I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 4 November 2021

10.00am

This meeting will be held remotely and can be viewed on the Auckland Council website:  https://councillive.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

 

 

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Josephine Bartley

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Richard Hills

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr John Watson

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

IMSB Member Karen Wilson

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Kalinda Iswar

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

1 November 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 021 723 228

Email: kalinda.iswar@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

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 committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

 

·         relevant regional strategy and policy

·         transportation

·         infrastructure strategy and policy

·         Unitary Plan, including plan changes (but not any wholesale review of the Plan)

·         Resource Management Act and relevant urban planning legislation framework

·         oversight of Council’s involvement in central government strategies, plans or initiatives that impact on Auckland’s future land use and infrastructure

·         Auckland Plan implementation reporting on priorities and performance measures

·         structure plans and spatial plans

·         housing policy and projects

·         city centre and waterfront development

·         regeneration and redevelopment programmes

·         built and cultural heritage, including public art

·         urban design

·         acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and in accordance with the LTP

·         working with and receiving advice from the Heritage Advisory Panel, the Rural Advisory Panel and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board to give visibility to the issues important to the communities they represent and to help effect change.

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)     approval of a submission to an external body

(b)     establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)      The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)     If a policy or project relates primarily to the responsibilities of the Planning Committee, but aspects require additional decisions by the Environment and Climate Change Committee and/or the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, then the Planning Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on behalf of those other committee(s). For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to more than one of those committees for decisions.

(iii)     The committee does not have:

(a)     the power to establish subcommittees

(b)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

 

Code of conduct

 

For information relating to Auckland Council’s elected members code of conduct, please refer to this link on the Auckland Council website - https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/how-auckland-council-works/elected-members-remuneration-declarations-interest/Pages/elected-members-code-conduct.aspx

Auckland Plan Values

 

The Auckland Plan 2050 outlines a future that all Aucklanders can aspire to. The values of the Auckland Plan 2050 help us to understand what is important in that future:

 

 


 

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·           Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·           Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·           Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·           In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·           The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·           However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·           All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·           All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·           Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·           Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·           Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

5.1     Public Input: Keep the Auckland dockline tram running citizen group         7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          8

6.1     Local Board Input: Orakei Local Board - Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill                                      8

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill - seeking delegation to approve the Auckland Council submission                                        9

9          Review of Auckland Transport Parking Strategy – strategic direction                 67

10        Wynyard Quarter Tram                                                                                              119

11        Submission on a proposed new national waste strategy and associated waste legislation                                                                                                                   137

12        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Making the Brookby Quarry Decision Provisions Operative                                                                                                 149

13        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) - Making operative Private Plan Change 57 - Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Club                                                                 191

14        Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings (including the forward work programme) – 4 November 2021                                                      219

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr R Hills has been received.

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Planning Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 30 September 2021, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

5.1       Public Input: Keep the Auckland Dockline Tram running citizen group

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Puneet Dhall and David Cawood will speak to the committee on behalf of the Keep the Auckland Dockline Tram running citizen group.

2.       This public input is related to the report on the meeting agenda Wynyard Quarter Tram.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the public input from the Keep the Auckland Dockline Tram running citizen group and thank Puneet Dhall and David Cawood for attending the meeting.

 

 


 

6          Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

6.1       Local Board Input: Orakei Local Board - Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Scott Milne, Chairperson and Member Troy Churton of the Orakei Local Board will speak to the committee about the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

2.       This input relates to a report on the committee agenda Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill – seeking delegation to approve Auckland Council submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Orakei Local Board input regarding the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and thank local board Chair Scott Milne and Member Troy Churton for attending the meeting.

 

7          Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill - seeking delegation to approve the Auckland Council submission

File No.: CP2021/16256

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To delegate to the Mayor, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve the council’s submission on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In July 2020, the Government released the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD). Since that time, the Planning Committee has considered the many requirements of the NPS UD, approved the first Housing and Business Assessment prepared under the NPS UD and provided direction to enable staff to develop the council’s initial response to the required ‘intensification plan change’.   

3.       On 26 October 2021, the Government introduced a Bill that proposes amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 to bring forward and make more directive certain aspects of the NPS UD. In support of the Bill, the Government announced that:

“One of the key drivers of housing unaffordability in Aotearoa New Zealand is a shortage of housing. Overly restrictive planning rules are one of the barriers to building more homes in the places where they are needed the most.

[The Bill] will increase housing supply in New Zealand’s five largest urban areas – Auckland, and greater Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch.”

4.       There are two main proposals in the Bill:

·      a streamlined process (called the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process (ISPP)) to ensure ‘intensification plan changes’ are implemented more quickly; and

·      a requirement for Tier 1 (high growth) councils to introduce a prescribed set of Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) to their district plans at the same time as the ‘intensification plan change’ (i.e. by August 2022).

5.       The three-week period for submissions on the Bill closes on 16 November 2021. As a result of this very tight timeframe, it is recommended that the Planning Committee delegates to the Mayor, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve the council’s submission. Local boards have been briefed on the Bill and provided with the opportunity to include their views in the council submission. The submission timeframe does not enable engagement with Mana Whenua. However, at a recent hui on the NPS UD a number of Mana Whenua representatives expressed serious concerns about the cultural/environmental and social implications of the Bill.


 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      delegate to the Mayor, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve the council’s submission on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill

b)      note that the submission will consider:

i)          the proposed Intensification Streamlined Planning Process, in particular the appropriateness of the proposed decision-making role of the Minister for the Environment

ii)         the proposed Medium Density Residential Standards, in particular the significant implications of enabling three-storey medium density development across most parts of urban Auckland (and some rural settlements) as well as the quality of development that would be enabled

iii)        other relevant aspects of the Bill. 

c)      note that the draft submission will be circulated to the Planning Committee on or about Thursday 11 November 2021 for urgent comment (i.e. a 24-hour turnaround) prior to final consideration by the delegated members in a).

d)      note that local boards have been provided with the opportunity to include their views as an attachment to the council submission, and that, if received in time, the delegated members in a) will be able to consider those views.

e)      note that Covid 19, uncertainty associated with the Bill and recent feedback from Mana Whenua requesting a high degree of involvement in the council’s response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development are placing considerable strain on an already tight timeframe for the ‘intensification plan change’. An update and advice on these matters will be provided to the Planning Committee in a subsequent report.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       In July 2020, the Government released the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD). Since that time, the Planning Committee has considered the many requirements of the NPS UD, approved the first Housing and Business Assessment prepared under the NPS UD and provided direction to enable staff to develop the council’s initial response to the required ‘intensification plan change’.   

7.       On 26 October 2021, the Government introduced a Bill that proposes amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 to bring forward and make more directive certain aspects of the NPS UD. In support of the Bill, the Government announced that:

“One of the key drivers of housing unaffordability in Aotearoa New Zealand is a shortage of housing. Overly restrictive planning rules are one of the barriers to building more homes in the places where they are needed the most.

[The Bill] will increase housing supply in New Zealand’s five largest urban areas – Auckland, and greater Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch.”


 

8.       There are two main proposals in the Bill:

·      a streamlined process (called the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process (ISPP)) to ensure ‘intensification plan changes’ are implemented more quickly; and

·      a requirement for Tier 1 (high growth) councils to introduce a prescribed set of Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) to their district plans at the same time as the ‘intensification plan change’ (i.e. by August 2022).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Intensification Streamlined Planning Process

9.       The ISPP (see Figure 1) is similar to the process established in 2013 for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. It requires the council’s ‘intensification plan change’ to be heard by an independent hearings panel and for the council to make decisions to accept or reject the recommendations of the panel. However, a fundamental difference is that if the council rejected a recommendation from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, the matter could be appealed to the Environment Court by a submitter of affected party and re-heard. Under the ISPP, if the council rejects a recommendation of the panel, the Minister for the Environment makes a final decision that cannot be appealed (other than via judicial review).

 

Text

Description automatically generated 

Figure 1: Intensification Streamlined Planning Process

 

Medium Density Residential Standards

10.     The proposed MDRS would enable up to three dwellings of up to three storeys on most residential sites throughout urban Auckland (and in some rural settlements) without the need for a resource consent. Four or more dwellings of up to three storeys would be able to be applied for on most residential sites through a non-notified resource consent process. Exemptions would still apply in some areas based on qualifying matters set out in the NPS UD, such as heritage areas and natural hazards.

11.     In addition to the two main proposals, the Bill proposes to clarify and simplify some of the intensification requirements in the NPS UD. For example, the Bill proposes changes to policy 3(d) in the NPS UD for Tier 1 councils. Policy 3(d) would be changed to focus solely on accessibility, rather than accessibility and demand, and would be more directive about how accessible areas should be identified.


 

12.     Preliminary analysis indicates that the Bill would enable development across urban Auckland (and in a number of rural settlements) at densities considerably beyond those anticipated in the Auckland Plan development strategy or planned for in the Long-term Plan. If enacted in its current form, providing the necessary physical and community infrastructure is likely to become increasingly difficult. The Bill does not appear to acknowledge that Auckland has a well-considered, evidence-based, community endorsed growth strategy that supports housing choice and density close to centres and public transport, or that the Auckland Unitary Plan has already enabled capacity for over 900,000 dwellings in residential zones alone (approximately 650,000 of which have been assessed commercially feasible), without the need for the proposed MDRS.[1] Considerably more capacity for housing, particularly around the city centre, Auckland’s 10 metropolitan centres and stops on the Rapid Transit Network, and in other areas with high accessibility to jobs, goods and services will already be enabled under the current provisions in the NPS UD. Work is well-underway to identify those opportunities.

13.     Concerns have also been identified with respect to the poor quality of development that would be enabled under the MDRS and significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties to development. The standards appear to be based on the council’s three-storey Mixed Housing Urban zone, with more permissive controls (e.g. the ability to build the third storey considerably closer to adjacent properties, together with considerably smaller outlook and outdoor living court requirements). Recent monitoring of the quality of development occurring in the Mixed Housing Urban zone indicates that some of the controls in this zone should be made less permissive rather than more permissive.

14.     The appropriateness of the proposed decision-making role of the Minister for the Environment under the ISPP, the significant implications of enabling three-storey medium density development across most parts of urban Auckland (and some rural settlements), and the quality of development that would be enabled under the MDRS are likely to be the key focus of the draft submission that will be presented to the delegated members of the Planning Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15.     The submission timeframe is not sufficient to assess climate-related impacts in any detail. However, enabling development across urban Auckland (and in a number of rural settlements) at densities considerably beyond those anticipated in the Auckland Plan is likely to result in a more dispersed form of development with higher carbon emissions. Despite the very tight timeframe, staff will endeavour to provide additional advice on this matter to the delegated members of the Planning Committee.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16.     Staff from across the council group are reviewing the Bill and their views will contribute to the draft submission that will be presented to the delegated members of the Planning Committee.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17.     Local boards have been briefed on the Bill and provided with the opportunity to include their views in the council submission. If received in time, the views of local boards will be able to be considered by the delegated members of the Planning Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18.     The submission timeframe is not sufficient to assess impacts on Māori in any detail, nor does it enable engagement with Mana Whenua. However, at a recent hui on the NPS UD, a number of Mana Whenua representatives expressed serious concerns about the cultural/environmental and social implications of the Bill. Despite the very tight timeframe, staff will endeavour to provide additional advice on this matter to the delegated members of the Planning Committee.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19.     The submission timeframe is not sufficient to assess the financial implications in any detail. However, enabling development across urban Auckland (and in a number of rural settlements) at densities considerably beyond those anticipated in the Auckland Plan is likely to result in a more dispersed form of development with higher infrastructure costs (to achieve the same outcomes/levels of service). Despite the very tight timeframe, staff will endeavour to provide additional advice on this matter to the delegated members of the Planning Committee.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20.     The key risk associated with the council submission is that the timeframe does not enable it to be underpinned by the same level of analysis as would be the case under a normal timeframe for making submissions on matters of this significance. Staff from across the organisation have reprioritised their work to mitigate this risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21.     Staff from across the organisation are working to prepare a draft submission for consideration by the delegated members of the Planning Committee. At this stage it is anticipated that a draft submission will be circulated to the Planning Committee on or about Thursday 11 November 2021 for urgent comment (i.e. a 24-hour turnaround) prior to final consideration by the delegated members of the Planning Committee. The submission will be made on 16 November 2021, after which the council will be able to present to a select committee. The Government aims to have the Bill receive royal assent on 16 December 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill

15

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

Review of Auckland Transport Parking Strategy – strategic direction

File No.: CP2021/13774

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek Planning Committee endorsement of the strategic direction for parking management in Auckland and agreement for delegated members to endorse the final wording of the draft Parking Discussion document.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Roads are critical assets and valuable public space. They serve a range of purposes, principally movement and places, and they need to cater for all modes, rather than just prioritising cars. The way in which road space is allocated is critical as it should be used, and useable, for all Aucklanders, regardless of their travel choices.

3.       The management of parking assets within this context is a critical component. The AT Parking Strategy 2015 outlines the approach AT takes in managing and operating the public parking system - comprising parking in the road corridor, and parking outside the road corridor where it is delegated management by Council. The AT Traffic bylaw is the enforcement mechanism.

4.       A review of our current strategy is needed to enable the management of parking assets and road corridor space to contribute more effectively to Council’s strategic goals relating to greenhouse gas emissions and mode shift, and to respond to government policy. There is a significant opportunity to use this tool to change how we think about the use of road space and how we allocate this precious asset to make room for all modes.  

5.       A strategic direction for the review of the current parking strategy, expressed through an objective and series of principles is presented for the Committee’s consideration and endorsement. These principles were developed in collaboration with council officers. They have drawn on feedback from local boards, and a Planning Committee workshop. They are recommended to the Planning Committee by the AT Board.

6.       Endorsing a strategic direction for the review is a new approach to give effect to the CCO recommendations that Council provide clear strategic direction for its CCOs.

7.       We expect, in following these principles, that the subsequent Parking Strategy would take a spatial approach with three levels of parking management, applied to different parts of Auckland depending on the readiness for change in each area. The principles would also see the removal of parking where projects occur on the public transport, cycling and micromobility, freight and general traffic strategic networks (generally arterial roads) and seek to enable shorter-stay parking for access while deterring reliance on the road network for longer-duration parking and vehicle storage in particular.     

8.       Developing a public platform for the change conversations is important. AT is developing a parking discussion document to start the conversation with Aucklanders about the new strategy, which is planned for release in November 2021, ahead of full public consultation in the new year.  It will outline the need for change, explain the strategic direction and demonstrate the high-level parking management levels.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      endorse the following objective and principles, as recommended as a package by the Auckland Transport Board, as forming the strategic direction underpinning the revised Parking Strategy:

i)        Key Objective: Management of parking assets within (and beyond) the road corridor makes a significant, deliberate and effective contribution to enabling our transport objectives, including: improving the resilience and sustainability of the transport system and significantly reducing the greenhouse gas emissions it generates; accelerating better travel choices for Aucklanders; better connecting people, places, goods and services; making the transport system safe by eliminating harm to people; enabling and supporting growth

ii)       Principles guiding the role of the road corridor, and the role of parking within the corridor:

A)      The Auckland road network is a key public asset that needs to be managed to benefit all Aucklanders by ensuring safe and effective connectivity for all modes and supporting land use outcomes, including through property access. Existing strategic planning policies and tools, including the Roads and Streets Framework, provide a sound basis for decision about the allocation of road space.

B)      As a general principle, road-space will be managed to prioritise safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services alongside the place value of a location. Kerbside space allocation will typically provide for (in order of priority):

1)      Safety

2)      Strategic transport networks (public transport, cycling, walking, freight and general traffic)

3)      Recognise the role/needs of adjacent land uses

4)      Land use overflow parking.

C)     The criticality of road space for property access, loading and servicing and mobility/accessibility needs must be recognised and supported.

D)     Road space also serves other important functions, for example relaying utilities and for providing trees and planting. Auckland has over 7,000kms of roads and streets - a significant amount of the region’s public space.

E)      To support future development of Auckland’s transport network and achieve Council objectives (and government policy), the allocation of road-space will need to change over time. This means Aucklanders cannot rely on the public realm for longer-duration storage of vehicles and land use should provide for its own longer-duration parking and servicing needs.

F)      To support fast and cost-efficient project delivery, when projects occur on current strategic public transport, cycle & micromobility, general traffic or freight networks, parking will automatically need to be reallocated to other modes or uses.

iii)      Principles guiding how the strategy should be developed with our communities:

A)      Auckland’s communities are diverse and, to support equity, different approaches will need to be taken to different areas, tailoring the approach to the transport infrastructure, patterns and needs and land use characteristics of each area, and the availability of sustainable mode options. 

B)      Pro-active parking management should occur first in the areas with greatest readiness for change and then roll outwards.

C)     The highest level of pro-active parking intervention, which will focus on reducing car use for all trip purposes, should occur in areas with the greatest capacity / readiness for change, while the next level of intervention will focus on encouraging a shift to more sustainable modes for commuting.

D)     Parking management in each area will be updated over time as the public transport and active modes networks are improved and land use changes.

E)      Parking management will also continue to be applied reactively across Auckland in response to areas of high parking demand or other issues that impact the transport network.

F)      Our community’s receptiveness to change is diverse. The approach to public engagement will aim to take our communities with us through the changes arising from the parking strategy. 

b)      delegate the endorsement of a Parking Discussion Document to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, the Deputy Mayor and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, ahead of release in November 2021, which will be used as part of the scene setting on the need for change ahead of formal public consultation on the Parking Strategy in early 2022.

 

Horopaki

Context

Strategic context

9.       Roads are a critical asset and valuable public space. They serve a range of purposes, principally movement and places and should be used, and useable for all Aucklanders, regardless of their travel choices. AT has system planning and design tools which help reshape the streets to meet current needs – including the Roads and Streets Framework, which provides a basis for prioritising transport uses in the context of surrounding uses.

10.     Auckland Council, through its declaration of a climate emergency and agreement to reduce Auckland’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030, has set a clear direction for transport change in Auckland. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and the Transport Emissions Reduction Plan set out targets and a plan for transport emission reduction. With current forecasts for Auckland’s car trips and accompanying emissions still increasing, there is a need to account for the role of parking and leverage this to effect climate objectives. This includes the need to ensure a shift to more sustainable modes and reduce the distance travelled by petrol and diesel vehicles. The current Parking Strategy review, by setting policy and direction for the cost and availability of parking, provides a major opportunity to support these objectives.

11.     The AT Parking Strategy 2015 outlines the approach AT takes in managing and operating the public parking system (comprising parking in the road corridor, and parking outside the road corridor where it is delegated management by Council). The AT Traffic bylaw is the enforcement mechanism.

12.     We have an opportunity to review the parking management system to enable it to make a greater contribution to council’s strategic goals - encouraging mode shift, reducing carbon emissions, accelerating better transport choice for Aucklanders, and improving the public space. A review also allows us to respond to changes in policy from central government, such as the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and to update our policies and processes in light of operational experience since 2015.


 

 

13.     The relationship between strategic outcomes, transport strategic objectives and the parking strategy is outlined in Figure 1 below.

Figure1: Parking management alignment with Council Strategic Outcomes

Trialing a new approach to early direction setting with Council

14.     In response to the findings of the CCO Review, we are trialing a new approach which sees the Planning Committee, informed by AT Board recommendations, endorse the strategic principles that guide the development of the Parking Strategy. Based on these principles, we will develop the detail of the Parking Strategy to align with the agreed guidance. Once the document is complete, we will seek Planning Committee endorsement of the Strategy, followed by AT Board approval.

15.     This approach enables the Planning Committee to provide strategic guidance and make trade-off decisions between high-level objectives early in the process, whilst still being informed by professional advice from the AT Board. It also allows AT to develop the technical detail of the Parking Strategy in response to this clear guidance from Council. This means decision makers can influence and inform the strategy from the beginning, rather than when a first draft is complete. 

16.     The first phase of this approach presented the Planning Committee workshop with a number of options to illustrate the trade-offs involved in parking strategy development and provide a basis for feedback. This feedback, along with that of the AT Board, has helped to guide and develop the approach outlined in this report.

Network context

17.     Past decades of car-oriented planning in Auckland has led to high car-dependency, spread-out land use and other adverse effects for safety, health and equity. Investment in the transport system has become more necessarily focused on optimising and managing infrastructure, rather than expansion. Parking management, as a tool that previously contributed to car-oriented design, similarly has to change its course, to make best use of available resourcing and to help shape the region to meet our strategic objectives.

18.     Despite the high level of car dependence, about one third or 34 percent of Auckland’s population are not licensed to drive, so are dependent on lifts from others and on other modes such as walking, bike riding and public transport. It will be important for on-street car parking to make way for improvements in the alternative modes as street treatments like bus lanes and protected bike paths are implemented across more of the road network.


 

19.     A key feature influencing Parking Strategy development is the ability of Aucklanders to shift travel behavior in response to changes in the price and availability of parking. In terms of car usage patterns that provide context for the principles below, even with forecast investment over the next decade, forecast population growth of around 22 percent means that car trips are expected to increase between 2016 and 2031 by:

A)      7% in the morning peak, suggesting a similar increase in demand for long-stay parking (by comparison, public transport trips will increase by 87%)

B)      8% in the interpeak, suggesting a similar increase in demand for short-stay parking (by comparison, interpeak public transport trips will increase by 122 %, although off a low base).

20.     Even with the increase in interpeak public transport trips, over 90% of the interpeak motorised trips to locations outside of the city centre are expected to be made by private vehicle. These travel forecasts are at odds with the Government’s proposed targets for Auckland of more than 20% reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) (proposed in the Emissions Reduction Plan, released recently for consultation). This signals a need for significant intervention to shift travel demand and behaviour in order to reduce car use.

21.     On-street parking provision has implications for safety. Removal of on-street parking to enable cycling/micromobility can provide a safer network for people on bikes. Conversely, in some situations parking removal, with decreased side-friction, can lead to increased driving speeds. Provision of parking can have implications for visibility, which can be good or bad and are determined on a site-specific basis.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22.     There are two matters for the Planning Committee to endorse: the strategic direction for future parking management and the proposed Parking Discussion Document. 

Strategic Direction for Parking

23.     Initially, three strategic options were developed and put forward to provide a framework for seeking guidance on the trade-offs between policy objectives supporting continued car access and connectivity on one hand and accelerated mode shift and emission reduction on the other.

24.     Following consideration of the options and feedback from the Planning Committee workshop and the AT Board, a set of proposed principles have been used to guide further development of a more spatially nuanced Parking Strategy. The principles, which are set out in paragraph 25 below, draw on the different levels of intervention in the Levels 1-3 of parking management and apply them in different areas across Auckland, based on readiness for change. This reflects a recognition that, although the ultimate goal is to manage all parking to support a shift to sustainable modes and reduce transport emissions, the immediate approach needs to be more specifically tailored to the wide range of transport options and land uses available across Auckland.

25.     In practice, this will mean applying the highest level of parking intervention to the parts of the Auckland area that have the best travel choices. The approach also aligns with existing planning frameworks, such as the Roads and Streets Framework (outlined in Attachment D), which guides the allocation of road-space in line with policy based on the needs of the adjacent land use and the surrounding transport network.  


 

26.     The proposed principles, which are developed to support each other as a package, to guide Parking Strategy development are as follows:

a)   Key Objective: Management of parking assets within (and beyond) the road corridor makes a significant, deliberate and effective contribution to enabling our transport objectives, including: improving the resilience and sustainability of the transport system and significantly reducing the greenhouse gas emissions it generates; accelerating better travel choices for Aucklanders; better connecting people, places, goods and services; making the transport system safe by eliminating harm to people; enabling and supporting growth.

b)   Principles guiding the role of the road corridor, and the role of parking within the corridor:

i.    The Auckland road network is a key public asset that needs to be managed to benefit all Aucklanders by ensuring safe and effective connectivity for all modes and supporting land use outcomes, including through property access. Existing strategic planning policies and tools, including the Roads and Streets Framework, provide a sound basis for decision about the allocation of road space.

ii.    As a general principle, road-space will be managed to prioritise safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services alongside the place value of a location. Kerbside space allocation will typically provide for (in order of priority):

1.    Safety

2.    Strategic transport networks (public transport, cycling, walking, freight and general traffic)

3.    Recognise the role/needs of adjacent land uses

4.    Land use overflow parking

iii.   The criticality of road space for property access, loading and servicing and mobility/accessibility needs must be recognised and supported.

iv.  Road space also serves other important functions, for example relaying utilities and for providing trees and planting. Auckland has over 7,000kms of roads and streets - a significant amount of the region’s public space.

v.   To support future development of Auckland’s transport network and achieve council objectives (and government policy), the allocation of road-space will need to change over time. This means Aucklanders cannot rely on the public realm for longer-duration storage of vehicles and land use should provide for its own longer-duration parking and servicing needs.

vi.  To support fast and cost-efficient project delivery, when projects occur on current strategic public transport, cycle & micromobility, general traffic or freight networks parking will automatically need to be reallocated to other modes or uses.

c)   Principles guiding how the strategy should be developed with our communities:

i.    Auckland’s communities are diverse and, to support equity, different approaches will need to be taken to different areas, tailoring the approach to the transport infrastructure, patterns and needs and land use characteristics of each area, and the availability of sustainable mode options. 

ii.    Pro-active parking management should occur first in the areas with greatest readiness for change and then roll outwards.

iii.   The highest level of pro-active parking intervention, which will focus on reducing car use for all trip purposes, should occur in areas with the greatest capacity / readiness for change, while the next level of intervention will focus on encouraging a shift to more sustainable modes for commuting.

iv.  Parking management in each area will be updated over time as the public transport and active modes networks are improved and land use changes

v.   Parking management will also continue to be applied reactively across Auckland in response to areas of high parking demand or other issues that impact the transport network

vi.  Our community’s receptiveness to change is diverse. The approach to public engagement will aim to take our communities with us through the changes arising from the parking strategy. 

27.     These principles, particularly principle c) around the tailoring of the parking management approach to local characteristics, will be developed in more detail, including through a set of criteria to ensure transparent and consistent application. Although more detailed work needs to be done, we expect the Parking Strategy developing with a spatial approach as follows:

a)   Level 3 (the highest level of intervention) would apply in the city centre and to metro centres with suitable connections to the rapid transit network and multiple frequent transport network routes

b)   Level 2 (a medium level of intervention) would apply in metro centres without rapid transit network stations, or around rapid transit network stations not located in a metro centre, as well as in town centres, key commercial centres and Terraced Housing and Apartment Building zones which feature good quality public transport service, including at least one frequent transit network route.  

c)   Level 1 (the lowest level of intervention) would apply across the rest of Auckland. This would see parking management applied reactively to areas of unexpected high demand or where other parking issues are impacting the operation of the network. This would provide Auckland Transport with the mandate to respond to issues associated with the removal of minimum parking requirements in some development areas.   

28.     The principles would also mean that:

a)   level 3 areas are generally addressed first, from the center outwards, followed by Level 2 areas – with coverage of all Level 3 & 2 areas expected to be complete before the end of the decade (depending on resourcing). Change in some areas will only be triggered by the completion of new projects, such as rapid transit links.    

b)   parking is automatically removed where projects occur on the public transport, cycling & micromobility, freight and general traffic networks (generally arterial roads), without any requirement to mitigate the situation by providing replacement parking elsewhere; and this not being subject to further consultation with local boards.

c)   where parking management occurs in response to demand or other issues, the presumption will be to remove ‘longer-stay’ or unregulated parking in favour of time regulated or priced parking, or outright removal. This will create challenges for car-owning Aucklanders who buy properties without off-street parking or have come to rely on the roadway for storage of their vehicles, so we propose the strategy includes a strong communications component emphasising that residents cannot rely on the streets for long-duration parking in the future.     

29.     In all cases, the Parking Strategy would continue to provide for a shift towards mobility parking, as well as other emerging uses such as micromobility, microfreight, sharing schemes and loading and servicing.

30.     Further detail on the approach is set out in Attachments A and B. 


 

Parking Discussion Document

31.     There is an opportunity and need to create a public platform to enable a consistent city-wide conversation about the changing use of the road corridor in the context of wider goals, and the role parking will play in this for our region’s future. This will need to address already a significant misalignment between what the public expect of parking and how public parking is currently provided by AT.

32.     A Parking Discussion Document is being prepared as a first phase of creating this platform in November 2021, before full consultation on the draft Parking Strategy in March/April 2022. The Discussion Document will be based on the principles in this paper. It will also signal the opportunities to think differently about use of the road corridor, the future challenges around parking and the need for change, while providing a basis for the public and stakeholders to provide feedback that will help shape development of the detailed elements of the Parking Strategy.

33.     Due to timing constraints, we are not able to bring the Discussion Document to the Planning Committee for final approval and request that approval for this is delegated to the Chair and Deputy Chair, the Deputy Mayor, as an Auckland Transport liaison councillor, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34.     Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan outlines the need for Auckland to reduce its transport related emissions significantly, to meet the target of 64% reduction by 2030. This means that business-as-usual for project planning and delivery, and the management of the transport system cannot continue.

35.     Parking management is a lever in managing the transport network, both in terms of the opportunities that reallocation of road-space offer to enabling other modes and in disincentivising car use. The principles proposed and the criteria for applying these spatially (if applied consistently regardless of opposing views) will restrict parking and lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emission in comparison to the base case (continuation with the current Parking Strategy).   

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36.     Council strategy staff have been part of the working and steering group for this project and have reviewed and contributed to this paper.

37.     Panuku and Auckland Unlimited will be approached during the next stage of key stakeholder consultation for views and feedback.

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

Local impacts and local board views

38.     In June, a memo was sent to each local board, explaining the Parking Strategy review. There was also a presentation at the June Local Board Chairs’ Forum. Over the past few months AT has attended 16 local board workshops to outline the Parking Strategy review, answer questions and receive feedback on parking management. The other local boards have opted for workshops after public consultation, but all local boards have had an opportunity to provide feedback on the review. 


 

39.     Workshop discussions with local boards have provided informal feedback on parking strategy and management. The key question was framed as ‘given the strategic direction (including removal of parking minimum requirements, the imperatives of climate change action and AT’s other objectives around providing better transport choices, better connecting people and places and supporting growth), how far and how fast should AT pull the lever on parking management?’ Key themes from local boards were:

·   concern about significant or fast change

·   strong concern about impacts that reduction in parking and increasing cost would have on the most disadvantaged

·   desire to see implementation limited to areas with ‘sufficient’ public transport

·   wanting to have a say in any proposed changes

·   removing parking doesn’t mean people will (or can) shift mode

·   strong support for Comprehensive Parking Management Plans

·   support for better parking enforcement

·   some calls for more parking availability.

40.     Further local board feedback is included in Attachment C.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

41.     Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum members have been sent a memo outlining the Parking Strategy Review and asking for feedback on any aspects that are of interest to mana whenua. This same information and the engagement process has been shared with the Independent Māori Statutory Board Chair. To date we have not received any feedback from and we will continue to engage with mana whenua with the release of the discussion document.

42.     An early consideration of potential impacts of increased parking management for Māori are that they are likely to be similar impacts as for the wider population. Some parts of the community are more reliant on cars for access, particularly if they do not have good access to public transport. Barriers to public transport, such as cost and network coverage, influence access to necessities such as education, healthcare, employment, shopping and social services  the principles proposed in c) are intended to mitigate some impacts of parking management.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43.     Parking revenue helps to offset AT operational costs and therefore ratepayer funding. The cost of parking management by AT is currently around $35M per annum in operational costs. Pre-COVID-19 parking revenue was $49M annually and has been around $40M over the past two years (43% from onstreet parking revenue and 56% from offstreet parking revenue). There are many other indirect costs associated with parking which are not quantified.

44.     Significant increases in personnel for planning, parking design and enforcement are likely to be required to deliver the strategy. For example, 25 to 50 percent more enforcement staff are estimated to be required by the Strategy. Further work has been initiated to identify the resourcing and revenue implications associated with the principles set out above. While additional budget would be required for specific areas within AT, it is currently expected that a strategy based on the above principles would be at least revenue neutral overall once enforcement revenues are taken into account and could raise additional revenue.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

45.     Public parking is a limited resource and increasing demand requires increased management and enforcement. The direction of proposed changes to the Parking Strategy with an emphasis on more controls, higher prices and reduced supply – along with greater enforcement – are likely to be met with resistance by some members of the public. Release of the discussion document is intended to mitigate this risk by setting out the need for change in the way that we travel and park, and highlighting the benefits of the overall strategy of a shift to more sustainable modes.  

46.     Government’s release of the Emission Reduction Plan (ERP) for consultation and the Transport ERP will require substantial mode shift away from cars. For certain locations, this may require additional policy initiatives, further parking restrictions or management.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47.     Following endorsement from the Planning Committee we will:

a)   Finalise and release the public discussion document in November, following delegated approval by the Chair and Deputy Chair, the Deputy Mayor as an Auckland Transport liaison councillor, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, to start the conversation with Aucklanders on the revision of the strategy and set the scene for future consultation (including targeted partner and stakeholder engagement),

b)   Continue development of the new principles and policies of the strategy and its sub-components; and

c)   Return to the Planning Committee with the draft parking strategy for endorsement ahead of a full public consultation in early 2022.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Parking management level assessment criteria

77

b

Map of parking management levels resulting from assessment criteria

79

c

Local board feedback

81

d

Roads and Streets Framework Overview

117

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Claire Covacich – Principal Transport Planner, Auckland Transport

Andrew McGill - Head of Integrated Network Planning, Auckland Transport

Hamish Bunn - Group Manager: Investment, Planning and Policy, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jenny Chetwynd - Executive General Manager, Planning and Investment, Auckland Transport

Shane Ellison - Chief Executive, Auckland Transport

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy, Auckland Council

 


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

Wynyard Quarter Tram

File No.: CP2021/15089

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek Planning Committee endorsement of the Eke Panuku Board decision to cease the operation of the Auckland Dockline Tram in Wynyard Quarter in late 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       When the Auckland Dockline Tram loop was first opened in 2011, Wynyard Quarter had only recently begun its transformation journey. A key driver for the installation of the heritage tram was to attract visitors to a new city centre location and to play a part in telling the story about the waterfront's past and the plans for future development.

3.       The tram was not intended to and did not perform a public transport function within or from the Wynyard Quarter.

4.       In October 2018, the Eke Panuku Board considered the future of the tram. The Board recommended ceasing its operations and sought the Auckland Council Governing Body endorsement of this decision in November 2018. After deliberation, the Governing Body requested Eke Panuku to reinstate the full tram loop and to have it operating in time for the America's Cup event in 2021 and then review its future.

5.       The Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) was selected as the contracted operator. The tram loop was installed and was up and running in 2021 for the America's Cup event. To avoid conflict with public transport during commuter days, the tram now operates on Sundays only, except for public holidays and long weekends where operations are extended to Saturdays.  Ridership numbers per month have varied depending on the weather, long weekend activity and covid lockdowns. Since February 2021 ridership has totaled 6509. The service costs Eke Panuku $200,000 per annum to run and based on the past six months, requires a subsidy per passenger of $15.36.

6.       In the November 2018 Governing Body report, Eke Panuku stated that the future of the tram was linked to the staged development of Wynyard Quarter. This specifically related to a site in Wynyard Central known as West 2. 

7.       The Wynyard Central sites have been subject to development agreements signed in 2013.  These agreements with our preferred developers were driven by the need to progress the regeneration of Wynyard Quarter though providing mixed use development. The developer, Willis Bond, has confirmed its intention to start the next stage of development on West 2 in mid-2023. This means that there is a confirmed requirement to remove the tram shed and associated infrastructure from the site by the end of 2022. 

8.       Alternative options and locations have been considered and are outlined in this paper. Eke Panuku is now consulting with the Planning Committee and seeking endorsement of the Board decision to cease the tram operation in late 2022. 


 

9.       This decision was made on the basis that:

·   As an attractor, the tram has fulfilled its role. Wynyard Quarter is now an established destination for Aucklanders, as well as a place to work, live and visit and a place that can host major international events.

·   Significant capital and operating expenditure would be required to move the tram and the supporting infrastructure to a new location within Wynyard Quarter. These costs are unbudgeted and are not considered to be high priority for waterfront placemaking investment. Eke Panuku’s clear priority of investment is the waterfront park space to be provided on Wynyard Point.

·   A significant number of development and public space projects have been completed over the last two years in Wynyard Quarter. There are more projects in the pipeline and the flexibility Eke Panuku once had to accommodate the tram operations on 'vacant' sites is now coming to an end.

·   Competition for valuable space means that prioritisation of essential outcomes in the public realm, within the built form and future development sites, and for servicing public transport to Wynyard Quarter needs to be overtly made. 

·   The tram does not perform a public transport function. The tram tracks occupy space in the road corridor this space is becoming increasingly valuable for other modes of transport, particularly cyclists.

10.     All costs associated with cessation are not budgeted. Eke Panuku will need to provide the budget to implement the decommissioning of the tram, the removal of infrastructure and reinstatement of pavement to the original standard. There are three trams that are used for the Wynyard Loop.  Two are owned by Council and one is leased from a Melbourne supplier. The lease of the Melbourne tram costs Eke Panuku $25,520 per annum. Contracted commitments to lease this tram are until June 2023.

11.     As the contracted supplier, MOTAT has been advised of the Eke Panuku Board decision and is supportive of the decision. A letter of support is provided at Attachment A. In this letter MOTAT acknowledge that after operating the tram in the Wynyard Quarter for seven months, it recognizes that the costs of the continued subsidized operation outweigh the benefits provided.

12.     There are agreements in place that provide for the tram and all associated plant to be transferred to MOTAT on the basis that MOTAT remove it for a nominal sum. The tram shed was designed and built in a way that makes it easy to relocate.

13.     Subject to the endorsement of the Planning Committee, Eke Panuku and MOTAT will work together to transfer the assets.  MOTAT has indicated that this will add value to its business model and benefits its strategy of increasing visitation and adding to their collection.

14.     This topic has historically generated a lot of stakeholder interest. There are reputational risks for Eke Panuku and Auckland Council for continuing the tram service, to the detriment of the wider regeneration initiatives that are committed to and planned for the future.  A comprehensive stakeholder and communications strategy has been developed to support the decision made.

 


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      endorse the Eke Panuku Board decision to cease the operation of the tram in Wynyard Quarter in late 2022.

b)      note that all costs associated with cessation of the tram, removal and reinstatement of tram infrastructure is unbudgeted and will need to be found by Eke Panuku from existing budgets.

c)      note that Eke Panuku will agree a handover strategy for the tram assets and infrastructure so it can continue to be used as a visitor attraction at MOTAT.

d)      note that a comprehensive stakeholder communications plan will be implemented after the Planning Committee decision.

 

Horopaki

Context

15.     The Auckland Dockline Tram loop opened in 2011 as a place-making activity to create public interest and encourage visitors to visit the newly opened Wynyard Quarter. The tram helped tell a story to Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland about the past and future plans for the transformation of the waterfront. 

16.     After a period of the loop being opened, parts of it were successively closed due to the construction activity in the Wynyard Quarter, either in the road corridor or adjacent construction activity.

17.     In October 2018, the future of the tram was considered by the Eke Panuku Board. The Board, having considered the tram’s original placemaking purpose and the increasingly constrained environment for the tram’s operation, recommended to cease its operation.

18.     In November 2018, Eke Panuku sought the Auckland Council Governing Body endorsement of its decision. After deliberation, the Governing Body requested Eke Panuku to reinstate the full tram loop and to have it operating in time for the America's Cup event in 2021 and then for its future to be reviewed.

19.     Due to stakeholder feedback at the time and the expectation that the tram could be run at cost, or at a profit, a competitive tender process was undertaken. Through this process a suitable provider could not be found.  MOTAT was then approached to be the operator of the tram, in recognition of its existing skill and expertise. The agreed operating costs paid to MOTAT is $200,000 per annum.  

20.     The full loop of the tram was up and running as an activation feature for the 2021 America’s Cup event.  Under agreement with Auckland Transport, the tram now operates on Sundays.  On Long Weekends, School Holidays and Public Holidays it operates on both Saturday and Sundays. A key decision matter on running times for Auckland Transport was the competition for space on the road carriageway for buses that service the Wynyard Quarter during the week.

21.     Passengers can buy an all-day ticket and travel as often is they like on the day. Monthly reports are received by MOTAT. Since the operation started on the 7th of February, the tram has operated on 38 days and has had 6509 passengers.  This is an average of 171 passengers a day.


 

Table One: Monthly Ridership

Monthly ridership 2021

Feb

March

April

May

June

July

August

484

425

1903

954

579

1126

1038 

 

An aerial view of a city

Description automatically generated with medium confidence22.     In the Governing Body report, Eke Panuku also stated that the future of the tram was linked to the future development site in Wynyard Central known as West 2. The tram shed is located on this site which is under a development agreement with Willis Bond. Refer Figure 1 below.

 

23.     The developer has confirmed its intention to start the next stage of development on the site known as West 2 in mid-2023. This therefore confirms the requirement to remove the tram shed from the property by the end of 2022 to enable this development to proceed in accordance with the existing development agreement.

24.     When the Governing Body paper was presented in 2018, Eke Panuku noted that an obvious alternative location could not be identified. It was however noted that further consideration of options would occur through: 

·   Technical work on the Wynyard Quarter Masterplan refresh and the Wynyard Quarter development pipeline

·   The reference design work on future development sites which would inform the future essential outcomes required from each new site

·   Developing a clearer view on the development pipeline and staging of sites to market. 

25.     It has often been incorrectly assumed that the Dockline tram has performed a public transport function.  For clarity and as context to the recommendation in this paper, it should be noted that the tram:

·   Did not, nor was ever intended to, form part of a public transport function

·   Has not and will not become a transport mode to access Wynyard Quarter or Wynyard Point for commuting or visitor purposes.


 

26.     This paper outlines the analysis that has informed the Eke Panuku Board decision.  The Board’s decision is as follows:

That the Eke Panuku Board:

a.   Support the cessation of the Auckland Dockline Tram in late 2022, subject to consultation with Auckland Council;

b.   Support the transfer of the tram and equipment to MOTAT, the current operator, including support to contribute to the cost of purchasing the leased Melbourne tram and necessary remedial works to the total estimated cost of $600,000;

c.   Support the development of a comprehensive stakeholder management and communications strategy to appropriately communicate the decision on the future operation of the Auckland Dockline Tram.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

27.     Eke Panuku has considered a range of alternatives that are outlined in this paper.  These are:

·   Option 1: Integrate the tram shed and infrastructure into the West 2 site

·   Option 2: Cease all tram operations when the West 2 site is activated in late 2022

·   Option 3: Suspend all tram operations temporarily when West 2 site is activated. Relocate the tram shed and all related infrastructure into a future development site or public space on the current tram loop

·   Option 4: Suspend all tram operations temporarily when West 2 site is activated.   Relocate depot and tram line infrastructure into Wynyard Point.

28.     These four options have been considered and are outlined in the Table and Figures below.  This information has been gathered from previous work relating to the tram and through the course of the year from the technical analysis undertaken on the Wynyard Quarter Masterplan refresh (Te Ara Tukutuku Plan) and the reference design work for future development sites in Wynyard Quarter.

Table Two: Options Considered

Options

Pros

 Cons

Option 1: Integrate the tram shed and infrastructure into the West 2 site

Ongoing activation activity provided in Wynyard Quarter

Meets aspirations of some stakeholders

Makes use of public investment that has been required to make it operational

Not provided for in the Development Agreement with Willis Bond and they have confirmed that it will not support a variation to enable this.

This is on the basis that incorporation of the tram infrastructure will have a major impact on this site. It will impact on housing and amenity levels for the rest of the development. This will reduce land value returns to Council and incur significant cost to integrate it into future development of the site.

If this option was to be pursued, the existing agreement would need to be renegotiated and likely compensation would be required.

This would likely delay development of this site and compromise our objectives for housing. 

Option 2: Cease all tram operations when the West 2 Site is activated in late 2022

 

This is the preferred option.

 

 

The tram will be closed permanently, and ongoing uncertainty about the future operation ends

No ongoing operational cost required

The tram, tram shed and all moveable plant and equipment to be transferred to MOTAT as contracted

All tramlines in the road corridor will be able to be filled in, making the roads safer for cyclists and other users

There will be stakeholder opposition to the closing of the Tram generating negative publicity.

The investment to date in the tram and related infrastructure has been significant.

There will be additional costs associated with the removal of tram infrastructure - inclusive of the shed, tracks and overhead wires - and make good requirements on footpath and road carriageway.

Option 3: Suspend all tram operations temporarily when the West 2 site is activated

Relocate tram shed and all related infrastructure into a future development site or public space on the current tram Loop.

(Refer Figure 2)

Ongoing activation activity provided in Wynyard Quarter

Meets aspirations of some stakeholders

Makes use of public investment that has been required to make it operational

Cost to move the tram infrastructure to a new location - currently not budgeted.

Requires ongoing operational cost to run the tram. This will impact the two likely sites.

(i)    Daldy Street Linear Park: Incorporating into the Linear Park adjoining site 19 will have a negative impact on pedestrian movement and the public realm and incur physical works costs.

(ii)   Jellicoe Street Carpark (Site 19 and future development site):  Incorporation of tram infrastructure into will impact on scale and quality of development outcomes including housing provision, structural flexibility for the development, land value returns to Council and incur costs of design and physical integration into site and railway line works.


 

Options

Pros

 Cons

Option 4: Suspend tram operations temporarily when West 2 site is activated.  

Relocate depot and tram rail line infrastructure into Wynyard Point.

(Refer Figure 3)

Ongoing activation activity provided in Wynyard Quarter

Meets aspirations of some stakeholders

Makes use of public investment that has been required to make it operational

Requires additional significant costs to modify the existing tramline and build a new loop out to Wynyard Point - currently not budgeted.

Requires ongoing operational cost currently not budgeted.

Alignment would require reconfiguration of Silo Park and would be a dominate feature of the future open space currently not contemplated in mater plan thinking.

Operation of the tram, including tram lines, likely to be incompatible with adjoining marine industry activity. 

 

29.     In addition to the above, for Option 3; there were two sub options that were considered, and these are represented in Figure Two.

i.   The tram infrastructure takes over a portion next to the site on Daldy Street Linear Park

ii.  The tram infrastructure is sleeved into a new development at Jellicoe Street Carpark (Site 19).

30.     Both Option 3(i) and (ii) are a major diversion from the direction that Eke Panuku has been working towards for creating quality open space and creating opportunities through Council development sites to progress towards urban regeneration outcomes. 

31.     From a developer attractiveness point of view, there would be a significant impact on the market transaction. Inclusion of a tram shed requirement may deter developer response and reduce competitive tension. It will compromise the quality of the development outcomes. This is both in terms of impacting the physical design and development and the uncertainty of the potential effects of the tram operation on the use and activity on the balance of the site. 


 

Figure Two: Daldy Linear Park and Jellicoe Street Carpark (Option 3)

32.     To achieve Option 4, this would require extending the tram line and all associated infrastructure to Wynyard Point as indicated in Figure Three. 

33.     Master planning is underway for Wynyard Point, including a Plan Change that Eke Panuku has committed to in mid-2022. The drivers behind this masterplan refresh and plan change have been to support the development of the open space and built form.  Based on the current Wynyard Quarter Tram Loop alignment, the natural extension of a further tram line would be up through Silo Park.  This would not only require significant capital expenditure to achieve a new tram line but would also conflict with the future proposed use as a safe public space. 

34.     A further restriction for the Wynyard Point option is the commitment through the AC36 resource consent to keep the base infrastructure open and flexible until 2028.


 

Figure Three: Wynyard Point (Option 4)

35.     The Eke Panuku Board in its role as the regeneration agency for the waterfront, has reflected, and is recommending to the Planning Committee to endorse Option 2.  Ceasing the tram is now necessary. This is based on the following:

·   As an attractor, the tram has fulfilled its role. Wynyard Quarter is now an established destination for Aucklanders, as well as a place to work, live and visit and a place that can host major international events.

·   Significant capital and operating expenditure would be required to move the tram and the supporting infrastructure to a new location within Wynyard Quarter. These costs are unbudgeted and are not considered to be high priority for waterfront placemaking investment. Funding is more appropriately channeled towards the continued transformation of the waterfront. 

·   A significant number of development and public space projects have been completed over the last two years in Wynyard Quarter. There are more projects in the pipeline and the flexibility Eke Panuku once had to accommodate the tram operations on 'vacant' sites is now coming to an end.

·   Competition for valuable space means that prioritisation of essential outcomes in the public realm, within the built form and future development sites, and for servicing public transport to Wynyard Quarter needs to be overtly made. 

·   The tram does not perform a public transport function. The tram tracks occupy space in the road corridor this space is becoming increasingly valuable for other modes of transport, particularly cyclists.

36.     A letter of support from the Wynyard Quarter Transport Management Association for the cessation of the tram is included at Attachment B.

37.     The mitigations identified relate to the agreements in place that provide the tram and all associated plant will be transferred to MOTAT on the basis that MOTAT remove it for a nominal sum.  The tram shed was designed and built in a way that makes it easy to relocate.  This is supported by MOTAT and is referred to in the letter attached as Appendix One.

38.     MOTAT currently operates the tram, and it has considerable tram expertise, drivers and other resources available to support the trams relocation to their facilities.  MOTAT averages 200,000 per annum passengers at its Western Springs facility. In 2020, MOTAT carried 177,000 passengers.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39.     The tram is motioned using electrical power. As a result, the tram is not carbon-neutral and has a carbon impact when in use. The tram does not perform a public transport function.

40.     A recent transport study by ARUP as part of the technical work for the Wynyard Quarter Masterplan refresh provided the following observation. “As it is currently configured the tram utilises space along four corridors within the Wynyard Quarter. Given the current constraints within the existing network and the anticipated continued growth in demand, the space currently occupied by the tram tracks and is becoming increasingly valuable for other modes of transport”.

41.     Wynyard Quarter has a requirement through the Unitary Plan to achieve a 70-30 modal split. This means priority must be given to walking, cycling connections and public transport, over other modes. Competition for space is increasing and the prioritisation of investment that supports sustainable transport options continues to be a priority for both Eke Panuku and Auckland Transport

42.     Eke Panuku has been working with Auckland Transport to find a comprehensive way to respond to the public transport needs to and from the Wynyard Quarter. The challenges around these discussions and associated costs emphasise that competition for space is now at a premium for the growing needs of the Wynyard Quarter, its residents, commuters and visitors.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43.     Auckland Transport Executive has been advised of the Eke Panuku Board decision.

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

Local impacts and local board views

44.     The Waitemata Local Board and key stakeholders has been advised of the Eke Panuku Board decision, and we have sought views in advance of the Planning Committee meeting.

45.     Eke Panuku has bi-monthly workshops with the Waitemata Local Board on the continued regeneration of the Wynyard Quarter. Over the last 18 months, this has included the development of Wynyard Quarter Masterplan refresh (Te Ara Tukutuku Plan). The Plan includes the future aspiration for the redevelopment of Wynyard Point into a future destination park and mixed-use development.

46.     This work has also traversed the remaining development sites in Wynyard Quarter and the development pipeline. Specifically, the Local Board understands and are updated on the future of the West 2 site and the development opportunity in the Jellicoe Street Carpark (site 19).

47.     The Local Board previously supported the reinstatement of the Dockline Tram as part of the 2018 Governing Body decision. Eke Panuku has provided a summary of the Eke Panuku Board decision to the Waitemata Local Board to inform their decision. The Local Board has considered this matter under an urgent resolution, and this will provided to the Planning Committee prior to the meeting.

48.     Key stakeholders including the Wynyard Quarter Transport Association (WQTMA), which is an independent body of businesses, employers and landowners in the Quarter have also been advised of the Board decision.  The WQTMA supports the cessation of the tram on the basis that it does not provide any public transport function and the tram tracks in the road carriageway cause a health and safety risk for those on bikes or wheelchairs.  Refer letter of support in Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49.     All tram operations and the long-term future of the tram will not lead to resourcing or financial impact for Māori, and there has not been engagement with mana whenua specifically on the decision to cease the tram.

50.     For the last 18 months, Eke Panuku has been working in partnership with Mana Whenua Governance Forum on the Wynyard Quarter Masterplan refresh (Te Ara Tukutuku Plan). 

51.     The Plan includes the future aspiration for the redevelopment of Wynyard Point into a future destination park and mixed-use development. This Plan outlines Mana Whenua aspirations for the future of Wynyard Point.

52.     This work has also traversed the remaining development sites in Wynyard Quarter and the development pipeline. Specifically, Mana Whenua understands and are updated on the future of the West 2 site and the development opportunity in the Jellicoe Street Carpark (site 19)..

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53.     All options have financial and resourcing impacts for Eke Panuku and Auckland Council, none of which have been budgeted for.  The Eke Panuku Executive has investigated the operational and capital costs for the options considered.  These costs will be refined after a decision from Auckland Council.

54.     Note that:

·   Under the contracted agreement with MOTAT, Eke Panuku is paying $200,000 per annum to operate the tram.  MOTAT retains the fares and associated proceeds.

·   The maximum price charged per passenger is $2.00.  Based on the ridership of 6509 passengers over a six-month period, this equates to an average cost or subsidy per passenger of $15.36.

55.     Implementation of Option 1 would be subject to commercial agreements and negotiations with Willis Bond and further capital costs. These costs would be substantive and cause delays in the delivery of the development scheduled to start in 2023.  Detailed Interrogation into a likely cost to Council has not been pursued as it is not provided for in the current development agreement with Eke Panuku.

56.     Implementation of Options 3 and 4 will require significant capital and operating expenditure to move the tram, the tram lines and the supporting infrastructure to a new location. 

 

Table Three: High level cost estimates for Options 3 and 4 

Item

Comment

High level estimate/impact

Option 3(i)

Daldy Street Linear Park

Incorporation of tram infrastructure will have a major impact and loss of public realm that is Daldy Street Linear Park

This will require a redesign of the current public realm, relocation of underground infrastructure and relocating play equipment.

This option will require realignment of the tram tracks from the West 2 site to Daldy Street Linear Park.

Note that having the tram shed in proximity to proposed residential apartments at the Jellicoe Street development site will also result in noise, outlook and amenity impacts. The costs for this is currently excluded.

QS estimate for relocation including construction costs, relocation of services, with some allowances for consultants, contingency and P&G, but exclusive of land, escalation, contamination of approx. $1.7m.

Realignment of tram tracks and lines estimated at $1.5m.

Total cost range approx. $3-5m.

Option 3(ii)

Jellicoe street carpark future development site (Site 19)

Incorporation of tram infrastructure will have a major impact on the redevelopment potential and amenity levels for a key development site (Site 19) in the Wynyard Quarter.

This will lead to a loss of retail net leasable area and a loss of apartment net saleable area as the tram requires a high stud.

There will also likely be loss of amenity for the rest of the development.

This option will require realignment of the tram tracks from the West 2 site to Site 19.

Reduction in land value returns to Auckland Council.

The current space requirement is 600 sqm. The land value impact is at a range of $4.7m – $6.4m from the loss of retail space and amenity impacts on neighbouring apartments.

Realignment of tram tracks estimated at $1.5m

Total cost range between $6 – 8m

Option 4

Wynyard Point

 

This option will require new tram tracks to be installed into Wynyard Point and to relocate the tram shed.

 

The alignment would also require a rework of the current and completed public realm.

QS estimate for construction costs with some allowances for consultants, contingency and P&G, but exclusive of land, fitout, escalation, contamination

Total cost range approx. $11m – $13m

 

57.     Implementation of the preferred Option 2 would require funding to remove the redundant infrastructure and make good costs on the carriageway.  A high-level estimate, that has been tested with current suppliers is provided below.  Based on the make good option chosen the cost could range from $600k to $5m. Also provided is the implementation of the agreement with MOTAT and the Melbourne provider which could range from $70-130,000 depending on negotiations with the owner of the tram.


 

Table Four: High level cost estimates for Option 2 

Item

Comment

High level cost estimate to Auckland Council

Removal of two trams all moveable plant and equipment and tram shed from the West 2 site

MOTAT responsible

Nil

 

Make good & remediation on pavements

Remove tram stops, dedicated signs, flashing lights and road marking and make good

Eke Panuku

$100,000

 

 

 

 

 

Make good & remediation in the road corridor

 

Either:

1)  Breakout and removal of tram tracks and overhead wires and full reinstatement of the pavement surface;

Or:

2)  Fill in tracks within road corridor with sealer/resin and remove overhead wires

Note that Eke Panuku will further investigate the road corridor remediation. At this stage the lower cost to fill in the tracks is preferred option.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1)  1.5km of works priced at $3,400/lm $5.0m

 

 

 

 

2)  $500,000

 

Decide on option for the Melbourne tram 466

The lease of tram 466 currently costs Eke Panuku $25,520 per annum. Contracted commitments to lease this tram are until June 2023

1)  Return tram back to Melbourne at the end of lease term. Cost circa $130,000, or

2) Melbourne owner has offered the tram to MOTAT for purchase at $70,000. MOTAT has previously indicated that it would be able to support half of the cost of purchasing the tram at the end of the lease in 2023.

 

 


 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58.     There is a high level of stakeholder interest in this topic.  The tram has historically received support from stakeholders and elected representatives. The group behind the previous petition supporting the continued operation of the tram on the full loop has argued successfully for its reinstatement for the AC36 event and for its continuance.

59.     There are reputational risks for Eke Panuku and Auckland Council.  A comprehensive stakeholder and communications strategy has been developed and will be implemented to support the decision made.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

60.     Subject to Planning Committee endorsement of Option 2.  Eke Panuku will:

·   Allocate funding from Eke Panuku budget to implement the decommissioning of the tram and making good on the remaining infrastructure

·   Establish a comprehensive stakeholder management and communications strategy to appropriately communicate the ceasing of the operation of the Auckland Dockline Tram

·   Work with MOTAT to implement the contracted agreement – this includes Eke Panuku offering the release of trams No.881 and No.852 to MOTAT for its tram network

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Letter of support from MOTAT

133

b

Letter of support from Wynyard Quarter Transport Management Association

135

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Fiona Knox - Priority Location Director, Eke Panuku

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Executive, Eke Panuku

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

Submission on a proposed new national waste strategy and associated waste legislation

File No.: CP2021/15754

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To delegate approval of Auckland Council’s submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s proposed new waste strategy and changes to waste legislation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Ministry for the Environment is seeking submissions on a proposed new national waste strategy together with associated waste legislation.

3.       The proposed new waste strategy would reset the vision, direction and priorities for waste management and minimisation in Aotearoa New Zealand. Proposed new legislation will reset the purpose, principles, governance, roles and responsibilities for waste management and minimisation. Together, these would replace:

·      the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010

·      the Waste Minimisation Act 2008

·      the Litter Act 1979.

4.       The consultation document was released on 15 October 2021 with submissions closing on 26 November 2021. This matter would normally be considered by the Environment and Climate Change Committee. A delegated authority to approve the council’s submission is being sought in advance from the Planning Committee because the submission is due before the next meeting of the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

5.       Staff recommend that the committee delegate authority to the Deputy Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee Councillor Pippa Coom, Councillor Linda Cooper as Auckland’s representative on the government’s Waste Advisory Board, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).

6.       Auckland Council’s submission will be developed based on policy positions articulated in relevant council strategy, such as Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau 2018 / Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 and other recent council submissions on government policy relating to waste management and minimisation.

7.       Further evidence and supporting positions will be obtained from subject matter experts across the council family. Local boards are also being invited to provide input and their submissions will be amended to the final council submission.

8.       Once developed, the council’s draft submission will be circulated to the delegated elected members for input and review.

9.       A copy of the final submission will be provided to all elected members, local board members, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board once submitted.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Planning Committee:

a)      delegate authority to the Deputy Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee Councillor P Coom, Councillor L Cooper, and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve the council’s submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s proposed changes to waste legislation and a proposed new waste strategy.

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     On 15 October 2021, the Ministry for the Environment released its consultation document, Te kawe i te haepapa para: Taking responsibility for our waste: Proposals for a new waste strategy – issues and options for new waste legislation[2]. A summary of the consultation document is provided in Attachment A.

11.     The Ministry is proposing a new waste strategy together with associated legislation. The new proposals would replace the existing 2010 waste strategy, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Litter Act 1979.

12.     The reasons for the changes include the need to:

·      transform the way waste is managed, noting that Aotearoa New Zealand is one of the highest generators of waste per person in the world 

·      strengthen and better align the existing legal framework that crosses the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Litter Act 1979, the Local Government Act 2002, the Health Act 1956 and the Resource Management Act 1991

·      address technical problems within the Waste Management Act 2008.

13.     The consultation document seeks feedback on 43 consultation questions across three areas:

·      Part 1: seeking support for changes to how Aotearoa New Zealand manages its waste and support for moving towards a circular economy

·      Part 2: seeking feedback on a proposed new waste strategy

·      Part 3: seeking feedback on the development of more comprehensive legislation on waste: issues and options.

Timeframe

14.     Submissions are due by 26 November 2021. This matter would normally be considered by the Environment and Climate Change Committee. A delegated authority to approve the council’s submission is being sought in advance because the submission will be due before the next the Environment and Climate Change Committee meeting.

15.     The new waste strategy is to be finalised in 2022. A bill will be developed and introduced to Parliament later in 2022 for new legislation.

 


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Proposed new waste strategy

16.     Key elements of the proposed waste strategy include:

·      transitioning to a circular economy by 2050 where materials are returned to use rather than disposed of

·      principles which underpin the approach

·      a staged approach with targets set for 2030 in reducing:

o  waste per person by 5-10 per cent

o  biogenic waste methane emissions at least 30 per cent

o  litter by 60 per cent

o  household waste disposal by 60-70 per cent

o  business waste disposal by 30-50 per cent

o  public sector waste generation 30-50 per cent

·      proposed priorities and headline actions to achieve stage 1 (2022-2030)

·      alignment with the government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (emissions from waste being a priority for stage 1)

·      regular action and investment plans to be created every two or three years to implement the strategy.

Legislative changes proposed

17.     The legislative changes proposed include:

·      embedding a long-term strategic approach to reducing waste

·      putting responsibility at the heart of the new system

·      improving legislative support for product stewardship schemes

·      enhancing regulatory tools to encourage change

·      ensuring the waste levy is used to best effect

·      improving compliance, monitoring and enforcement.

Development of the council’s submission

18.     Thorough consideration of the scope and implications of the proposed legislation is required before a well-defined position can be provided. Staff are in the process of reviewing and coordinating a response and cannot yet provide advice on the direction of the council’s submission.

19.     Council’s strategic direction in the waste area relates to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau – Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (Waste Plan 2018).

20.     The Waste Plan 2018 is guided by the vision ‘Auckland aspires to be Zero Waste by 2040, taking care of people and the environment and turning waste into resources’ and sets out over 100 actions to achieve this vision. It continues a zero waste vision that was originally set out in Auckland Council’s first Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2012.

21.     The council’s submission will be developed based on policy positions articulated in the above two plans, together with evidence and data provided in previous submissions on government policy relating to waste management and minimisation.

22.     Further evidence and supporting positions will be obtained from subject matter experts across the council family. We are also inviting input from local boards.

23.     Once developed, the council’s draft submission will be circulated to the delegated elected members for input and review.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24.     The disposal and treatment of waste comprises around four per cent of Aotearoa’s gross greenhouse gas emissions. The main sources include organic waste, wastewater treatment, incineration and open burning, and biological waste treatment (composting).

25.     The consultation period aligns with a separate consultation led by the Ministry for the Environment on a national Emissions Reduction Plan. The outcomes from both consultations will influence the development of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the waste sector, and Auckland’s ability to achieve its regional emissions reduction targets of halving emissions by 2030 and reaching net zero emissions by 2050, as adopted by the council through Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26.     Feedback on the consultation document from relevant council departments and council-controlled organisations will be sought from subject matter experts.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27.     Changes to the waste strategy and legislation would impact many aspects of waste management including public awareness and education campaigns, purchasing choices, the way waste is collected and managed, and individual roles and responsibilities.

28.     Principles proposed for a new waste strategy such as taking responsibility for waste and delivering equitable and inclusive outcomes underpin the changes proposed and the way those would be assessed and delivered.

29.     Local board views will be sought on the draft submission and either incorporated within the report or appended to the submission, depending on when they are able to provide their views. Local boards provided strong direction through the development of the Waste Plan 2018 and other related recent submissions on government policy and these views will inform the overall direction of the submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30.     Staff have contacted the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Tāmaki Makaurau Kaitiaki Forum to alert them to this proposal and the opportunity to input. Staff will do the same for the Tāmaki Makaurau mana whenua entities.

31.     The proposal includes opportunities for Māori expertise in any new independent advisory bodies, and increased Māori participation in decision-making at different levels, especially investment. It also seeks to address the gap in current waste management legislation around te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Ao Māori.

32.     Previous feedback from consultation on the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan included 214 submissions received from Māori, with three from Para Kore Marae. These submissions showed key areas of support were for increasing the waste levy, resources and support for Māori initiatives, the food scraps kerbside collection (particularly from south Auckland respondents), Community Recycling Centres and local jobs, advocating for product stewardship (particular a container deposit scheme) and a focus on construction and demolition waste.

33.     Feedback expressed on previous related submissions, including consultation undertaken in March 2018 on the draft Waste Plan 2018 and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri will be incorporated into the development of this submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34.     The submission can be developed as part of business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

35.     As the consultation is on proposed policy and legislation changes, it is not yet possible to quantify the budgetary consequences for the council. Potential financial implications for the council will be considered as part of the council’s submission.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     There is minimal risk in making a submission on the Ministry’s consultation document.

37.     Potential risks to the council arising from strategy and legislation changes will be considered as part of the council’s submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38.     The council’s submission will be signed off by the delegated members to meet the submission deadline on 26 November 2021.

39.     A new waste strategy and associated legislation is expected to be finalised by the Ministry in 2022 or 2023.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Taking responsibility for our waste - summary snapshot consultation document

143

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Le Claire – Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Parul Sood – General Manager Waste Solutions

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Making the Brookby Quarry Decision Provisions Operative

File No.: CP2021/15620

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To update the committee on the outcome of the appeal against the council’s decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (ENV-2018-AKL-000150 Brookby Quarries Limited).

2.       To request staff publicly notify the additional parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) that are no longer subject to appeal.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       In developing the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, the council accepted a recommendation by the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) to delete the Significant Ecological Area Overlay (SEA) overlay from the Special Purpose Quarry Zone (SPQZ). An appeal on points of law to the High Court followed; from which the High Court allowed the appeal by consent, reinstated the SEA overlay and ordered that the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part (AUP) be amended with a new rule for “any vegetation removal or alteration within a quarry zone”.

4.       Brookby Quarries appealed to the Environment Court, supported by a s274 notice by Fulton Hogan (who operate Drury Quarry). The purpose of the appeal was to seek a specific objective and policy framework for vegetation alteration and removal in the SPQZ. As only the owners of the Brookby and Drury Quarries were involved in the proceedings, further ecological studies were undertaken for these quarries and it was determined that the outcome of the appeal would be specific to the two quarries.

5.       The Environment Court has issued a final decision on the appeals made by Brookby Quarries Limited (“the Brookby Quarry Decision”) and has found in favour of the quarry operators’ proposed provisions and directed they be placed in the AUP. The appeals period on the Environment Court decision has now passed and no appeals have been lodged. Therefore, as a formality the Planning Committee must now make the Brookby Quarry decision provisions operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

6.       A Clause 20A memo will be processed at the time that the provisions are made operative, to correct minor errors that have been identified in the text of the provisions as they are written in the Brookby Quarry Decision.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note that section 152 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 deems those parts of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) no longer under appeal to have been approved by the council under clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and that on this basis the Brookby Quarry decision provisions are deemed to have been approved by council.

b)      request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make the Brookby Quarry decision provisions operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Horopaki

Context

7.       The Independent Hearings Panel (‘IHP’) released its recommendations on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in July 2016. Council accepted a recommendation by the IHP to delete the Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Overlay from several places in the region including in the Special Purpose Quarry Zone (SPQZ). This recommendation was provided based on the reasoning that the SEA Overlay is inconsistent with the purpose of the SPQZ; and control over vegetation removal within the SPQZ would nevertheless be retained through vegetation alteration or removal rules within Table E15.4.1, which would still apply within the SPQZ.

8.       An appeal on points of law was taken to the High Court where the parties came to an agreement that an area should be identified as an SEA, if it was assessed as significant considering ecological significance factors, irrespective of the planning consequences. As such the High Court allowed the appeal by consent, reinstated the SEA Overlay and ordered that the AUP be amended with a new restricted discretionary rule for “any vegetation alteration or removal within a quarry zone”, with matters of discretion and assessment criteria related to that rule.

9.       Brookby Quarries then appealed to the Environment Court, as it was entitled to under s156 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, supported by a notice under s274 of the RMA by Fulton Hogan Limited. The quarry operators sought a specific objective and policy framework for vegetation alteration or removal in the SPQZ that recognised the need to remove vegetation, in order to remove overburden to subsequently enable the extraction of minerals.

10.     Particularly, they sought amendments to the objectives and policies in Chapter D9, amendments to the matters of discretion in E15.8.1(3) and assessment criteria in E15.8.2(3), and consequential amendments to give effect to the matters raised in the appeal.

11.     The Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society and the Environmental Defence Society joined the appeal under s274, in opposition.

12.     Prior to a hearing scheduled in the Environment Court for early 2019, the parties sought clarification over the scope of the High Court’s consent order. In October 2019, the High Court confirmed that its consent order was intended to provide right of appeal to relevant objectives and policies as well as the activity status and assessment criteria.

13.     Issues in dispute among the parties narrowed somewhat pre-hearing. The key areas of disagreement related to the need for a separate objective and policy specifically supporting the new restricted discretionary rule and the appropriateness of the text of the objective and policy proposed by the quarry operators. The council and the quarry operators submitted that a new objective (E28.2(2)) and policy (D9.3(18)) specific to the restricted discretionary activity would be appropriate. The societies were not opposed in principle to the inclusion of a policy specific to the SEA/SPQZ but did not support the policy put forward by the quarry operators. The primary difference between the quarry operators and Auckland Council, and the position of the societies, was that the former considered there should be no policy requirement to “avoid” the removal of SEA vegetation related to mineral extraction within the SPQZ.

14.     As the owners of other quarries did not take part in the proceedings, it was determined during the appeal process that further studies undertaken, and the outcome of the appeal, should be specific to the Brookby and Drury Quarries. The provisions introduced through the High Court (discussed above at paragraph 8) will continue to apply to other quarries in the SPQZ.


 

15.     An Environment Court hearing was held in July 2020 and the decision of the court was made in August 2021. The court found in favour of the quarry operators’ proposed provisions and direct they be placed in the AUP. A copy of this Environment Court decision is included in Attachment A. including the wording of the final provisions.

16.     Some minor errors have been identified in the provisions contained in Appendix A of the Brookby Quarry Decision. These errors include direction to place two figures intended for Chapter E15 into Chapter E28, and a lack of cross referencing to these figures in the bespoke quarry provisions. A Clause 20A memo will be processed at the time that the provisions are made operative to correct these identified errors.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17.     This report deals with procedural matters – notifying additional parts of the AUP that are now operative.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     Impacts on climate change (for example the potential need to transport aggregates to Auckland from further afield if highly restrictive policies applied to SEAs in the SPQZ) were considered by the Environment Court. However, as this report is recommending a procedural step under the Resource Management Act 1991, there are no impacts on climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     The final step in making additional parts of the AUP operative is a procedural step and therefore does not have any impact on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20.     Local boards have been involved in the development of the AUP since mid-2012, however they did not present views on this specific topic. The views of local boards were not sought for this report as it addresses factual and procedural matters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21.     While there was general support from Mana Whenua for the protection of areas of ecological significance during the course of the development of the AUP, there were no specific submissions or appeals from Mana Whenua or Mataawaka on this specific topic.

22.     The final step in making additional parts of the AUP operative is a procedural step and therefore does not have any impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23.     The cost of making the AUP operative is covered by the Plans and Places department’s operational budget. There are no other financial implication for the council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24.     There are no risks associated with the recommendations made in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25.     The final step in making the decision provisions fully operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the AUP.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Brookby Quarry Appeal Decision

153

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katie Auckram - Graduate Planner North West Resource Consenting

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) - Making operative Private Plan Change 57 - Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Club

File No.: CP2021/15750

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative Private Plan Change 57 and rezone within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part):

·      a 44.8617 hectares site (57 Grange Road, Papatoetoe) from Residential - Single House zone to Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone; and

·      three sites of 34.6180 hectares (Grange Road, Papatoetoe), 0.4366 hectares (2 Grange Road) and 1.0310 hectares (69A Omana Road), from Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone and Residential - Mixed Housing Urban zone to Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone.

Whakarāpopototanga

Executive summary matua

2.       Private plan change 57 was requested by the Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Club to rezone 80.9 hectares of residentially zoned land to an Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zoning. The subject land is located at Middlemore and is the site of the Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Club course.

3.       The plan change was publicly notified on 19 November 2020. Eighteen submissions and two further submissions were received.

4.       Private Plan Change 57 was considered by two independent hearing commissioners at a hearing on 14 July 2021 and approved on 17 August 2021. The decision was publicly notified on 26 August 2021.

5.       The appeal period closed on 7 October 2021. No appeals were received and therefore the relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) can be amended and made operative as set out in the decision (included in Attachment A of the agenda report).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve Private Plan Change 57 – Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Club to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       Private plan change 57 is a privately initiated plan change by the Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Club to rezone 80.9 hectares of residentially zoned land to an Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone. The subject land is located at Middlemore and is the site of the Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Club course.

7.       The plan change was publicly notified on 19 November 2020. Eighteen submissions and two further submissions were received.

8.       Private Plan Change 57 was considered by two independent hearing commissioners at a hearing on 14 July 2021. The commissioners approved the private plan change on 17 August 2021. The decision was publicly notified on 26 August 2021.

9.       The appeal period closed on 7 October 2021. No appeals were received and therefore the relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can be amended and made operative as set out in the decision (included in Appendix A of the agenda report).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.     Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

11.     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 thePlanning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12.     As this report involves a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

13.     That having been said, while retaining a residential zoning theoretically enables increased opportunities for people to live within Auckland’s existing urban area (with associated climate benefits), this needs to be balanced against the need to provide for active recreation opportunities, and the climate mitigation opportunity an open space zoning creates for the growth of existing trees and potential planting of additional trees (with associated climate mitigation benefits). The clear intent of the applicant to continue using the land as a golf course into the foreseeable future, and the opportunity to rezone the land again if that intent changes, is also a key factor to consider in the context of the climate impacts of zoning.

14.     It is also noted that open space is more able to accommodate the overland flow paths and floodplains within the site (these have been incorporated into the golf course design) than residential development, which would likely result in the floodplain catchment and the overland flow paths being significantly impacted.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15.     Specialist advice was received from council staff within the disciplines of open space planning and noise management in regard to the private plan change and the supporting section 32 report. Auckland Transport in reviewing the application considered that any transport effects resulting from the plan change and change of zoning could be managed through the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) processes.

16.     Council specialists supported the rezoning of the plan change area to an Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17.     The views of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Boards were sought on the private plan change following the notification of the private plan change request. The Local Boards advised that they did not support the plan change for reasons relating to the loss of residentially zoned land, while at the same time there is significant demand for residential housing within these Local Board areas. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board also expressed a concern that there should be more public open space within the area.

18.     The commissioners’ decision considered the issues raised by the Local Boards.

19.     Local Board views were not sought for this report as making the plan change operative is a procedural matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     In preparing this plan change, mana whenua were advised of the proposed plan change and invited to comment. In all seventeen iwi authorities were contacted by the applicant based on a list provided by the council. Two iwi responded: Ngati Tamaoho supported the rezoning, while Te Ahiwaru Waiohua acknowledged benefits of the proposed change and did not oppose it.

21.     As noted above, it could be argued that retaining a residential zoning may provide more opportunities for housing (including housing for Māori) within the existing urban area, this needs to be considered in light of the applicant’s clear intent to continue to use the land as a golf course into the foreseeable future, and the opportunity that exists to change the zoning again in the future.

22.     All relevant iwi authorities were formally notified of the plan change as part of the public notification procedure under the Resource Management Act. There were no submissions by iwi authorities on Private Plan Change 57.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23.     There are no financial implications relevant to a decision to make the private plan change operative. Approving plan changes and amending the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

24.     That having been said, it is noted that the change in zoning from residential to open space will result in a reduction in the rates the Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Club will be charged in the future.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25.     There are no risks associated with making the private plan change operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26.     The final step in making the plan change operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

27.     Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Private Plan Change 56 operative, including the public notice and seals. The update of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is expected to occur 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Private Plan Change 57 – Decision Final

195

b

Private Plan Change 57 - Zoning map

217

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Roger Eccles - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings (including the forward work programme) – 4 November 2021

File No.: CP2021/15628

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To note the progress on the forward work programme included as Attachment A.

2.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that have been held or been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo/briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

4.       The following briefings and workshops have taken place:

Date

Briefing, Workshop

13/10/2021

Parking Strategy Review

13/10/2021

CONFIDENTIAL: Recommendations from the monitoring report into the Regional Policy Statement Built Environment Section

27/10/2021

CONFIDENTIAL: City Rail Link Maungawhau and Karangahape Development Programme

27/10/2021

Thriving Town Centres - Guidance for the urban regeneration of Eke Panuku town centre locations

5.       The following memoranda and information items have been sent:

Date

Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item

October 2021

Auckland Monthly Housing Update – October 2021

22/9/2021

Memo: Protecting sites and places of archaeological and cultural significance on Aotea/Great Barrier Island - Advice in response to the presentation from the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board to the Planning Committee on 1 July 2021

4/10/2021

Memo: Te Tauākī Kaupapa Here a te Kāwanatanga mō te Whakawhanake Whare, Tāone anō hoki Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development

6/10/2021

Memo: Infrastructure Acceleration Fund final submission

19/10/2021

Memo: Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – implications for the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

22/10/2021

Memo: Update on Auckland Council Affordable Housing Work Programme

28/10/2021

Auckland Council submission: Managing our wetlands – A discussion document on proposed changes to the wetland regulations


These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top left of the page, select meeting/Te hui “Planning Committee” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

6.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Planning Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      tuhi / note the progress on the forward work programme included as Attachment A of the agenda report.

b)      receive the Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 4 November 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Planning Committee forward work programme

223

b

Auckland Monthly Housing Update – October 2021 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Memo: Protecting sites and places of archaeological and cultural significance on Aotea/Great Barrier Island (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Memo: Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Memo: Infrastructure Acceleration Fund final submission (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Memo: Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – implications for the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Memo: Update on Auckland Council Affordable Housing Work Programme

235

h

Auckland Council submission: Managing our wetlands – A discussion document on proposed changes to the wetland regulations (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kalinda Iswar - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 



Planning Committee

04 November 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

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 the remainder of 2021 and into 2022.

The 2022 work programme includes workshops in February and March with a report due in March 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill

Chief Planning Office

On 26 October 2021, the Government introduced a Bill that proposes amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 to bring forward and make more directive certain aspects of the NPS UD.

Initial Decision required - delegation to approve council’s submission on the Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 sent November 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advocacy Plan

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

 

Progress to date:

Update memo sent November 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 sent November 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 December 2021. Report due February 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: strategic direction and delegation to approve discussion document

 

Progress to date: Confidential workshops held June and October 2021.

Report for 4 November Planning Committee meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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/2021/108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Briefings to be confirmed

Ministry of Education – development programme for Auckland

Chief Planning Office

A briefing is being explored. The committee is interested in hearing from the Ministry of Education on its plans for schools long term, and the current issues and challenges it faces. Including how legislative change affects schools particularly and the impacts of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

No decision or direction required from the committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee

04 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



[1] Housing Assessment for the Auckland Region (July 2021) – Auckland Council https://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publications/housing-assessment-for-the-auckland-region-national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-2020/

[2] https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/waste-strategy-and-legislation-consultation-document-.pdf