure the information in the Unitary Plan is accurate and reflects the historic heritage values of each place.

25. The protection and management of Auckland’s significant historic heritage places, and the appropriate use of them, relies on the information about the values of these places in the Unitary Plan to be up-to-date and correct.

26. Outdated or incorrect information about Category A* historic heritage places in the Unitary Plan may result in the loss of significant historic heritage values. Alternatively, errors and outdated information may also lead to costs being unnecessarily imposed on landowners and the council. This may result in resource consent being required for activities, but the historic heritage values of the place do not warrant the protection offered by the provisions in the Unitary Plan. Accordingly, it is considered inappropriate not to take no action and the plan change should be endorsed for notification.

27. Under section 86B of the Resource Management Act 1991, the plan change will take immediate legal effect because it is a rule that protects historic heritage.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28. The historic heritage places in this plan change are already included in the Unitary Plan historic heritage schedule and subject to the provisions of the plan. The amendment of the category of these places and updating of information does not have any climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. The updating of information about scheduled historic heritage places is likely to assist the council group with the management of council-owned or managed land and assets, as the plan change will ensure such places are accurately identified in the Unitary Plan.

30. In June 2021, feedback was sought on the draft plan change from the relevant areas of the council group. Feedback was received from Auckland Transport and Eke Panuku.

31. Auckland Transport advised on 2 July that they had no issues with the proposed plan change in its current form. On 6 July, Auckland Transport was advised that an additional place, being Takapuna springs site (ID 01164) was proposed to be included in the plan change. The extent of place for this place is proposed to be extended to include land within the road reserve. To date, no feedback has been received from Auckland Transport in relation to that place.

32. Eke Panuku has provided feedback about one place, Falls Hotel, 22 Alderman Drive, Henderson (ID 00127). Council heritage staff and Panuku began discussing the re-evaluation of this place in March 2021, in relation to a subdivision/boundary adjustment being sought by Eke Panuku near the hotel. Council heritage staff supported a request from Eke Panuku to amend the extent of place for the hotel to align with the subdivision.

33. In July 2021, Eke Panuku sought a further amendment to the extent of place for the Falls Hotel to accommodate proposed works for the Oratia Link cycleway. The cycleway is in the planning phase, with two route options currently being considered. Council heritage staff consider the information is not certain enough to make further changes to the extent of place. Also, the rules of the Historic Heritage Overlay allow for maintenance and repair of footpaths, cycling and walking tracks as a permitted activity, subject to standards. Depending on the works needed for the cycleway, resource consent for works in the Historic Heritage Overlay may not be required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. The plan change includes scheduled historic heritage places in four local board areas, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Kaipatiki and Whau. These local boards were informed of the re-evaluation of Category A* places in 2020 or early 2021. Council heritage staff attended a workshop with the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board in June 2020 and with the Henderson-Massey Local Board in April 2021.

35. Emails were sent to local board members and local board advisors on 3 June 2021 to update them about the progress on the re-evaluation of Category A* places and to inform them that council staff were beginning to engage with landowners and occupiers and interest groups in relation to the plan change. Informal feedback was received from several local board members.

36. Local boards have a further opportunity to provide their views on the plan change once it is notified. Any views provided by local boards will be considered alongside submissions as part of the hearing and decision process on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. The iwi authorities of Tāmaki Makaurau were informed about the re-evaluation of Category A* historic heritage places in May and June 2021. They were invited to provide feedback, including any information about the significance of the historic heritage places to iwi and hapū. Responses were received from two iwi authorities: Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki. Ngāti Manuhiri expressed their interest in the proposed plan change and requested that council continue to communicate with them on it. Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki were interested in a particular Category A* place, the Takapuna springs site (ID 01164). A meeting was held with a representative of Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki on 28 July 2021 to discuss this place. Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki supported the proposed amendments in the plan change relating to this place.

38. The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 made changes to Māori participation within the Act. Schedule 1 of the Act was amended to insert clause 4A which requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change prior to public notification and have particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying the plan change. Accordingly, the draft plan change was sent to iwi authorities on 8 September 2021. No feedback has been received to date. Staff will follow up with the iwi authorities prior to the Planning Committee meeting.

39. All feedback received from iwi authorities will be summarised and incorporated in the evaluation report for the plan change. A verbal update will also be given at the Planning Committee meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. The costs of the preparation of a plan change to update information in the Historic Heritage Overlay is provided for in the Plans and Places department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. The key risk associated with the recommendations made in this report is a perception that by proposing to remove 10 places from the historic heritage schedules and amend the category of 59 places from Category A* to B, the council is not fulfilling its important role in protecting historic heritage places. This will be mitigated by clear communications about the reasons for the proposed changes and the opportunity for members of the public to make submissions on the proposed plan change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. If approved for notification, the plan change will be publicly notified on 28 October 2021, in line with the process set out in the Act. A period of at least 20 working days will be provided for submissions to be lodged on the plan change. Decisions requested in submissions will be summarised and publicly notified for further submissions.

43. Once council has received submissions and further submissions on the plan change, council staff will prepare a report for the hearing. The report will outline the summary of submissions, an analysis of all submissions received, and recommendations about which parts of the plan change should be adopted, removed, or modified.

44. Independent commissions will be appointed, and the council will hold a hearing on the plan change if any submitters have requested to be heard. The independent commissioners will make the council’s decision on the plan change under delated authority.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed amendments to Schedule 14.3 Historic Heritage Place maps	143
b ⇩	Proposed amendments to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage	147
c ⇩	Proposed amendments to Planning Maps	163
d ⇩	Section 32 report	275

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

30 September 2021

Submission on proposed amendments (wetland provisions) to the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020

File No.: CP2021/14104

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek delegated authority for committee members to approve Auckland Council’s yet to be developed submission on central government’s discussion document titled ‘Managing our wetlands’.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Central government’s Essential Freshwater programme contains several regulatory instruments, many of which came into force on 3 September 2020. Following gazettal, significant concerns were raised about the implementation of wetland provisions in the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020 (NES-Freshwater).

3. In essence, these concerns arise from:

· unclear regulatory definition interpretation for ‘natural wetland’

· making particular activities (e.g. quarrying) in or adjacent to a natural wetland (as broadly defined) a prohibited activity status

· or unintentionally adding unnecessary constraints to environmental enhancement activities in or adjacent to wetlands (e.g. pest plant removal).

4. In response, central government released a consultation document titled ‘Managing our wetlands’ on 3 September 2021. It contains proposed regulatory amendments (wetland provisions) to the NES-Freshwater, and inter-related provisions within the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM).

5. The regulatory amendment proposals seek to:

· make the definition of ‘natural wetland’ clearer, while ensuring that ‘the change strikes the appropriate balance between wetland protection and land use and development’

· make it easier to undertake maintenance and restoration activities in and around natural wetlands, without requiring a resource consent

· provide regulatory provision for biosecurity activities in and around natural wetlands, consistent with a regional or pest management plan

· include Resource Management Act 1991 ‘discretionary’ consenting pathways for activities of quarrying, landfills, cleanfills and managed fills, mineral mining and urban development.

6. Staff are preparing a council group submission on the Managing our wetlands proposals, framed by the discussion document questions. Submissions are due with central government by 27 October 2021. This necessitates delegated authority from the Planning Committee to members to sign-off on the final submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) delegate authority to the Chair of the Planning Committee, the Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, the Deputy Mayor and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to approve Auckland Council’s submission on central government’s proposals in the Managing our wetlands discussion document before 27 October 2021.

b) indicate its initial preference, for the purposes of developing the draft submission, on specific central government proposals as follows:

i) support for refining the definition of ‘natural wetland’ to the extent proposed, so that it can be more readily interpreted and applied, and remove unintended consequences arising from the regulatory definition in the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020, while ensuring that the policy intent to protect natural wetlands is not diminished

ii) support regulatory amendments that seek to improve how restoration, maintenance and biosecurity activities can be undertaken within a natural wetland, and within 100 metres of a natural wetland

iii) support a position generally to either include or exclude additional consenting pathways and gateway tests for the following activities within a wetland, or within 100 metres of a natural wetland:

A) quarries (support inclusion, but not necessarily at the discretionary activity status proposed)

B) landfills (support inclusion, but not necessarily at the discretionary activity status proposed)

C) cleanfills, managed fills (oppose inclusion)

D) mining (minerals) (support inclusion, but not necessarily at the discretionary activity status proposed)

iv) note that staff do not yet have a recommended position on whether to support or oppose a consenting pathway, and associated gateway test, for urban development within a natural wetland, or within 100 metres of a natural wetland, and acknowledge some reservations about how the effects management hierarchy and other safeguards are applied and whether compliance can be achieved.

c) note additional related matters that may be appropriate to raise as part of the proposed Auckland Council submission, including:

i) the definition of natural wetland is framed to be within areas of pasture only, and whether urban grassed areas should be considered for inclusion

ii) consent thresholds for regulation 54(c) of the NES-Freshwater, as it relates to “the taking, use, damming, diversion, or discharge of water within, or within a 100m setback from a natural wetland” as non-complying activities.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Essential Freshwater package was released by central government in 2019. The key goals of the work programme are to stop further degradation of freshwater resources within five years and to reverse past damage and bring freshwater resources, waterways and ecosystems to a healthy state within a generation.

8. Following public consultation, Cabinet signed off on a fourth iteration of the NPS-FM, as well as a new NES-Freshwater. The NES-Freshwater was created to regulate activities, in a nationally consistent and efficient way, that pose risks to the health of freshwater and freshwater ecosystems.

9. New Zealand has lost most of its wetlands, and wetland loss is ongoing, with almost 5,400 hectares of freshwater wetland lost to non-natural causes between 1996 and 2018. Through the Essential Freshwater package, there has been increasing focus on what regulatory measures were needed to address these adverse trends.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Broad approach being proposed

10. Staff note that the new NES-Freshwater regulations are significant in their intent to address activities with the potential to degrade freshwater, including those activities potentially affecting natural wetlands. Unfortunately, central government did not adequately test their proposals with affected parties, particularly councils who are responsible for implementation. To compound the pace of their development, the regulations became effective 28 days after their gazettal – in force from 3 September 2020.

11. Since September 2020, council staff around the country have spent significant time and effort on interpreting and implementing the NES-Freshwater regulations. There was also advocacy to central government to support refinements to some regulatory provisions that caused unintended consequences and interpretation issues.

12. Central government produced interpretation guidance, between September 2020 and September 2021, to help with this issue. However, it also recognised that some provisions required regulatory amendment. Following Cabinet consideration of the implications of the NPS-FM and NES-Freshwater, the Ministry for the Environment wrote to the regional sector and many other interests on 25 May 2021. In this letter, the Ministry advised of the likelihood of regulatory amendment proposals. Accordingly, the Managing our Wetlands discussion document (released on 3 September) encompasses the issues identified for regulatory amendment.

13. Each of the proposed regulatory amendments are summarised and initial staff comment is provided in this report.

Changing ‘natural wetland’ definition

14. This sub-section links to recommendation b) i).

15. One of the challenges presented by the NPS-FM 2020 and the NES-Freshwater was the definition of ‘natural wetland’, being a subset of the broader ‘wetland’ definition used in the Resource Management Act 1991.

16. The NPS-FM currently defines a ‘natural wetland’ as … ‘a wetland (as defined in the Act [RMA]) that is not:

a) a wetland constructed by artificial means (unless it was constructed to offset impacts on, or restore, an existing or former ‘natural wetland’); or

b) a geothermal wetland; or

c) any area of improved pasture that, at the commencement date, is dominated by (that is more than 50% of) exotic pasture species and is subject to temporary rain-derived water pooling.’

17. The key proposal included in the Managing our wetlands discussion document included a revised definition, particularly as it relates to paragraph ‘c)’ above, which sets out three categories of definition exclusion.

18. The proposed new definition aims to ensure that the policy intent has not been over-reached. Specifically, in circumstances such as heavily modified land that was once wetlands or streams (e.g. grazed pasture that gets wet after heavy rainfall). The revised definition seeks to better acknowledge that wet pasture areas are now highly modified environments and should be able to continue their current use or change to a different land use. All other natural wetlands will remain subject to strong regulatory protection, regardless of size or condition.

19. As proposed, the revised definition for paragraph ‘c)’ reads:

· ‘c) any area of pasture that has more than 50 percent ground cover comprising exotic pasture species or exotic species associated with pasture.’

20. The effect of the revised definition, which staff support, seeks to:

· remove reference to the arbitrary term ‘improved’ pasture

· delete a reference date of 3 September 2020, as back-casting to an area’s status at that date is problematic from an assessment point of view

· recognise that some exotic plant species growing in damp areas are associated with those more typically envisaged as pasture species

· remove reference to the phrase ‘temporary rain derived water pooling’ as the hydrology tool for the ‘Wetland delineation protocols’ has recently been published (July 2021) and now accompanies the soil and vegetation tools to identify wetland extent.

21. Also, in its separate September 2021 interpretation guidance for the NES-Freshwater, central government clarified some other aspects of interest to the wider Auckland Council group. Specifically, it has defined ‘induced wetlands’ as wetlands that have resulted from any human activity, except the deliberate construction of a wetland or waterbody by artificial means (paragraph ‘a’ of definition). These are considered ‘natural wetlands’. Where a wetland is induced as the result of ‘specified infrastructure’ or ‘other infrastructure’, then the NES-Freshwater provides a consent pathway to maintain the infrastructure within or adjacent to the induced wetland (regulations 46 and 47).

22. Operational delivery parts of the council group have concerns that the wider scope of what natural wetlands encompass could potentially be a disincentive for restoration activities associated with urban development. Those concerns were put to the Ministry by council staff through written technical feedback in May 2021, and central government has considered that advice in forming their revised position – induced wetlands are considered natural wetlands.

23. Overall, staff generally support the improved clarity provided by proposed changes to the ‘natural wetland’ definition. A further issue, discussed later in this report, relates to whether the definition envisaged by sub-paragraph c) should also exclude open green space in urban settings that may have wetland characteristics, beyond the pasture context envisaged in the policy intent.

Restoration, maintenance and biosecurity activities in ‘natural wetlands’

24. This sub-section links to recommendation b) ii) of this report.

25. The NES-Freshwater provides comprehensive standards for vegetation clearance, earthworks and the taking, use, damming, diversion and discharge of water within and within 10 metres of a natural wetland for the purposes of restoration. The standards give councils the ability to restrict or disallow activities that may result in negative overall net effects on natural wetlands. DOC, councils and restoration groups have expressed concern that the requirement to notify and/or gain consent from council to undertake restoration activities is unduly onerous and has resulted in restoration work not being carried out.

26. The regulatory proposals seek to amend the NPS-FM and the NES-Freshwater to:

· include maintenance within the regulations as a restoration activity

· permit the removal of exotic species, such that weed control is effective, provided that newly bare ground does not result in discharges to the wetland

· allow activities necessary to implement a regional or national pest management plan, or are undertaken by a biosecurity agency for biosecurity purposes, as appropriately restricted to avoid unintended consequences

· make the restoration and maintenance of a natural wetland a permitted activity if it is undertaken in accordance with a council-approved wetland management plan

· make the use of weed clearance using hand-held tools a permitted activity.

27. An initial staff assessment supports these proposals, with the following observations made:

· that restoration activities should not be unreasonably deterred by the time and cost associated with processing of a resource consent

· while supporting inclusion as a form of restoration, what constitutes ‘maintenance’ should be further elaborated

· there is a need to differentiate between weeds and/or exotic plants correctly, such that the intent and scope of the NES-Freshwater provisions for vegetation clearance are clear, and cognisant of legal definitions used in other legislation or planning instruments (e.g. Biosecurity Act and/or Pest Management Plans etc)

· acknowledgement that weeds (not defined) and exotic plants (not mutually exclusive) can form part of a natural wetland’s habitat, albeit modified, but that further definition or specification be provided for the preference to remove some exotics (e.g. weeds), but not other plant species

· that the methodology of works proposed to remove certain pest plant species may need to be included in a Pest and Weed Management Plan, as a criterion for some permitted activities

· support for making restoration and maintenance a permitted activity, provided it is undertaken in accordance with a council-approved wetland management strategy, which itself may need some specification about:

o expected content and inter-relationship with wetland management plans approved as part of a rural subdivision consent

o any final pest management plans included as part of a consent, and

o should a Council Approved Wetland Management Strategy not exist, can such a strategy be submitted for approval in parallel to a Permitted Activity Notice?

· the use of hand-held tools is supported when undertaking restoration activities, although what constitutes hand-held tools may possibly need some clarity.

Additional consenting pathways and associated ‘gateway tests’

General observations

28. Consenting pathways and gateway tests enable a party to apply for a resource consent in limited situations. Central government’s proposals address the concerns and requests raised since the NES-Freshwater came into effect, that the list of activities needs extending, noting that these activities are also subject to other regulations and conditions.

29. The NES-Freshwater currently includes a consent application pathway for specific activities (regulations 38-51) proposed to take place within, and within a setback, of a natural wetland; this includes wetland restoration, construction of specified infrastructure, maintenance and operation of specified infrastructure, sphagnum moss harvesting, arable and horticulture land use and natural hazard work.

30. The NES-Freshwater also provides an additional consenting pathway (non-complying activity status) for other activities not specifically referenced in the NES-Freshwater to be undertaken outside, and within a setback, of a natural wetland, subject to the activity meeting certain criteria. Regulation 52 provides a consenting pathway for other such non-complying activities that result in complete or partial drainage. Similarly, regulation 54 enables earthworks, vegetation clearance and the taking, use, damming, diversion or discharge of water under a non-complying activity status. Consents may be issued as a non-complying activity if the council is satisfied that the effects on the environment will be minor or that the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan.

31. The central government proposal seeks to:

· allow additional activities that are currently deemed (regulation 53) prohibited activities within a natural wetland to be made discretionary activities

· allow additional activities that are deemed non-complying activities within 100 metres of a natural wetland to be made discretionary activities.

32. The NES-Freshwater includes a ‘gateway test’ for ‘specified infrastructure’ consent applications proposed to occur within, or within 100 metres, of a natural wetland. Specified infrastructure is defined in the NPS-FM to encompass:

· a service operated by a ‘lifeline utility’ (as defined in the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, to include ports, airports, roads, gas, telecommunications, water, wastewater, stormwater and petroleum services)

· regional plan identified regionally significant infrastructure

· public flood control, flood protection, or drainage works.

33. For the additional activities proposed in the discussion document, the same gateway test is proposed to be applied. The activity must:

· be of significant national or regional benefit

· there must be a ‘functional need’ for that activity in that location, and

· adverse effects must be managed through the ‘effects management hierarchy’, as demonstrated in any application (i.e. avoid, minimise, remedy, aquatic offsetting, compensation).

34. Providing consenting pathways for certain activities around natural wetlands requires that the ‘effects management hierarchy’ is appropriately applied. Some safeguards to ensure that the effects management hierarchy is adhered to by all parties will need to be raised in the proposed submission. Staff have some reservations about how well this currently works, and how well this gives effect to the hierarchy of obligations under the NPS-FM, with the primary priority being to look after water in its own right.

Quarrying – recommendation b) iii) A)

35. Following a meeting with quarry operators in Auckland, the Mayor wrote to the Minister for the Environment on 19 November 2020 highlighting that the construction industry would be significantly affected by the ‘prohibited’ activity status applying to quarry operations within natural wetlands as then defined. The Mayor noted that council staff and the quarry operators had identified one option for an alternative consenting pathway (non-complying activity status) that would still maintain the policy intent of the provisions to protect wetland values, but recognise that quarry operations are geographically restricted in their locations.

36. By proposing a discretionary activity status for quarrying, within, or within 100 metres of a natural wetland, the central government proposal goes further than the activity status option provided by the Mayor’s letter of November 2020. Staff consider that providing a ‘non-complying’ activity status for quarrying activities (subject to the gateway test) is an appropriate means to evaluate quarrying activities within a natural wetland, where such resources are necessary for the construction and maintenance of ‘specified infrastructure’. Large scale quarry operators in Auckland advised Ministers that they were able to operate under a non-complying activity status.

37. As framed, the proposal would preclude other less significant, and typically localised quarrying activities within a natural wetland, where it did not meet the gateway test. The assumption here is that less significant quarrying activities are typically not undertaken within natural wetlands.

38. Also, activities, regardless of their national or regional significance, can be considered as a non-complying activity within 100 metres of a natural wetland where the activity is likely to result, or will result, in the complete or partial drainage of all or part of a natural wetland, and applicants can demonstrate less than minor effects etc. Vegetation clearance can also be undertaken within, or within 10 metres of a natural wetland, as a non-complying activity (regulation 54(a)).

39. From a gateway test perspective, the question becomes how one might assess the regional significance of a quarry, in terms of its geographic location relative to other sources, how the product is applied to specified infrastructure, how the functional need is demonstrated (i.e. the activity can only occur at that location), and what consent conditions might be contemplated to assess any adverse effects and avoidance, minimize, or remedial steps etc. Furthermore, given the status of natural wetlands, it would seem inappropriate for new quarries of less than regional significance to operate within, or within 100 metres of, a natural wetland. Some flexibility is already provided for associated activities such as earthworks and vegetation clearance outside, but within a 100 metre setback, through NES-Freshwater regulations 52(1)(a), 54(a) and 54(c).

40. In addition, staff will seek clarity that the additional consent pathway would only apply to the quarrying activity within, or within 100 metres of, a natural wetland, rather than providing for associated activities such as overburden disposal.

Landfills, cleanfills and managed fills – recommendation b) iii) B) & recommendation b) iii) C)

41. Staff are inclined to oppose a (discretionary activity status) consenting pathway being provided for cleanfills and managed fills on the basis that these activities are not geographically constrained in the same way as quarries and are able to be located away from natural wetlands. In the discussion document, waste management operators have conveyed the view that most fill sites are in valleys or gullies that have damp areas of pasture. Prior to the creation of the NES-Freshwater, an equivalent consenting approach used in the Auckland region to that currently proposed nationally, had not been successful.

42. Landfills generate a range of additional effects which are not generated by cleanfills or managed fills. As such, the overall activity of a landfill is subject to a higher degree of scrutiny and suitable locations for landfill activities are more limited. Although it is acknowledged that there are implications for providing a consenting pathway for landfills and not managed or clean fills, consideration as a non-complying activity status (cf. discretionary activity as proposed) might be appropriate provided the ‘gateway test’ is satisfied.

43. The use of the gateway test for cleanfills and managed fills is not particularly useful as it will be difficult to demonstrate a ‘functional need’ for a cleanfill or managed fill to be in a particular location.

44. However, should central government decide to proceed with providing a consenting pathway (and specifically under a discretionary activity status) for the above activities, the ‘gateway test’ should be applied. In such a case, a site alternative assessment and some provision around this should be required, as well as regulatory conditions that ensure a consistent and appropriate level of information. This will enable an appropriate assessment of effects.

Mining (minerals) – recommendation b) iii) D)

45. The proposal observes that, like quarries, mining can only be situated where the resource is located and, on occasion, may be within, or within 100 metres, of a natural wetland. The consultation document refers to minerals such as gold, platinum group metals, nickel, copper and tungsten.

46. Mining for minerals is not a significant activity in the Auckland region. Accordingly, staff consider that providing a consenting pathway for such activities within, and within 100 metres, of a natural wetland may be reasonable in only limited circumstances. Staff therefore support the proposal to specify what qualifying minerals can be mined from or near a natural wetland, based on the scarcity, and limited locations of such minerals. Readily available minerals should however not be provided a consenting pathway. Further, rather than discretionary activity status, the consenting status might be ‘non-complying’ activity status, such that the nature of the proposed activity is considered against the regional significance of the specific wetland affected and whether effects are more than minor.

47. Further initial staff observations include:

· the need to consider how any proposed NES-Freshwater provisions intersect with the Crown Minerals Act 1991, and specifically whether the mining activities captured by the proposed consenting pathway include prospecting and exploration, and/or determining the extent of a mineral deposit within a wetland

· beyond the gateway test for considering any such consent application, any proposed applications should be required to meet information standards that help council staff assess the effects of limited mining activities consented within or adjacent to natural wetlands.

48. Should the minerals sought to be mined have consequent implications for either generation of greenhouse gas emissions, or the reduction of such emissions arising from clean technologies, then climate change implications will need to be considered.

Urban development proposed consenting pathway – recommendation b) iv)

49. The discussion document states that the proposed changes aim to ‘strike a balance between the necessity to protect natural wetlands but also to provide for housing and urban development where appropriate’.

50. The current NES-Freshwater (regulation 45) provides a consenting pathway (discretionary activity status) for constructing ‘specified infrastructure’ – as defined in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 to encompass lifeline utilities such as ports, airports, roads, gas, telecommunications, water, wastewater, stormwater and petroleum services.

51. Elements of urban development (e.g. earthworks, vegetation clearance) can be undertaken (within, or within 100 metres, of a natural wetland), where such urban development activities involve specified infrastructure listed in a regional plan, subject to offsetting requirements. However, there is no such consenting pathway for similar ‘specified infrastructure’ listed in a district plan. In such circumstances, a plan change is likely to be required prior to consent being sought for specified infrastructure activities within, or within 100 metres of a natural wetland.

52. The more explicit consenting pathway proposed for urban development will evolve over time as follows:

· in the short term central government propose to use the ‘plan enabled’ term from the National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) as the basis for providing for urban development (i.e. housing or business use).

· in the medium term, this will extend to land zoned for housing or business use in a proposed district plan.

· in the longer term, this will extend to land identified for future urban use or urban intensification in a Future Development Strategy (FDS) or any other relevant plan or strategy.

53. The discussion document queries whether consents should be subject to any other conditions beyond those set out in the gateway test (described in paragraphs 32 and 33), and presumably the further transitional approach noted in the preceding paragraph. Considering the generic gateway test parameters, an initial staff question is how would one assess whether any proposed urban development is of national or regional significance, when a consent application may only be for a small or medium scale subdivision?

54. Under the proposed approach, consents would be determined by councils on a case-by-case basis (i.e. discretionary activity status), with a requirement that offsetting for any wetland loss will still apply. Central government admit that it may not always be feasible and / or appropriate to offset for some types of public amenity associated with urban areas (e.g. schools and medical centres). The discussion document seeks feedback on whether current offsetting requirements are appropriate for all urban infrastructure.

Urban development – initial staff observations – recommendation b) iv)

55. As proposed, such a broad consenting pathway for urban development within or adjacent to natural wetlands, under the NES-Freshwater provisions (and proposed discretionary activity status), seems at odds with the aim to restore and protect waterways, and potentially has many significant implications.

56. The proposal appears to go beyond providing a comparable consenting pathway to enable works associated with specified infrastructure, to support urban development, where not listed in a district plan. This could be achieved by complementing the current consenting pathway available in the NES-Freshwater, where urban development activities associated with specified infrastructure are listed in the regional plan.

57. Rather than reconciling consenting pathways for specified infrastructure as it supports urban development, the proposal looks to provide a more broader consenting pathway for plan-enabled urban development, whether this relates to activities associated with specified infrastructure or not. Staff will seek further clarification from central government staff on the policy intent, prior to developing a proposed position for the Auckland Council submission.

58. If quite broad, the proposal seems potentially at odds with the central proposition of te mana o te wai and the hierarchy of obligations for freshwater decision making. Under the existing prohibited activity status provisions of the NES-Freshwater, urban development initiatives have been re-designed over the last year to avoid the loss of natural wetlands.

59. Further, the specified infrastructure consenting pathway already provides for the roading and stormwater management design of larger structure plan scale developments to be considered in relation to natural wetlands. A broader consenting pathway would potentially only provide further flexibility, such as draining of a natural wetland for urban development, which may not solely relate to lifeline utilities, but instead relate to creation of maximum land parcels (i.e. lots).

60. Offsetting should not be the default response. Providing an exemption to offset for certain activities may undermine the need for those activities to demonstrate avoidance. The discussion document is unclear why it would not be feasible or appropriate to offset for certain public amenities (e.g. schools and medical centres).

61. Staff have identified many potential issues and implications. However, staff have not had sufficient time to properly consider whether provision of a consenting pathway for urban development should be entertained within the NES-Freshwater. This partly reflects the complexity and inter-relationship between the planning instruments involved, whether the proposal’s aim is to go well beyond elements of specified infrastructure, and how well the effects management hierarchy and offsetting is applied. Accordingly, staff signal that such an approach needs careful consideration and will be worked through with the delegated committee members.

Other possible submission points on proposed NES-Freshwater amendments

62. This sub-section links to recommendation c).

63. In addition to the points already raised, there may be other unresolved issues of consequence to consider (not covered in the discussion document, or elsewhere in this report) prior to finalising a recommended Auckland Council submission.

64. The definition of natural wetland is phrased in the context of ‘pasture’. If the definition was revised to further exclude urban green places adjacent to natural wetlands, then some maintenance and other activities may be easier to undertake. Staff are still considering this perspective and its merits and / or shortcomings. Some of the issues may be addressed through the proposals to enable ‘restoration, maintenance and biosecurity activities’ as discussed for recommendation b) ii).

65. A further regulatory clarification might be whether infilling of a natural wetland is considered reclamation or drainage. The current regulations could be interpreted to indicate a distinction between ‘complete or partial drainage’ and ‘infilling’. This means that earthworks resulting in the reclamation of a natural wetland would appear to be a non-complying activity (regulation 54), whereas the complete or partial drainage of the wetland would be a prohibited activity (regulation 53). Both activities result in the same effect, being the complete loss of wetland values.

66. A second example is the interpretation of regulation 54(c) of the NES-Freshwater, as it relates to “the taking, use, damming, diversion, or discharge of water within, or within a 100m setback from a natural wetland” as non-complying activities. The current wording has no thresholds allowing for permitted, controlled, or restricted and discretionary activities. Also, the regulation triggers the need for all existing or modified private onsite wastewater and stormwater discharges within 100 m of a wetland to be assessed as non-complying activities, as they are not provided for in any other clauses. Regulatory refinement is also needed to stipulate that the discharges only relate to the receiving environment and not those to a different catchment (across a ridgeline), or across a river or downstream of any natural wetland.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

67. The central government discussion document does not contain any comment on climate change implications, neither does the associated Regulatory Impact Statement of August 2021.

68. Staff have not done an assessment of climate change impacts specific to each type of additional consenting pathway proposed in the discussion document due to the limited time available to prepare this report. However, some general observations are made.

69. Wetlands are known carbon sinks, and reduced water tables or other hydrology variables might enable the potential for carbon dioxide to be released. At the time of writing, staff are of the understanding that the contribution that wetlands make towards climate change outcomes has not been adequately assessed in the Auckland region. Assessments from regions with significant natural wetlands, such as the Waikato, illustrate that we need to consider the role of wetlands in contributing to desired climate change outcomes.

70. Undertaking restoration activities (e.g. biosecurity related), including various types of maintenance adjacent to wetlands, could potentially benefit aspirations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Activities that improve the integrity of a natural wetland habitat are more likely to derive natural ecosystem and biophysical processes.

71. Carrying out some mining activities within or adjacent to a natural wetland may have adverse consequences (e.g. groundwater levels), that could potential lead to increased emissions. Specific minerals extracted may be used in a way that creates further emissions (e.g. coal, ironsand). Alternatively, the consultation document suggests that some mined minerals may contribute to clean technologies as part of transition to a low emissions economy.

72. Natural wetlands can be expected to play a role in the detention of stormwater. This becomes of even greater importance where climate change leads to intensive rainfall events. Undertaking activities (e.g. urban development, landfills, cleanfills or managed fills etc) subject to such flood risks within, or within 100 metres, of a natural wetland may give rise to other concerns over the longer term. This includes the potential release of emissions from landfills etc.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

73. Potential submission points have been considered following an invitation to provide feedback from council departments including Regulatory Services, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research, Plans and Places, Environmental Services, Healthy Waters, Community Facilities, Parks, Sports and Recreation. Watercare, Auckland Transport and Eke Panuku were also invited to provide input to develop the council group submission.

74. There are differing views on the merits of some of the regulatory proposals within the council group. Understanding the hierarchy of obligations for freshwater decisions (i.e. looking after water first prior to other uses) might still need to be worked through across different interests.

75. In general, the discussion document proposal to amend the definition of ‘natural wetland’ goes a considerable way to addressing implementation issues for the council group, particularly from a regulatory perspective, who often must resolve issues where planning provisions are not as robust as desired. Some further interpretation guidance refinements will likely be necessary.

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

Local impacts and local board views

76. Local board views have been sought prior to 8 October, and staff drafting the submission will attend a virtual meeting with Local Board Chairs on 4 October to address any queries.

77. The nature of the proposals contained in the discussion document will have a bearing on how activities in and around natural wetlands may be conducted at a local level (within the construct of the regional regulatory framework). Local boards will likely have a clear interest in the proposals and council’s submission. This Planning Committee report will therefore be provided to local boards to assist with any input they may wish to make to the submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

78. Council staff emailed Auckland region mana whenua on 6 September 2021 notifying them of the opportunity to make a direct submission to central government, and / or to advise council staff of their perspectives so that this can be considered in preparing the Auckland Council submission. No feedback was received prior to the finalisation of this report (as at 27 September).

79. Wetland areas are highly regarded by mana whenua, and their protection and restoration is consistent with te mauri o te wai, being the local expression of te mana o te wai in the Auckland region. There has been considerable feedback and direction from mana whenua, via the Water Strategy, on te mauri o te wai. Key elements of that feedback will be incorporated into the proposed Auckland Council submission, as well as any additional feedback received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

80. There are no financial implications arising from making a submission to central government.

81. Should central government amend regulatory provisions of the NES-Freshwater (and NPS-FM) as proposed, there will be potential cost savings from less regulatory compliance, should consenting be more fit for purpose.

82. Alternatively, should central government reach a more compromised position on some of the proposals, which involves more consent application assessments, there could be additional regulatory and operational costs over the longer term. Some initiatives may require a longer lead in time for consent applications to be notified and processed.

83. In general, any reduced or increased cost relating to the processing of consent applications would be passed onto the applicant.

84. There will be a need to update consenting processes, interpretation guidance material and other collateral to help inform interested parties of the new provisions, and how they work in the Auckland region, given other related plans and strategies affecting activities near natural wetlands. This work, if required, is anticipated to be completed within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

85. Should central government decide to proceed with the proposals, it is most likely to provide further clarity to councils and others about how these regulatory provisions should be implemented. Regulatory Services staff have already increased their focus on this regulatory instrument over the last year, with a view to being well placed to alter their approach to any new approaches adopted. Similarly, it is expected that Ministry staff will share an exposure draft of any new regulatory provisions with council staff once Cabinet has reached its decisions.

86. Regulatory Services staff will process consent applications according to the regulatory provisions that apply immediately prior to decision. Reputational risks have been largely averted through ongoing communications between Regulatory Services and consent applicants, recognising that several issues of mutual concern were being taken up in good faith with central government.

87. Several operational delivery programmes across council departments, council-controlled organisations and third parties may need to be revisited for compliance with any new provisions that central government adopt.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

88. Some of the proposals, specifically additional consenting pathways for otherwise prohibited activities either within a natural wetland, or reducing activity status from non-complying to discretionary within 100 metres of a natural wetland, are of mutual interest to other regional councils and unitary authorities. There will be a brief opportunity to discuss Auckland Council’s proposed response with some of these councils (e.g. Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Greater Wellington, Environment Canterbury, Gisborne) in early to mid-October.

89. An opportunity for local board feedback has been arranged before 8 October, and reference to this report should aid any perspectives provided.

90. Staff also intend to contact Ministry staff to seek clarification on some of the more complex proposals, such as the proposed consenting pathway for urban development, in early October.

91. Following dispatch of Auckland Council’s submission before the 27 October 2021 deadline, staff will circulate it to Auckland region mana whenua, local boards, council staff and key council-controlled organisations. The final copy will also be circulated to Planning Committee members at the next available Planning Committee meeting.

92. Central government have indicated that any regulatory changes resulting from the proposals are likely to be amended in the first quarter of 2022. Councils will need to abide by the current regulatory provisions until such changes are made. Staff from the Ministry for the Environment are very likely to seek council staff input into revised interpretation guidance before any regulatory changes are published.

93. Regulatory Services staff will continue to evaluate their approach to implementation should these changes proceed. Planning staff will need to re-check any Auckland Unitary Plan provisions, and other planning initiatives underway.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dave Allen - Manager Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Planning Committee forward work programme	323
b ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – September 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Memo: Select Committee Inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Memo: Update on council-initiated plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan, private plan change requests and the remaining proposed Auckland Unitary Plan appeals (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Memo: Update on the midtown programme (Under Separate Cover)

Planning Committee

30 September 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	2 Sep	30 Sep	4 Nov	30 Nov
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 Plans and Places	Mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations	Decisions required: committee to consider options and recommendations Progress to date: Delegated authority to approve notification of the plan change PLA/2020/47 Memo update due October 2021.
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 required: only on possible changes to measures (if none required, could be a memo) Progress to date: The next annual monitoring report is due in July 2022.

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

Progress to date: authority delegated to approve council submission on bill exposure draft PLA/2021/75

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

Memo update due in August 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 and workshops held Feb – Jul 2021.

Housing Development Capacity Assessment findings received PLA/2021/77

Approved development of a plan change to Regional Policy Statement of the Auckland Unitary Plan PLA/2021/78

Endorsed approaches to the intensification provisions relating to walkable catchments, special character areas and qualifying matters PLA/2021/80 and all other locations PLA/2021/97

Endorsed the development of a plan change to address matters arising from the removal of carparking minimums PLA/2021/104

Report due in November for urban design matters.

The above decisions will inform the forward work programme for remainder of 2021 and into 2022.

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 and consideration regarding implementation

Progress to date:

Authority delegated to approve council submission on the discussion document PLA/2021/70

Consideration of the implementation of the Government Policy Statement following publication - anticipated in October 2021.

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 programme approved and political working party formed PLA/2020/65

Update memo due September 2021

Advocacy Plan

Decision required: receive update on Affordable Housing Advocacy Plan and initial engagement

Progress to date:

Update memo due September 2021

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

Update memo due September 2021

Kainga Ora

Chief Planning Office

Ongoing Kainga Ora implementation issues and relationship management

Decision required: nature of any decisions 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)

As capacity allows staff from council and ATAP partner agencies will commence work on recommended indicative packages for decades two and three.

Decision required: consider indicative funding packages for decades two and three, potentially in the fourth quarter of 2021 or, more likely, 2022

Congestion Question

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is conducting an inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

Decision required: The Select Committee Inquiry will inform next steps on congestion pricing in Auckland. The timeframe for final recommendations from the Inquiry is yet to be confirmed.

Progress to date:

Authority delegated to provide direction and approve submission May 2021 PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37

Memo update on select committee’s recommendations September 2021

Auckland Light Rail

Cabinet will be making decisions on Auckland Light Rail late 2021. Auckland Council is represented on the Sponsor’s Group and on the Establishment Unit Board.

Decision required: to be confirmed

Progress to date:

Guidance for Light Rail Establishment Unit on network integration provided June 2021 PLA/2021/53

Workshops with Establishment Unit held in June and August 2021

Confidential report considered September 2021 PLA/2021/109

Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)

Status update to be confirmed

Decision required: to be confirmed

Progress to date:

Workshop planned for October 2021. Report due November 2021.

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

Progress to date:

Update memo related to Ministry of Transport’s discussion paper circulated 22 July 2021.

Auckland Transport – update to be provided by 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

Progress to date: Confidential workshop held June 2021.

Workshop planned for October 2021. Report due 4 November 2021.

Infrastructure

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

Progress to date:

Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Strategy 3 June 2021 PLA/2021/54

The draft strategy will be presented to the Minister for Infrastructure in September 2021. The final strategy will be tabled in Parliament by early 2022.

Auckland Unitary Plan oversight

Making Plan Changes Operative

Plans and Places

Statutory Resource Management Act requirement 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 Integrated Residential Development provisions PLA/2020/115

Update memo received in July.

Workshops planned for October and November 2021.

Māori Heritage Sites of Significance

Plans and Places

Second tranche of plan changes to identify Maori Heritage sites and places of significance

Decision required: To approve the plan change

Progress to date: Frist tranche approved and made operative PLA/2021/6

Second tranche considered September 2021 PLA/208

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

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Refreshed Wynyard Point masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.

Decision required: Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Final Masterplan for public consultation. Report due February 2022

Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Plan Change for public notification. Report planned June/July 2022

Thriving Town Centres - Town Centre Guidelines for Eke Panuku locations

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Guidance document to support future urban regeneration delivery and engagement with stakeholders and partners. As an operational document the guidelines will be approved by the Eke Panuku Board.

Direction required: Confirmation of alignment with Council strategies and direction, and support for the guidelines.

October workshop planned.

Onehunga Wharf Masterplan & Plan Change

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Onehunga Wharf masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.

Direction required: Support for the Onehunga Wharf Masterplan for public consultation and feedback. February/March 2022 workshop

Endorsement for the Onehunga Wharf Masterplan for public consultation February/March 2022

Decision required: Endorsement for the Onehunga Plan Change for public notification June/ July 2022

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
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, 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.	Development outcomes confirmed in confidential section of the December 2020 Planning Committee meeting PLA/2020/120 and strategic transport outcomes agreed in June 2021 PLA/2021/52
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
Auckland Transport	Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031	Agreed funding package for consideration of RLTP committee and AT board	Endorsed Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2931 for the Auckland Transport board to adopt.
APSR	Infrastructure Strategy	Provide strategic insights and direction 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee)	Strategy adopted by Finance and Performance Committee in June 2021 (as part of Long-term Plan)
APSR	Auckland Plan 2050 implementation and monitoring	To note progress against the measures in the Auckland Plan 2050	2021 monitoring report received PLA/2021/69
Chief Planning Office	Unit Titles Act	To approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/27
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)	To approve the recommended Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package.	Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package approved PLA/2021/15
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Regional Fuel Tax	To consider components and changes to current status	Regional Fuel Tax Variation Proposal adopted by the Governing Body in May 2021 GB/2021/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question	To approve council’s submission to the select committee on the Inquiry into congestion pricing	Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy	To approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission PLA/2021/54
Plans and Places	Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) – Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua	To approve the plan change and make it operative	Plan Change 22 and Plan Modification 12 (Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua) made operative PLA/2021/6
Development Programme Office	Infrastructure Acceleration Fund	To approve council’s submission to the Crown’s Infrastructure Acceleration Fund	Endorsed preliminary list of programmes for the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund and authority delegated for approval of final list for submission PLA/2021/92

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

Date	Briefings
31/8/2021	CONFIDENTIAL: Eastern Busway

Date	Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item
September 2021	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – September 2021
3/9/2021	Memo: Select Committee Inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland
6/9/2021	Memo: Update on council-initiated plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan, private plan change requests and the remaining proposed Auckland Unitary Plan appeals
22/9/2021	Memo: Update on the midtown programme

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