Agenda of Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - Tuesday, 15 February 2022

1 Welcome

The meeting was opened with a karakia

Whakataka te hau ki te uru

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga

Kia mākinakina ki uta

Kia mātaratara ki tai

E hī ake ana te atakura

He tio

He huka

He hau hū

Tīhei mauri ora!

Cease o winds from the west

Cease o winds from the south

Bring calm breezes over the land

Bring calm breezes over the sea

And let the red-tipped dawn come

With a touch of frost

A sharpened air

And promise of a glorious day

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i.A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member

ii.A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Local Area Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 14 December 2021, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

Under Standing Order 3.11.1 a Notice of Motion has been received from Chairperson Ruth Jackson for consideration under item 12.

No.	Title	Page
a	Notice of Motion - Chairperson Ruth Jackson - COMPLIANCE AND BYLAW ENFORCEMENT	11

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00108

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, staff have summarised the feedback.

3. The proposal helps to help protect sensitive areas, public health and safety and access to public places from harms caused by freedom camping in vehicles by:

· prohibiting or restricting freedom camping in certain areas of Auckland

· providing for freedom camping to be temporarily prohibited or restricted in a specific area

· providing for temporary changes to restrictions that apply in a specific area.

4. Council received feedback from 1,617 individuals and organisations to the Have Your Say consultation and from 1,914 individuals to a research survey. This included 50 Have Your Say feedback and 113 research survey respondents from the Local Board area.

5. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted.
Proposal 2	Set four general rules, which would require freedom campers staying in these areas to:
Proposal 2.1	Use a certified self-contained vehicle
Proposal 2.2	Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area
Proposal 2.3	Depart by 9am on the third day
Proposal 2.4	Not return to the same road or off-road parking area within two weeks.
Proposal 3	Schedule 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping would be allowed.
Proposal 4	Schedule 22 restricted areas, where freedom camping would be allowed subject to conditions.
Other	Suggestions for additional prohibited or restricted areas.
Themes	Summary of key comment themes.

6. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel and Governing Body to decide whether to adopt, amend or reject the proposal.

7. There is a reputational risk that Have Your Say feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations and does not reflect the views of the whole community, particularly as Auckland was under Covid-19 restrictions during consultation. This risk is mitigated by the research survey of a representative sample of Aucklanders and by providing a summary of all public feedback.

8. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 29 April and 6 May 2022. The Governing Body will make a final decision in June 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive public feedback on the proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 in this agenda report.

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation (a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations.

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in (b) to the Bylaw Panel on 22 April 2022.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in (c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel.

Horopaki

Context

Bylaw regulates freedom camping in public places

9. Auckland’s current Legacy Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 is a consolidation of pre-2010 legacy bylaw provisions developed before the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was passed.

10. A new bylaw must be made that aligns with the national legislation before the current bylaw expires on 29 October 2022 to avoid a regulatory gap.

Council proposed a new bylaw for public feedback

11. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 in August 2017 which determined that a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw is an appropriate way to manage freedom camping in Auckland.

12. In March 2021 the Governing Body gave staff new direction to inform development of a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw for Auckland. This decision followed consideration of possible elements to replace an earlier proposal developed in 2018, which was set aside by the Governing Body in August 2019.

13. On 23 September 2021, the Governing Body adopted for public consultation a proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 (GB/2021/112).

14. The proposal helps to help protect sensitive areas, public health and safety and access to public places from harms caused by freedom camping, by:

· excluding land held under the Reserves Act 1977 from scope (council would maintain the current default prohibition on camping on reserves under the Reserves Act 1977, although local boards can choose to allow camping on some reserves by following processes set out in that Act)

· managing freedom camping only on land held under the Local Government Act 2002

· seeking to prevent freedom camping impacts in sensitive areas, and protecting public health and safety and managing access in all areas, by:

o scheduling 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping is allowed

o scheduling 22 restricted areas, where freedom camping is allowed subject to site-specific restrictions

o including general rules to manage freedom camping impacts in all other areas (campers must use certified self-contained vehicles, stay a maximum of two nights, depart by 9am and not return to the same area within two weeks).

15. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 26 October until 5 December 2021.

16. Council received feedback from 1,571 individuals and 46 organisations (1,617 in total) provided via the Have Your Say webpage, by email and at virtual events.

17. Feedback was also received from 1,914 respondents to an external research survey of a representative sample of Aucklanders.

The local board has an opportunity to provide views on public feedback

18. The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

19. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 22 April 2022.

20. The nature of the local board views are at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

· indicate support for matters raised in public feedback by people from the local board area

· recommend how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area compared to Auckland-wide feedback

21. A total of 50 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 113 research survey respondents (RS) from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal:

· for Proposal One there was majority support, similar to the level of support in overall feedback

· for Proposal Two there was majority support for two general rules and support for an alternative departure time and no-return period rule from HYS respondents

· for Proposal Three there was majority support from HYS respondents for the proposed prohibited areas in the local board area (there are no proposed restricted areas in the local board area for Proposal Four).

General rule feedback (Proposals 1 and 2)

Proposal

Local board feedback

Auckland-wide feedback

1: Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted

65 per cent HYS support

93 per cent RS support

55 per cent HYS support

90 per cent RS support

2: Set four general rules, which would require freedom campers staying in these areas to:

2.1: Use a certified self-contained vehicle

55 per cent HYS support

· 32 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’

85 per cent RS support

68 per cent HYS support

· 13 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’

76 per cent RS support

2.2: Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area

43 per cent support

· 36 per cent preferred 1 night

78 per cent RS support

39 per cent support

· 32 per cent preferred 1 night

70 per cent RS support

2.3: Depart by 9am on the third day

25 per cent support

· 25 per cent preferred 10am

· 40 per cent preferred 8am

55 per cent RS support

28 per cent support

· 24 per cent preferred 10am

· 23 per cent preferred 8am

52 per cent RS support

2.4: Not return to the same road or off-road parking area within two weeks

35 per cent support

· 45 per cent preferred 4 weeks

53 per cent RS support

40 per cent support

· 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks

55 per cent RS support

Site-specific feedback (Proposals 3 and 4)

Proposal	Local board feedback (n=19)^{^[1]}	Auckland-wide feedback
3: Schedule 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping would be allowed	· Queens Parade: 14 support, 3 oppose · Becroft Park Reserve: 12 support, 4 oppose	Majority support for prohibition at 11 areas^{^[2]} Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas
4: Schedule 22 restricted areas, where freedom camping would be allowed subject to conditions.	· Note: there are no proposed restricted areas in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area · Three people commented on restricted areas outside your local board area^{^[3]}	Majority support for restrictions at one area^{^[4]} Majority opposition for restrictions at 21 areas

Proposal

Local board feedback (n=19)^{^[1]}

Auckland-wide feedback

3: Schedule 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping would be allowed

· Queens Parade: 14 support, 3 oppose

· Becroft Park Reserve: 12 support, 4 oppose

Majority support for prohibition at 11 areas^{^[2]}

Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas

4: Schedule 22 restricted areas, where freedom camping would be allowed subject to conditions.

· Note: there are no proposed restricted areas in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area

· Three people commented on restricted areas outside your local board area^{^[3]}

Majority support for restrictions at one area^{^[4]}

Majority opposition for restrictions at 21 areas

22. Key themes from local feedback are consistent with regional feedback. For example, that:

· many respondents are fundamentally opposed to freedom camping

· the proposed rules are not restrictive enough of freedom camping

· respondents are concerned with enforcement of the bylaw and other implementation matters.

23. The proposal can be viewed in the link. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A and a copy of all local board Have Your Say feedback is in Attachment B.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

24. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 22 April 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. Staff note that this is a regulatory process to manage existing activities enabled by central government policy. It is not causing these activities to occur or affecting the likelihood that they will occur. The decision sought in this report therefore has no specific climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations, including Licensing and Regulatory Compliance, Parks, Sport and Recreation and Auckland Transport.

27. The Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their primary role in implementing and managing compliance with the Bylaw.

28. Council’s 86 park rangers help to manage compliance with council Bylaws, the Reserves Act 1977 and the Litter Act 1974 by carrying out education and monitoring on parks and reserves. However, rangers are not currently being warranted or renewing warrants, and Licensing and Regulatory Compliance will continue to carry out any enforcement required.

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

29. Concern about council’s ability to effectively implement the Bylaw and manage compliance within existing resources was a key theme of public and local board feedback in 2019. This issue remains in 2021 with most local boards (16 out of 21) raising it in response to the draft proposal, and is a key theme from Have Your Say consultation on the proposal.

30. In March 2021 the Governing Body requested advice about costed options for increasing the service levels for compliance associated with this Bylaw. Costings for these options were provided to the Governing Body in September 2021, for consideration during future Long-term Plan and Annual Plan cycles. The options included costings for:

· enhancement of council’s information technology systems, to enable the implementation of the new infringement notice regime

· use of contracted security services, to increase responsiveness to complaints (similar to the current arrangements for Noise Control), or for additional proactive monitoring at seasonal ‘hotspots’

· purchase of mobile printers, to enable infringement notices to be affixed to vehicles in breach of the Bylaw at the time of the offence

· camera surveillance technology to enable remote monitoring of known or emerging hotspots, for evidence-gathering purposes and/or to support real-time enforcement.

31. Local boards were advised in August 2021 that they can request further advice from Licensing and Regulatory Compliance if they wish to consider allocating local budget for enhanced local compliance activities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32. The proposed Bylaw impacts on local boards’ governance role as it affects decision making over local assets, particularly parks and other council-controlled public places. There is also high community interest in freedom camping regulation in many local board areas.

33. Local boards provided formal feedback on the 2018 draft proposal to the Bylaw Panel in 2019, following on from their early feedback given during engagement in 2017, and site-specific feedback provided in 2018. This feedback supported the Governing Body decision to set aside the 2018 proposal to which this new proposal responds.

34. Three local board representatives participated in a joint political working group on 21 May 2021 to provide views on options for including general rules in the Bylaw. The working group unanimously supported the inclusion of general rules in the Bylaw, and five out of six members supported the recommended settings included in the proposal. A summary of the working group’s views was reported to the Governing Body on 27 May 2021.

35. In August 2021 staff sought local board views on a draft proposal for public consultation. The draft proposal was supported by 11 local boards with eight noting concerns or requesting changes, partly supported by six local boards noting concerns or requesting changes, and not supported by three local boards.

36. A summary of local board views of the proposal can be viewed in the link to the 23 September 2021 Governing Body agenda, page 257 (Attachment B to Item 13).

37. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, before a final decision is made

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. The Bylaw has relevance to Māori as kaitiaki of Papatūānuku. The proposal supports two key directions in the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau:

· wairuatanga (promoting distinctive identity), in relation to valuing and protecting Māori heritage and Taonga Māori

· kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures), in relation to environmental protection.

39. The proposal also supports the Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance by ensuring that sites of significance to Māori are identified and protected from freedom camping harms.

40. Mana whenua and mataawaka were invited to provide feedback during the development of the 2018 proposal via dedicated hui and again through the public consultation process.

41. Feedback received on specific prohibited and restricted areas identified in the 2018 proposal was incorporated into the deliberations. This included the identification of sites of significance to Māori, such as wahi tapu areas.

42. General matters raised by Māori during past engagement included the need to ensure:

· the ability to add further sites of significance to the bylaw as these are designated

· provision for temporary bans on freedom camping, including in areas under a rahui

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

· clear communication of the rules in the bylaw and at freedom camping sites.

43. The proposal addresses these matters by proposing to prohibit freedom camping at sites of significance to Māori (such as Maraetai Foreshore and Onetangi Cemetery), provision in the Bylaw for temporary bans, and confirming council’s commitment to a compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness.

44. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide any additional feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person. No additional feedback was received from iwi and mataawaka organisations.

45. Eight per cent of people who provided feedback via the Have Your Say consultation and eight percent of research survey respondents identified as Māori.

46. The Have Your Say consultation identified that Māori had similar support for the use of general rules in principle, have similar mixed support on the four specific general rules and similar opposition to the specific restricted and prohibited sites compared to non-Māori.

47. The research survey identified that Māori had similar support for general rules and feel more strongly about the benefits and problems of freedom camping compared to non-Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure and Bylaw implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The following risks have been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by the research survey of a representative sample of Aucklanders and by providing a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. On 22 April 2022 local boards may present their formal views to the Bylaw Panel. On 29 April and 6 May 2022 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in June 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of all public feedback to proposed new Freedom Camping Bylaw	25
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area	221

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Bayllee Vyle - Policy Advisor

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

PDF Creator

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

PDF Creator

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/00508

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend the Auckland Council Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw, staff have prepared feedback summary and deliberation reports.

3. The proposal seeks to improve the current Bylaw by removing unnecessary rules about lighting, removing expired legacy council bylaws and updating the definitions, structure, format and wording of the Bylaw.

4. Council received responses from 30 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 5 December 2021. All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as following:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	Remove reference to lighting rules regulated in the Auckland Unitary Plan since November 2016
Proposal 2	Remove reference to expired legacy bylaws
Proposal 3	Update the definitions, structure, format and wording of the Bylaw
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters

5. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel and Governing Body to decide whether to adopt the proposal.

6. There is a reputational risk that the feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and does not reflect the views of the whole community. This report mitigates this risk by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 28 April 2022. The Governing Body will make a final decision in April 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback on the proposal to amend Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 in this report.

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation clause a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations.

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in clause b) to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in clause c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel.

Horopaki

Context

The Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw enables council to minimise public health risk and nuisance on private property

8. The Auckland Council Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw) seeks to minimise public health risks and nuisance by setting out:

· general rules about property maintenance (overgrown vegetation, deposited materials, abandoned buildings and feeding of wild animals)

· obligations for owners of industrial cooling water tower systems.

9. The rules are enforced by the Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit using a graduated compliance model (information, education and enforcement).

10. The Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework. The Bylaw does not seek to duplicate or be inconsistent with this framework which includes rules about:

· regulating vegetation on private property that can cause a danger or obstruct views in the Property Law Act 2007

· regulating litter on private property and allows for its removal based on visual amenity in the Litter Act 1979

· regulating antisocial behaviour by people entering abandoned buildings on private property in the Summary of Offences Act 1981

· regulating mechanical cooling tower systems associated with air conditioning or ventilation in the Building Act 2004.

Council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

11. On 23 September 2021, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to improve the Bylaw for public consultation (Item 16, GB/2021/117).

12. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Bylaw (see figure below).

13. The proposal seeks to minimise public health risks and nuisance on private property by:

· removing unnecessary rules about lighting as this has been regulate through the Auckland Unitary Plan since November 2016

· removing legacy council bylaws which have expired

· updating the definitions, structure, format and wording of the Bylaw and controls to make them easier to read and understand.

14. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 26 October until 5 December 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 30 people.

Process to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

Diagram

Description automatically generated

The local board has an opportunity to provide views on public feedback

15. The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

16. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

17. The nature of the local board views are at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

· indicate support for matters raised in public feedback by people from the local board area

· recommend how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

18. One person from the local board area provided feedback in support of proposal three. This is similar with the Auckland-wide feedback

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
Proposal 1: Remove the lighting rules as these are now regulated through the Auckland Unitary Plan	100 per cent ‘I don’t know’	70 per cent support 13 per cent oppose 7 per cent ‘other’ 10 per cent ‘I don’t know’
Proposal 2: Remove references to the revocation of legacy council bylaw	100 per cent ‘I don’t know’	88 per cent support 8 per cent oppose 1 per cent ‘other’ 0 per cent ‘I don’t know’
Proposal 3: Update the Bylaw definitions, structure, format, and wording	100 per cent support	86 per cent support 7 per cent opposed 7 per cent ‘other’ 10 per cent ‘I don’t know’

19. The full proposal can be viewed in the link. Attachment A of this report contains a draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report which includes a summary of all public feedback. Attachment B contains a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

20. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. Council considered climate impacts as part of the bylaw review and proposal process. The Bylaw and proposed amendments do not create a direct climate impact, but climate change may affect the problems regulated by the Bylaw. In particular, past and future expected higher average temperatures may worsen Auckland’s pest problem and exacerbate the growth of legionella bacteria.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. The proposal impacts council’s Licensing and Regulatory Compliance team who implement the Bylaw. The unit is aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. Under the agreed principles and processes for Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest and no impact on local governance for local boards. The Bylaw regulates activities on private property and has received low levels of public feedback.

24. Interested local boards have an opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution to the Bylaw Panel in February 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. The proposal supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025 in terms of kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures), in relation to environmental protection.

26. The Bylaw aims to provide some protection to public space from pests. However, two hui with Māori and a literature review of key documents did not identify specific or additional impacts on Māori outside of the defined problem. The health and nuisance issues which are the subject of the proposed amendments to the Bylaw are not identified in the Board’s ‘Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025'.

27. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person.

28. Two people identifying as Māori provided feedback. One person supported Proposals One, Two and Three, which is consistent with the Auckland-wide feedback. The other person only provided feedback in opposition to Proposal Two.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The cost of the Bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing budgets. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure and Bylaw implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. On 25 March 2022 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in April 2022 (refer to the ‘Process to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015’ diagram in Context).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report	513
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Devonport Takapuna Local Board area	529

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00449

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposed new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw and associated controls, staff have prepared a summary of feedback.

3. The proposal seeks to better manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, the Auckland transport system and environment.

4. Council received responses from 106 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 27 October 2021. All feedback is summarised by the following topics:

· Proposal 1: Banners	· Proposal 10: Verandah signs
· Proposal 2A: Election signs (9-week display)	· Proposal 11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)
· Proposal 2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks, reserves, Open Space Zones)	· Proposal 11B: Wall-mounted signs
· Proposal 2C: Election signs	· Proposal 12: Window signs
· Proposal 3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	· Proposal 13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones
· Proposal 3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	· Proposal 13B: Open Space Zones
· Proposal 3C: Event signs	· Proposal 13C: Commercial sexual services
· Proposal 4: Free-standing signs	· Proposal 14A: General (safety and traffic)
· Proposal 5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)	· Proposal 14B: General (tops of buildings)
· Proposal 5B: Portable signs	· Proposal 14C: General (illuminated signs)
· Proposal 6: Posters	· Proposal 14D: General (business that cease trading)
· Proposal 7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	· Proposal 15: Controls and approvals
· Proposal 7B: Real estate signs	· Proposal 16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings
· Proposal 8: Stencil signs	· Other feedback
· Proposal 9: Vehicle signs

5. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel in making recommendations to the Governing Body and Board of Auckland Transport about whether to adopt the proposal.

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal on 28 March 2022, and deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body in April 2022. The Governing Body and the Board of Auckland Transport will make final decisions in April and May 2022 respectively.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback on the proposal to make a new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls in this agenda report.

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation clause a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations.

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in clause b) to the Bylaw Panel on 28 March 2022.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in clause c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 28 March 2022.

Horopaki

Context

Two bylaws currently regulate most signs in Auckland

8. Two bylaws currently regulate most signs in Auckland:

· The Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2015 / Signage Bylaw 2015 and associated controls

· Te Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu Pānui Pōti a Auckland Transport 2013 / the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

9. The Signage Bylaw minimises risks to public safety, prevents nuisance and misuse of council controlled public places, and protects the environment from negative sign impacts.

10. The Election Signs Bylaw addresses public safety and amenity concerns from the negative impacts of election signs.

11. The rules are enforced by Auckland Council’s Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit using a graduated compliance model (information, education and enforcement).

12. The two bylaws and controls are part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the:

· Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part for billboards and comprehensive development signage

· Auckland Council District Plan – Hauraki Gulf Islands Section for signs on, in or over a scheduled item or its scheduled site on the Hauraki Gulf islands

· Electoral Act 1993, Local Electoral Act 2001 and Electoral (Advertisements of a Specified Kind) Regulations 2005 for elections

· Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices and New Zealand Transport Agency (Signs on State Highways) Bylaw 2010 for transport-related purposes

· New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority codes and the Human Rights Act 1993 for the content of signs

· Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 and Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 for signs and structures in public places such as for events.

13. The Signage Bylaw 2015 will expire on 28 May 2022 and council must make a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

Council and Auckland Transport proposed a new bylaw for public feedback

14. On 26 August 2021, the Governing Body and Board of Auckland Transport adopted a proposal to make a new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls for public consultation (GB/2021/103; Board of Auckland Transport decision 26 August 2021, Item 10).

15. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Signage Bylaw 2015 (see figure below).

Calendar

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

16. The proposal seeks to better manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, the Auckland transport system and environment. Major proposals in comparison to the current bylaws are:

· to make a new bylaw and associated controls that combines and revokes the current Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013

· in relation to elections signs, to:

o enable election signs on places not otherwise allowed up to nine weeks prior to an election

o clarify that election signs on private property must not be primarily directed at a park, reserve, or Open Space Zone

o remove the ability to display election signs related to Entrust

· in relation to event signs:

o allowing event signs on the same roadside sites as election signs

o clarifying that community event signs on community-related sites may only be displayed if a not-for-profit provides the event

o enabling signs for temporary sales

· increase the current portable sign prohibited area to cover the entire City Centre Zone

· increase the maximum flat wall-mounted sign area in the Heavy Industry Zone to 6m²

· add rules about signs that advertise the temporary sale of goods

· retain the intent of the current bylaws (unless stated) while increasing certainty and reflecting current practice. For example, to clarify that:

o signs on boundary fences with an Open Space Zone require council approval

o the placement of directional real estate signs applies to the ‘three nearest intersections’

o changeable messages relate to transitions between static images

o LED signs must comply with the relevant luminance standards

o there is a limit of one commercial sexual services sign per premises

· using a bylaw structure, format and wording more aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan and current council drafting standards.

17. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 22 September until 27 October 2021. Council received feedback from 76 people and 30 organisations (106 in total).

The local board has an opportunity to provide views on public feedback

18. The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

19. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 28 March 2022.

20. The nature of the local board views are at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

· indicate support for matters raised in public feedback by people from the local board area

· recommend how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. A total of three people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal.

22. There was majority support for Proposals 1, 2B, 3B, 3C, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 9, 10, 11A, 11B, 13A, 13C, 14A, 14B, 14C, 15 and 16, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 3A and 14D and majority opposition for Proposals 2A and 2C. Opinions about the remaining proposals were mixed, with no clear majority of respondents in support or opposition.

23. In contrast, there was majority support for all proposals (except Proposals 9 and 13A) from all people who provided feedback Auckland-wide.

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board feedback		Auckland-wide feedback
Topic	Support	Opposition	Support	Opposition
P1: Banners	100 per cent	0 per cent	73 per cent	22 per cent
P2A: Election signs (9-week display)	0 per cent	100 per cent	53 per cent	36 per cent
P2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks or reserves, or at an Open Space Zone)	100 per cent	0 per cent	63 per cent	35 per cent
P2C: Election signs	0 per cent	100 per cent	67 per cent	21 per cent
P3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	50 per cent	50 per cent	54 per cent	34 per cent
P3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	100 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	27 per cent
P3C: Event signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	78 per cent	7 per cent
P4: Free-standing signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	66 per cent	14 per cent
P5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)	100 per cent	0 per cent	65 per cent	20 per cent
P5B: Portable signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P6: Posters	100 per cent	0 per cent	76 per cent	16 per cent
P7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	100 per cent	0 per cent	56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	40 per cent	43 per cent
P10: Verandah signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	54 per cent	18 per cent
P11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	67 per cent	0 per cent	60 per cent	24 per cent
P11B: Wall-mounted signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	24 per cent
P12: Window signs	0 per cent	0 per cent	69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones	100 per cent	0 per cent	48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones	0 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	21 per cent
P13C: Commercial sexual services	100 per cent	0 per cent	73 per cent	20 per cent
P14A: General (safety and traffic)	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	13 per cent
P14B: General (tops of buildings)	100 per cent	0 per cent	79 per cent	18 per cent
P14C: General (illuminated signs)	100 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P14D: General (business that cease trading)	50 per cent	50 per cent	58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals	100 per cent	0 per cent	52 per cent	24 per cent
P16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings	100 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	7 per cent

Note: Above percentages may not add to 100 per cent because they exclude ‘don’t know’ / ‘other’ responses.

24. Key themes from the Auckland-wide feedback highlighted issues with illuminated signs (Proposal 14C), general rules for event signs (Proposal 3C), portable signs (Proposal 5B) and posters (Proposal 6), and the rules for commercial sexual service signs (Proposal 13C).

25. The proposal can be viewed in the link. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A and a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area is in Attachment B.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

26. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 28 March 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. Council considered climate impacts as part of the Bylaw review and proposal process. The use of signage in Auckland has minor climate implications.

28. The proposal continues to support climate change adaptation, for example by requiring signs to be secured and not able to be displaced under poor or adverse weather conditions.

29. The proposal has a similar climate impact as the current bylaws, for example illuminated signs may have a minor impact on emissions. The Bylaw however is limited in its ability to regulate for sustainability purposes. The Bylaw must be reviewed in 5 years and committee has resolved to investigate redistributing sign rules between the Bylaw and the Auckland Unitary Plan as part of the Plan’s next review (REG/2020/66) at which time illumination and sustainability issues could be examined.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The proposal has been developed jointly with Auckland Transport.

31. The proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations. This includes Auckland Council’s Licencing and Regulatory Compliance Unit and Parks, Sports and Recreation Department, and Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Transport.

32. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. The Bylaw is important to local boards due to its impact on local governance. For example, it regulates signs about community events and signs on local facilities and parks.

34. Local board views were sought on a draft proposal in July 2021. The draft was supported in full by four local boards, 16 suggested changes and one deferred a decision. A summary of local board views and changes made to the draft proposal can be viewed in the 17 August 2021 Regulatory Committee agenda (Attachment B to Item 10).

35. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. The proposal supports the key directions of rangatiratanga and manaakitanga under the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025, and the Auckland Plan 2050’s Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome by:

· balancing Māori rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to exercise their tikanga and rangatiratanga across their whenua with the council’s and Auckland Transport’s obligations to ensure public safety^{^[5]}

· supporting Māori who want to make their businesses uniquely identifiable and visible

· enabling Māori to benefit from signs to promote and participate in community activities and events, share ideas and views, and engage in elections

· protecting Māori and Tāmaki Makaurau’s built and natural environments from the potential harms that signs can cause.

37. The Issues of Significance also contains key directions for council-controlled organisations to integrate Māori culture and te reo Māori expression into signage. The council group are implementing policies to support the use of te reo Māori in council infrastructure and signs. The proposal, however, does not require the use of te reo Māori on signs as there is no central government legislation that gives the council or Auckland Transport the appropriate bylaw-making powers for this purpose.

38. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person.

39. Five individuals identifying as Māori (6 per cent of submitters) provided feedback.

40. There was majority support for Proposals 3A, 3C, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, 7B, 8, 11B, 12, 14A, 14B, 15 and 16, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 1, 2A, 3B, 7A, 11A, 13A, 13B and 14C, and majority opposition to Proposals 2B, 9, 13C and 14D. Opinions about the remaining proposals were mixed, with no clear majority of respondents in support or opposition.

41. In contrast, there was majority support for all proposals except for Proposals 9 and 13A from all people who provided feedback Auckland-wide.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure and Bylaw implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. On 28 March 2022 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body and the Auckland Transport Board in April 2022. The Governing Body and the Auckland Transport Board will make a final decision in April and May 2022 respectively.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of all public feedback	541
b ⇩	Copy of local feedback from the local board area	601

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend Stormwater Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/01107

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015 / Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015, staff have prepared feedback summary and deliberation reports.

3. The proposal helps protect the stormwater network from damage, misuse, interference and nuisance by requiring approvals for vesting of new stormwater assets, and ensuring effective maintenance and operation of private stormwater systems.

4. Auckland Council received responses from 79 people and organisations.^{^[6]} All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Main proposals to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015

Topic	Description
Proposal One	Controls on public stormwater network and private stormwater systems.
Proposal Two	Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals.
Proposal Three	Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points.
Proposal Four	Restricting or excluding activities for parts of the stormwater network.
Proposal Five	Updating the bylaw wording, format, and definitions.
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters.

5. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel and the Governing Body to decide whether to adopt the proposal.

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 4 April 2022. The Governing Body will make a final decision on 28 April 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback on the proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015 / Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 in this report

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation (a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 4 April 2022

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 4 April 2022.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

8. The Governing Body adopted Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā, Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 on 30 July 2015 (GB/2015/78), which replaced the operative and draft bylaws from the previous legacy councils.

9. The Bylaw seeks to regulate land drainage through the management of private stormwater systems and protection of public stormwater networks from damage, misuse, interference and nuisance.

The Bylaw is part of a wider regulatory framework

10. The Bylaw is part of a suite of regulatory tools used to manage stormwater and land drainage throughout the Auckland region, including the Resource Management Act 1991, Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government Act 1974.

11. The Bylaw is supported by operational guidelines and processes such as Engineering Plan Approvals. The council grants the approvals to developers for new private connections to the public stormwater network and vesting of public stormwater network for new developments.

12. Various Auckland Council teams such as Healthy Waters, Regulatory Compliance, and Regulatory Engineering work collaboratively to implement and enforce the Bylaw.

The council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

13. On 26 August 2021, the Governing Body adopted the proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015 / Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw) for public consultation (GB/2021/102).

14. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Stormwater Bylaw 2015 by the Regulatory Committee in 2020 (REG/2020/43). Figure 1 describes the process for the statutory review and the proposal to amend the Bylaw.

15. The proposal seeks to better protect the stormwater network from damage, misuse, interference and nuisance, by:

· specifying controls, codes of practice or guidelines for managing the public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

· considering additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals under the Bylaw

· requiring approvals for modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points into the stormwater network

· restricting or excluding certain activities for parts of the stormwater network

· updating Bylaw wording, format, and definitions.

16. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 22 September to 27 October 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 61 individuals and 18 organisations.

Diagram, timeline

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Process for the statutory review and the proposal to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015

The local board has an opportunity to provide views on public feedback

17. The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

18. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 4 April 2022.

19. The nature of the local board views are at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

· indicate support for matters raised in public feedback by people and organisations from their local board area

· recommend how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

20. Seven people from the local board area provided feedback summarised in the table below.

Table 2. Support of proposal in the local board area

Proposal	Local Board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Controls on public stormwater network and private stormwater systems.	71 per cent support	60 per cent support
2: Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals	29 per cent support	47 per cent support
3: Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points	100 per cent support	64 per cent support
4: Restricting or excluding activities for parts of the stormwater network	71 per cent support	48 per cent support
5: Updating the bylaw wording, format, and definitions	57 per cent support	73 per cent support

21. The full proposal can be viewed in the link. Attachment A of this report contains a draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report. Attachment B of this report contains a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

22. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 4 April 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. Effective stormwater management enhances Auckland’s response to climate change through resilience and adaptation to increased extreme weather events by regulating land drainage. Carbon emissions from constructed infrastructure can also contribute to climate change.

24. The proposal enables the council to help meet its climate change goals and align the amended Bylaw with the Built Environment priority of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

25. Feedback was received in relation to the latest version of the Stormwater Code of Practice, seeking to incorporate the sea rise levels based on the climate change scenario identified in the Auckland Climate Plan. This feedback has been forwarded to the relevant council units for consideration.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The Bylaw impacts the operations of Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters teams as well as teams involved in the regulation, compliance and enforcement of stormwater such as the Regulatory Engineering and Regulatory Compliance. Impacted departments have been consulted with and are aware of the proposals.

27. Healthy Waters staff have also worked closely with Watercare to ensure the amended Bylaw is consistent with the recently updated Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015.

28. Auckland Transport has also submitted its formal feedback on the proposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Under the agreed principles and processes for local board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest. It is also considered to be of no impact on local governance for local boards.^{^[7]}

30. Interested local boards have an opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution to the Bylaw Panel in February 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. The proposal supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025 key direction of Manaakitanga – Improve Quality of Life by managing land drainage.

32. Mana whenua were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through online meetings, in writing via email, or through the online form.

33. The majority of submitters who identified as Māori supported Proposals One, Three, Four and Five. There was an even split between those who supported and opposed Proposal Two.

34. Some concerns were raised about Māori customary fishing rights when access to parts of the stormwater network is restricted. Any restrictions for health and safety reasons would be considered on a case-by-case basis with due consideration given to factors including access for cultural reasons. Further explanation on this matter is contained in the deliberations for Proposal Four.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. There are no financial implications for the council arising from decisions sought in this report. The cost of reviewing the Bylaw and its implementation will be met within existing budgets.

36. Public feedback raised concerns regarding the financial cost of implementing the latest version of the Stormwater Code of Practice incorporating the sea rise levels based on the climate change scenario identified in the Auckland Climate Plan. This feedback (Attachment F of the draft Bylaw Panel report) has been forwarded to the relevant council units for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. The following risk has been identified, shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Risks and mitigations relating to local board consideration of public feedback to the proposal

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. On 4 April 2022 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body.

39. The Governing Body will make a final decision on 28 April 2022 (refer to the ‘Process to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015’ diagram in the Context section of this report).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report	649
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area	775

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dean Yee – Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Local board views on plan change to amend Historic Heritage Schedule

File No.: CP2022/00172

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a plan change by Auckland Council to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan Chapter L, Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision makers on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local board views’ on the plan change if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.

4. Auckland Council’s plan change arises from the review of 91 historic heritage places in the Unitary Plan that are currently identified as Category A*. The plan change proposes to amend the category of these places and update other information about their heritage values, where appropriate.

5. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on the council’s plan change. Staff do not provide recommendations on what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) provide local board views on council’s proposed change to the Auckland Unitary Plan to amend Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statement and Maps for 91 Category A* historic heritage places in Auckland.

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on the plan change to enable council’s amendments to 91 Category A* historic heritage places

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

Horopaki

Context

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

7. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the plan change, along with submissions.

8. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the plan change request.

9. This report provides an overview of the plan change.

10. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey. The planner must include any local board views in the evaluation of the plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

11. The plan change amends the category status for 91 Category A* historic heritage places, following the re-evaluation of these places. The plan change also updates information in the Auckland Unitary Plan for the historic heritage places.

12. Historic heritage places in the Auckland Unitary Plan are identified in one of four categories: A, A*, B and historic heritage area:

· Category A: historic heritage places of outstanding significance well beyond their immediate environs

· Category A*: places identified in previous district plans which are yet to be evaluated and assessed for their significance

· Category B: places of considerable value to a locality or beyond

· Historic heritage areas: groupings of interrelated historic heritage places and features.

13. The Unitary Plan states that Category A* is an interim category until a comprehensive re-evaluation of these places is undertaken and their category status is addressed through a plan change process.

14. There are 56 historic Category A* historic heritage places and one Category A historic heritage place in the plan change is within the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area. A list of these places is included as Attachment A.

15. Attachment A identifies the proposed amendments in the plan change for the historic heritage places in Devonport-Takapuna. In summary:

· 13 historic heritage places are proposed to be Category A.

· 33 historic heritage places are proposed to be Category B.

· Seven historic heritage places are proposed to be deleted where the re-evaluation of these places showed that their historic heritage values do not meet the criteria and thresholds in the Regional Policy Statement section of the Auckland Unitary Plan to be eligible for inclusion in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage.

· Several historic heritage places are proposed to be merged where their values are shared with other places:

o Red Bluff/Castor Bay Battery recreation hut (former) (ID 02686) is proposed to be merged with Castor Bay Battery complex (ID 01060), as it is part of the complex.

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

16. The purpose of the plan change is to update the category status for 91 Category A* historic heritage places and to ensure the information in the Unitary Plan is accurate and reflects the historic heritage values of each place.

17. Outdated or incorrect information about Category A* historic heritage places in the Unitary Plan may result in the loss of significant historic heritage values or lead costs being unnecessarily imposed on landowners and the council.

18. The notified plan change and section 32 document providing the rationale for the council plan change are available on the council’s website following notification, at:

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/proposed-plan-changes/Pages/default.aspx

19. Public submissions will be loaded onto the council’s website once the notification period has closed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. Other parts of the council group have provided input into the plan change, including Auckland Transport and Eke Panuku.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. This plan change affects four local boards: Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Kaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna.

23. The plan change includes 56 Category A* historic heritage places and one Category A historic heritage place in Devonport-Takapuna.

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

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

25. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker will consider the local board views, if provided, when deciding on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, the well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

27. The council has initiated consultation with all iwi authorities in the Auckland region.

28. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 which requires that all persons exercising functions under that act shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The cost of the preparation of a plan change is provided for in the Plans and Places department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the plan change, if it doesn’t pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for Devonport-Takapuna Local Board to express its views and preferences

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

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

32. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual board member(s). This report enables the whole board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. The planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

34. The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the plan change request by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Devonport Takapuna	795

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00461

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the Auckland Water Strategy framework before it is recommended for adoption by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Water Strategy sets a vision for Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s waters and provides strategic direction for investment and action across the Auckland Council group.

3. The vision of the Water Strategy is: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced.

4. Local boards have previously provided feedback on the 2019 public discussion document (Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei), and this was considered in the development of the Auckland Water Strategy. Local board feedback is now being sought on the draft Auckland Water Strategy framework.

5. The core content for the Auckland Water Strategy framework was endorsed at the Environment and Climate Change Committee on the 2nd of December 2021 (ECC/2021/44). The content is now being drafted into a final document and will be brought to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for consideration and adoption in March 2022.

6. Staff workshopped the framework with the Environment and Climate Change Committee and local board chairpersons throughout September-November 2021. The chairpersons received explanatory memos and supporting material ahead of workshops. Feedback during those workshops shaped the core content adopted at committee in December 2021.

7. Refer to Attachment A to the agenda report for the core content of the Auckland Water Strategy framework.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the eight strategic shifts of the Water Strategy framework:

i) Te Tiriti Partnership

ii) Empowered Aucklanders

iii) Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access

iv) Regenerative Water Infrastructure

v) Water Security

vi) Integrated Land use and Water Planning

vii) Restoring and Enhancing Water Ecosystems

viii) Pooling Knowledge.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Auckland Council group has a broad role in delivering water outcomes:

· Auckland Council provides storm water infrastructure and services; resource management regulation, consenting, monitoring, and compliance for effects on fresh water and coastal water; and research, reporting, policy, and strategy functions

· Watercare provides drinking water and wastewater infrastructure and services

· Auckland Transport influences land use and the storm water network. The transport network is Auckland’s largest public realm asset and investment.

9. The Auckland Council (the Water Strategy) project began as a response to the 2017 Section 17A Value for Money review of three waters^{^[8]}delivery across the council group. The review recommended the council produces a three waters strategy. The scope of the water strategy was subsequently expanded to incorporate other water related responsibilities, outcomes, and domains (e.g. natural waterbodies, groundwater, coastal waters, etc).

10. A discussion document (Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei) was consulted on in 2019. The purpose of this document was to elicit community views on the future of Auckland’s waters and how the council should be planning for these in its water strategy.

11. This process established a high-level vision for Auckland’s waters, ‘te Mauri o te Wai o Tāmaki Makaurau - the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water - is protected and enhanced’, and presented key values, issues and principles that were designed to inform strategy development. Actions and targets were not discussed. Strategic direction, actions and targets have been identified as part of the subsequent strategy development.

12. The Water Strategy sets a vision for Auckland’s waters and provides strategic direction for investment and action across the council group. The council has developed the strategy drawing on:

· relevant legislation and central government direction

· the council’s strategies, policies and plans, and guidance including:

o The Auckland Plan 2050 - includes high-level approaches for how we can prioritise the health of water in Auckland by adopting a te ao Māori approach to protecting our waters; adapting to a changing water future; developing Aucklanders’ stewardship; restoring our damaged environments; protecting our significant water bodies; and using Auckland’s growth to achieve better water outcomes.

o Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri Auckland's Climate Action Plan - acknowledges that climate change will mean a changing water future and identifies integrated, adaptive planning approaches and water-sensitive design as key enablers of a climate-ready Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

· the council’s Three Waters Value for Money (s17A) Review 2017

· the Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei discussion document framework and feedback from local boards, community and mana whenua from 2019

· individual iwi engagement and Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum engagement in 2021

· internal staff engagement during 2020-2021

· the Water Sensitive Cities Index and benchmarking in 2021.

13. The intent of the Water Strategy is that the council fulfils its obligations to identify and plan for future challenges across its broad range of functions that affect water outcomes. These challenges are:

· protecting and enhancing the health of waterbodies and their ecosystems

· delivering three-waters services at the right time, in the right place, at the right scale, as the city grows

· having enough water for people now and in the future

· reducing flood and coastal inundation risk over time

· water affordability for Aucklanders

· improving how the council works with its treaty partners

· improving how the council organises itself to achieve these outcomes.

14. The Water Strategy is intended to guide decision-making to 2050. Staff have therefore considered Tāmaki Makaurau’s broader context over the life of the strategy including:

· land use change, as driven by population growth in particular

· mitigating and adapting to climate change

· partnership approach with mana whenua

· growing iwi capacity and further settlements that will affect governance structures

· technological change.

15. Council has also considered the direction from central government to deliver management of freshwater, land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, including cumulative effects^{^[9]}.

Central Government Three Waters Reform

16. The Water Strategy has been developed during a period of significant uncertainty for the council group. Central government has recently indicated that participation in the proposed Three Waters Reforms will be mandated in the planned enabling legislation. The reforms would move management of three waters assets to a new inter-regional entity. Economic regulation is also planned.

17. While the final form of the proposed structures is not known, it is important to understand that the proposed reform would not affect all areas of delivery for the Water Strategy. Council would retain its:

· core role as environmental regulator

· core role as regulatory planning authority

· core treaty partnership role for local government

· core role to engage and be the voice for Auckland communities

· management of the council group’s own water consumption (towards consumption targets).

18. The Water Strategy provides strategic direction to the council group. Over the next few years, as the shape and impacts of proposed reform become clearer, the council would use the strategy in appropriate ways to provide direction to any processes that arise. This strategy would become council’s position on the aims and outcomes sought from any new entity.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. The purpose of this report is to provide local boards with an opportunity to feedback on the Auckland Water Strategy framework before it is finalised and recommended for adoption by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

The Water Strategy Framework

20. The Water Strategy framework sets a vision for the future (previously adopted in 2019), a foundational partnership and eight key strategic shifts to guide change. The vision of the Water Strategy is: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced.

21. The framework articulates Auckland’s context, challenges, aims, and required actions. The framework is designed to make implementation steps clear for council to track progress and so that communities and partners can hold council accountable to progress over time.

22. The framework consists of:

· vision

· treaty context

· challenges

· cross-cutting themes

· strategic shifts and associated aims and actions

· implementation.

23. The diagram below shows the Auckland Water Strategy Framework. Refer to Attachment A for the core content of the Auckland Water Strategy framework, including the aims and actions associated with each strategic shift.

Vision: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced

24. Auckland’s vision for the future is ‘te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s waters, is protected and enhanced’.

25. The Water Strategy vision describes Tāmaki Makaurau’s desired long-term future and will guide council decision-making over time towards that agreed goal. The vision outlines a future for Tāmaki Makaurau where the region’s waters are healthy, thriving, and treasured. This vision also describes a future where the deep connections between water, the environment and people are recognised and valued.

26. The mauri – the life sustaining capacity – of water is a fundamentally intuitive concept. It is something all Aucklanders can appreciate. There is a qualitative difference that is readily felt and sensed when walking alongside a healthy waterbody compared to a waterbody that has been channeled, polluted, or piped, for example.

27. The Our Water Future public discussion document received strong support for the vision. In the document, the vision was explained as:

· special to this place (Auckland)

· recognising the vital relationship between our water and our people

· recognising the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki within the region

· representing values that can unify us in our actions

· setting a long-term aspiration for the way we take care of our waters.

28. The council set a long-term aspiration for Auckland when it adopted this vision in 2019. An aspiration for a future in which:

a) Aucklanders are able to swim in, and harvest from, our rivers, estuaries and harbours.

b) Life in and sustained by water is thriving.

c) Everyone has access to enough water of the appropriate quality to meet their needs.

29. Adopting this vision recognised that addressing Auckland’s water issues and challenges over time requires a bold vision and new ways of working together with council’s treaty partners and communities. The vision signals a greater recognition of a Māori worldview, of environmental limits and interconnectedness of people and environment.

30. The vision is also consistent with council’s obligations and aspirations, as well as central government direction. For example,

· the purpose of local government is to take a sustainable development approach to the broad role of promoting the four well-beings

· the purpose of the Resource Management Act is sustainable management of natural and physical resources in ways that enables the four well-beings

· Te Mauri o te Wai aligns with te Mana o te Wai in the National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM), which provides for local expression

· the Auckland Plan directs council to ‘Apply a Māori worldview to treasure and protect our natural environment (taonga tuku iho)’

· mauri is embedded in the Auckland Unitary Plan

· the Our Water Future public discussion document introduced the vision of te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau and applying a Māori world view

· Te mauri o te wai is referenced in the council’s 2021 Infrastructure Strategy.

Over-arching challenges

31. The intent of the Water Strategy is that the council fulfils its obligations to identify and plan for future challenges across its broad range of functions that affect water outcomes. Tāmaki Makaurau faces several overarching challenges that inform the strategic direction set by the Water Strategy. These are:

· protecting and enhancing the health of waterbodies and their ecosystems

· delivering three-waters services at the right time, in the right place, at the right scale, as the city grows

· having enough water for people now and in the future

· reducing flood and coastal inundation risk over time

· affordability for Aucklanders

· improving how the council works with its treaty partners

· improving how the council organises itself.

32. Attachment A provides a more detailed description of each over-arching challenge.

Treaty Context

33. Māori have enduring rights and interests related to water as a taonga and as indigenous peoples. These rights are affirmed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and international law.

34. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its statutory Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland context. Like the council, mana whenua are long-term contributors to water outcomes.

35. This section within the framework acknowledges that the treaty provides the context for partnership between council and mana whenua for the protection, management, and enhancement of water.

Cross-cutting themes

36. In addition to over-arching challenges, there are cross-cutting themes that inform the council’s strategic approach in the Water Strategy. The cross-cutting themes must be accounted for as the actions in the strategy are delivered.

Climate Change

37. Water and climate change are intrinsically linked. The twin challenges of mitigation and adaptation have been integrated within the strategy.

Equity

38. The Auckland Plan 2050 describes sharing prosperity with all Aucklanders as a key challenge now and for the future. Auckland has equitable access to water supply and sanitation and performs well against international peers; however, there are areas for improvement that are captured in the strategy. Other equity issues such as flood protection and access to blue-green space for recreation are also considered within the strategy.

Strategic Shifts

39. The Water Strategy framework includes eight overarching strategic shifts. Each strategic shift is intended to represent long-term change in the council’s approach towards a stated aim. To achieve this, each strategic shift has associated actions with indicative implementation timings identified. Shifts are designed so that the council can add actions over time to the framework as progress is made.

40. The strategic shifts were arrived at by considering the changes that the council must make to respond to the challenges and cross-cutting themes above, as well as responding to the water sensitive cities benchmarking undertaken. Actions were developed and grouped according to council functions so that they might be more easily implemented by areas in the council group.

Table one: Water Strategy Strategic Shifts and Associated Aims
Strategic shift	Aim
Te Tiriti Partnership The council and mana whenua working together in agreed ways on agreed things.	The council and mana whenua iwi are partners in the protection, management, and enhancement of water.
Empowering Aucklanders Working with Aucklanders for better water outcomes.	Aucklanders are empowered to shape decisions about and are prepared for our changing water future.
Regenerative Water Infrastructure Auckland’s water infrastructure is regenerative, resilient, low carbon, and increases the mauri of water. It’s able to be seen and understood by Aucklanders.	Regenerative infrastructure systems enhance the life-sustaining capacity of water (mauri).
Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access Prioritising mauri when using water, to sustain the environment and people in the long term.	When the council allocates water from the natural environment, water use is sustainable, and considers the health and wellbeing of ecosystems and people.
Water Security Water abundance and security for growing population through efficient use and diverse sources.	Auckland captures, uses, and recycles water efficiently so that everyone has access to enough water of the appropriate quality to meet their needs.
Integrated Land use and Water Planning Integrating land use and water planning at a regional, catchment and site scale.	Water and its life-sustaining capacity is a central principle in land management and planning decisions.
Restoring and Enhancing Water Ecosystems Catchment-based approaches to the health of water ecosystems.	Auckland has thriving and sustainable natural water ecosystems that support life, food gathering and recreation.
Pooling Knowledge Shared understanding enabling better decisions for our water future.	Auckland has the knowledge about water needed to make good quality, timely, and strategic decisions about water.

Implementation

41. Successfully delivering on the vision and integrated aims of the Water Strategy will require a coordinated and sustained approach to delivery across the council group.

42. The Water Strategy sets out a range of actions to be implemented over time for the council group. The actions fall within two broad timeframes: near term (year one and years one – three) and medium term (years four – ten). Near term actions are prescriptive and specific. Medium term actions are more illustrative and require further development to implement successfully.

43. To implement the Water Strategy, the council will need:

· to take a consistent, sustained approach to putting te mauri o te wai at the centre of council group planning and investment decisions and action

· the skills and capacity to deliver on the water strategy, legislative requirements, and partnership relationships

· a strong culture of holistic planning, action, reporting and post-implementation review that feeds back into adaptive planning processes

· clarity of the roles and responsibilities across the council group, with all teams directed and accountable for their role and function

· to give mana whenua clear sight of the council’s work on water and enable participation/direction.

44. Changes required to give effect to the implementation of the strategy include:

· appoint Executive Lead Team Water Lead (complete)

· Water Strategy programme implementation coordinator

· coordinated workforce planning to fill gaps and changing needs

· update investment prioritisation criteria to reflect the Water Strategy

· council reporting on te mauri o te wai

· integrated Asset Investment and Asset Management Planning, with an independent audit process.

Central government context

45. The Water Strategy considers and responds to current and expected direction from central government to:

· deliver management of freshwater, land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way

· a strengthening of the partnership between the council and mana whenua in environmental management goal setting and decision-making frameworks

· the inclusion of Te Mana o Te Wai in the Auckland Unitary Plan

· a switch from an individual activity effects-based assessment (under the Resource Management Act 1991) to a more holistic limits-based approach, reflecting the need to better manage cumulative effects on water bodies

· an expectation of stronger enforcement of regulatory environmental obligations through policy effectiveness reporting (feedback loops between policy and actions) and improved compliance monitoring and enforcement reporting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. Water and climate change are intrinsically linked. Climate change is a cross cutting theme of the Water Strategy (along with equity). The twin challenges of mitigation and adaptation were integrated into the strategy’s core content as it was developed.

47. Climate change will have wide-ranging implications for the issues raised in the Water Strategy, including:

· influencing demand for water use

· affecting water availability of a given water source over time

· increasing flood and coastal inundation hazard risk to life and property.

48. Improving our mitigation of and resilience to these impacts via the approaches described in the Water Strategy aligns with council’s existing goals and work programmes for climate action.

49. The physical impacts of climate change will have implications both for water management (including Māori water rights) in Auckland, and for related issues such as energy supply, social welfare, food security, and Māori land.

50. Water infrastructure has significant embodied carbon emissions. The regenerative water infrastructure strategic shift sets the council on a path to zero or low emissions water infrastructure.

51. The projected impacts of climate change on Auckland’s aquatic environments, and the associated risks, are detailed in two key report series: the Auckland Region Climate Change Projections and Impacts^{^[10]} and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series^{^[11]}.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. There is broad agreement across the council group that better integration in water-related matters is needed, and that improvements in investment and decision-making processes are possible.

53. Staff have worked across the council group to develop the Water Strategy’s core content through working groups, workshops, and review of material.

54. The strategic shifts and actions in the Water Strategy represent significant change in the way that the council group approaches water-related challenges and opportunities in Auckland. In time, the way that staff work and the tools they have available will change. Greater and more coordinated oversight of resources that are used to deliver water outcomes is essential.

55. The Water Strategy embeds concepts like mauri and water-sensitive design into council’s approach going forward. These actions require careful, considered partnership with mana whenua to create new frameworks that will guide decision-making. Coordinated education and upskilling programmes for staff will be needed to enable successful implementation.

56. Of note is the action to implement a council group knowledge governance framework for water. This will mean review and redesign of processes governing the production of knowledge; how council mobilises knowledge for different users and uses; and how council promotes the use of knowledge.

57. The framework will help facilitate a culture change across the council group, encouraging the sharing of knowledge across departments and organisations, and better connecting teams in the ownership of knowledge and insights.

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

Local impacts and local board views

58. Local boards have a strong interest and role in improving water outcomes across Auckland and currently fund many local projects focused on restoration of local waterways.

59. Staff workshopped the Water Strategy framework, including each strategic shift and associated aims and actions, with the Environment and Climate Change Committee and local board chairpersons September to November 2021. The chairpersons received explanatory memos and supporting material ahead of workshops. Feedback during those workshops shaped the core content adopted at committee in December 2021.

60. Previous local board feedback informed development of the Water Strategy. Staff held workshops with all local boards in late 2018 on the Our Water Future – Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei discussion document and sought their feedback through formal business meetings. Local board resolutions were provided to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018 (ENV/2018/168) when the discussion document was approved for public consultation.

61. During public engagement, local boards hosted many of the Have Your Say consultation events and helped to ensure local views were fed into the feedback. This feedback has been an input to the development of the strategy. There was broad support for the vision, values, issues, processes and principles presented in the discussion document. The Environment and Climate Change Committee adopted the framework as the basis for developing the Auckland water strategy.

62. Key themes from local board engagement are presented below. Staff have designed the strategic shifts and actions to address these key themes – these are noted in italics:

i) A desire to improve engagement with local communities and deliver targeted education programmes – Empowering Aucklanders strategic shift.

ii) Recognising water is a limited resource, that access to water is a human right and supply must be allocated fairly – Water Security and Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access strategic shifts.

A need to improve the diminishing water quality of local water bodies including urban streams, gulfs and harbours – Restoring and Enhancing water ecosystems strategic shift.

iii) A need to carefully manage urban development and take up opportunities to embed water-sensitive design - Integrated Land use and Water Planning strategic shift.

iv) A need for proactive monitoring and enforcement, supported by a robust and transparent evidence base – Pooling Knowledge strategic shift.

63. Feedback on several water-related topics that were not part of the discussion document’s scope was also received from local boards. This included water infrastructure, the importance of future proofing our assets, incorporating sustainable options such as greywater reuse and roof collection, and the management of contaminant run-off and stormwater discharges.

64. Staff considered these important issues and they have been incorporated into the strategy – see Regenerative Water Infrastructure strategic shift.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

65. Every iwi and hapū has associations with particular waterbodies^{^[12]} that are reflected in their whakapapa, waiata, and whaikōrero tuku iho (stories of the past). Protecting the health and mauri of our freshwater ecosystems is fundamental to providing for the food, materials, customary practices, te reo Māori, and overall well-being of iwi and hapū.

66. Engagement with Māori that has informed this work includes:

· Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Guidance to the Water Strategy 2019

· submissions to the Our Water Future Public Discussion Document 2019

· Te Pou Taiao engagement throughout 2021

· individual engagement with iwi partners 2021 including face-to-face hui.

67. Refer to Our Water Future: Report on Māori response to Auckland Council Water Strategy consultation for further information on the submissions of Māori who responded to public discussion document consultation. Key themes from Māori engagement are presented below. Staff have designed the strategic shifts and actions to address these key themes – these are noted in italics:

i) Māori are committed to the maintenance of the mauri of water and they want to be a part of the conversation – Te Tiriti Partnership and Empowering Aucklanders strategic shifts.

ii) Awareness/Education (concerns for peoples’ priorities, climate change has arrived – inevitable there will be changing water patterns) – Empowering Aucklanders strategic shift.

iii) Water sovereignty (should be allowed water tanks on our properties) – Water Security strategic shift.

iv) Reciprocity (look after our environment it will continue to look after us) – Restore and Enhance Water Ecosystems, Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access and Regenerative Water Infrastructure strategic shifts.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

68. Implementing the proposed Water Strategy actions will have budgetary implications in time. Cost scenarios have not been undertaken for the actions as this is work that is required as the group works through the implementation of the strategy. Most actions do not commit the council group to a singular solution, but rather to investigate options and their associated cost within the action, for subsequent decision making. From a cost perspective it is expected that the actions associated with each strategic shift will be possible through:

· providing clear strategic direction to improve current processes (no new spend)

· redirecting current spend to higher priority activity aligned to strategic direction

· new spend, prioritised through council processes (i.e. Annual Budget and Long-Term Plan/10-year Budget).

69. Over the next 30 years, the council expects to spend approximately $85 billion on infrastructure for three waters alone (capital and operational expenditure). There is considerable scope to align that spend to the vision of the water strategy.

70. Where actions do require additional spend, such spend must be considered through council’s Annual Plan and Long-term Plan/10-year Budget processes. Additional spend would not be limited to three waters infrastructure and services and would include all council group functions related to water outcomes.

71. It is also noted that central government’s messaging for its Three Waters Reform programme suggests the proposed new water entities may have access to greater lending facilities. This would presumably impact delivery of three waters infrastructure and services in Auckland, some of which would relate to the proposed Water Strategy’s strategic shifts and associated actions.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

72. The recommendation requesting local board views does not present a risk.

73. The risks and mitigations listed below relate to the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s decision to adopt the Water Strategy.

Risk

Assessment

Mitigation/Control measures

Insufficient or inconsistent implementation of the strategy

Medium risk

Poor coordination is a key driver for the strategy and implementation must respond to this reality.

The Strategy needs buy-in across the council leadership and consistent political leadership to ensure coherent implementation.

Staff with responsibilities for shifts and actions have been engaged in the development of the strategy.

A Water Strategy programme implementation coordinator will provide support to implementation.

Central government reform: if established, a new three waters entity disregards strategic intent of Water Strategy

High risk

The council should use the Water Strategy to assist in articulating the long-term aims for water in Auckland. The Strategy may also be useful to guide discussions during any transition process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

74. The Water Strategy final document and will be brought to Environment and Climate Change Committee for consideration and adoption in March 2022.

75. A high-level implementation plan for the Water Strategy, with action-owners, will accompany the final document.

76. The actions related to each strategic shift may require further refinement and the core content will require editing appropriate for an external-facing document. A workshop of the Environment and Climate Change Committee on actions and the draft strategy will be scheduled prior to the Water Strategy document being presented to Environment and Climate Change Committee for adoption. Local board chairpersons will be invited to that workshop.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Water Strategy Core Content	819

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategist

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager - Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Resource Management System Reform

File No.: CP2022/00462

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To set out the key matters for input into Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - materials for discussion and invite local board input.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Government is undertaking comprehensive reform of the resource management system. The scale of reform is substantial and will have significant impacts on Auckland Council.

3. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has released engagement materials – Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system – with input requested from Auckland Council by 28 February 2022.

4. This input will be the third submission the council has made on these reforms. Earlier submissions were in response to:

a) Transforming the resource management system: opportunities for change - Issues and options paper as part of the Resource Management Review Panel’s review of the resource management system

b) An exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Bill, which was subject to an inquiry by the Environment Select Committee.

5. The council’s input will inform the final bills likely to be introduced in the second half of 2022 and expected to be in place by the end of 2023. The council will have the opportunity to submit on the bills when they are introduced.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - materials for discussion document to inform the council’s draft submission.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Government is undertaking comprehensive reform of the resource management system. This will entail the repeal of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and enactment of three pieces of legislation: a Natural and Built Environments Act, a Strategic Planning Act, and a Climate Adaptation Act. The scale of reform is substantial and will have significant impacts on Auckland Council.

7. Cabinet adopted the following objectives for reform:

· protect and where necessary restore the natural environment, including its capacity to provide for the wellbeing of present and future generations

· better enable development within environmental biophysical limits including a significant improvement in housing supply, affordability and choice, and timely provision of appropriate infrastructure, including social infrastructure

· give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori, including mātauranga Māori

· better prepare for adapting to climate change and risks from natural hazards, and better mitigate emissions contributing to climate change

· improve system efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce complexity, while retaining appropriate local democratic input.

8. Cabinet also agreed to the repeal and replacement of the RMA with three pieces of legislation:

· 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). It would require a single national planning framework (NPF), which would set national direction and environmental limits, and require Natural and Built Environments Act plans (NBA plans)

· 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 (RSSs)

· the Climate Adaptation Act (CAA) to enable and address issues associated with managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation.

9. This diagram sets out at a high level how the NBA, SPA, CAA and their respective instruments would interact in the new system.

Graphical user interface, diagram, PowerPoint

Description automatically generated

10. It is intended that the NBA and SPA be introduced to Parliament in the third quarter of 2022 and be passed within the current parliamentary term.

11. The CAA is expected to be introduced in early 2023 but will not be passed before the 2023 General Election. However, public consultation on key CAA policy decisions is expected to take place in early 2022 alongside consultation on the National Adaptation Plan required under the Climate Change Response Act 2002.

Formal engagement with Auckland Council on resource management system reform

12. The first stage of this reform commenced in 2019 with the Resource Management Review Panel (the Panel). The Panel reported back to the Minister for the Environment in June 2020 in its report New Directions for Resource Management in New Zealand. The report set out a proposed future resource management system, including indicative drafting of legislation for key provisions.

13. The NBA exposure draft release on 29 June 2021 and the subsequent select committee inquiry intended to enable early public engagement on some aspects of the proposed legislation and inform the development of the final bill.

14. The NBA exposure draft was limited in its scope, mostly focusing on principles, outcomes, national direction, environmental limits and planning governance.

15. The discussion document, Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion, can be found at the following link: https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/Our-future-resource-management-system-materials-for-discussion.pdf

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Summary of discussion document

Purpose

16. The document Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion (discussion document) sets out a number of issues for input. These span the scope of the NBA and SPA and include:

· national planning framework

· regional spatial strategies

· NBA plans

· RSS and NBA joint committees

· consenting

· compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· monitoring and system oversight

· role of local government in the future system

· national Māori entity

· joint committee composition

· enhanced Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements, integrated with transfers of powers and joint management agreements

· funding in the future system.

17. This engagement is targeted to key parties involved in the resource management system. Mana whenua are being engaged in parallel. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) ran an engagement session with the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum on 18 November 2021 and with elected members in attendance at the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Auckland Zone meeting on Friday 10 December.

18. Auckland Council’s earlier submissions provide strong direction on many of the questions contained in this discussion document. See Attachment A for a compiled list.

National Planning Framework (NPF)

19. The NPF will replace the current system of national direction and provide an integrated set of mandatory national policies and standards. These will include natural environmental outcomes, limits and targets.

20. The NPF will also provide direction on resource management matters that must be consistent throughout the system. This may include methods, standards and guidance to support regional spatial strategy development. It will play a role in resolving conflicts between outcomes in the system.

Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs)

21. RSSs will identify areas that are:

· suitable for development

· need to be protected

· require infrastructure

· vulnerable to climate change effects and natural hazards.

22. One regional spatial strategy will be developed for each region, with flexibility to address issues within and across regions. The strategy will be prepared by a joint committee comprising representatives from hapū/iwi/Māori, local and central government. RSSs would integrate with other relevant documents like NBA plans and the NPF.

23. Other significant legislation that the SPA will integrate includes the Local Government Act 2002, Land Transport Management Act 2003 and Climate Change Response Act 2002. These other acts are important parts of the resource management system, and substantive changes to them are not proposed as part of this reform.

Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) Plans

24. NBA plans will be land use / resource management plans similar in role to the current Auckland Unitary Plan.

25. One NBA plan will be developed for each region. The plan will be prepared by a joint committee comprising representatives from hapū/iwi/Māori, local government, and potentially a representative appointed by the Minister of Conservation.

26. NBA plans are intended to bring efficiencies into the system by providing consistency as a region and more effectively implementing the NPF.

27. Initial consideration has been given to several sub-regional NBA plans being developed, then incorporated into a regional NBA plan. This could allow regions with different communities to take a more nuanced approach to regional planning.

28. There is the potential to provide for local place-making in the plan-development process. This could be through local plans, such as those developed under the Local Government Act 2002 (eg, town centre plans, local community plans) and structure plans.

29. The process for developing NBA plans is largely informed by the model used to develop the Auckland Unitary Plan and aims to incentivise all participants to engage early with the best information available. An independent hearings panel would hear submissions and make recommendations to the decision-makers.

RSS and NBA joint committees

30. There will be one joint committee for NBA plans and another for RSS. RSS joint committees will have representation from local government, hapū/iwi/Māori and central government. NBA joint committees will have representation from local government and hapū/iwi/Māori. Consideration is also being given to the RM Review Panel’s proposal for a representative of the Minister of Conservation.

31. A secretariat will be established in each region to support the committees (i.e., to prepare the regional spatial strategy and NBA plan). This would include how committees could draw staff and resources from existing local authorities in the region, and how technical and mātauranga Māori expertise is provided for.

32. Subject to agreement by Post-Settlement Governance Entities, existing governance arrangements are to be provided for in the future system through Te Tiriti partnership entities. These entities will uphold Treaty settlements, takutai moana rights and existing voluntary arrangements.

Consenting

33. The Government is proposing to reduce the number of activities categories from six (in the RMA) to four (in the NBA). Although the terminology would be similar to that in the RMA, changes are proposed to the definitions of the categories and in associated legal requirements. The four categories are:

· permitted: activities where positive and adverse effects (including cumulative and those relevant to outcomes) are known. The scope of permitted activities will be slightly expanded

· controlled: activities where potential positive and adverse effects (including cumulative and those relevant to outcomes) are generally known, but where tailored management of effects is required. There will be limited discretion to decline

· discretionary: activities that are less appropriate, have effects that are less known (or go beyond boundaries), and activities that were unanticipated at the time of plan development. Councils will have a broad discretion to seek information and the ability to decline

· prohibited: activities do not meet outcomes and/or breach limits; no applications will be allowed.

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement

34. Proposed changes to compliance, monitoring and enforcement (CME) include:

· broadening the cost recovery provisions in the NBA, allowing for costs to be recovered for compliance monitoring of permitted activities and investigations of noncompliant activities

· ensuring compliance and enforcement decision-making is independent and not subject to inappropriate influence or bias

· a substantial increase in financial penalties, broadening the range of offences subject to fines for commercial gain, and increasing the statute of limitations to 24 months

· prohibiting the use of insurance for prosecution and infringement fines

· allowing consent authorities to consider an applicant’s compliance history in the consent process

· providing for alternative sanctions to traditional enforcement action and providing for new intervention tools, including enforceable undertakings and consent revocation.

35. It is expected councils will continue to be responsible for the delivery of CME services including decision-making about when to take enforcement action and what type of action to take.

Monitoring and system oversight

36. Monitoring provides information to help set environmental limits, track progress towards desired targets and outcomes, and let decision-makers know about the consequences of their actions.

37. The proposed approach to monitoring will include:

· a suite of tools in the NBA to direct monitoring

· consistent and regular local-level environmental monitoring and reporting

· enabling Māori to be involved in developing and undertaking monitoring and reporting activities

· clear connections between the NBA and national environmental reporting under the Environmental Reporting Act 2015

· stronger requirements for responsible bodies to investigate, evaluate and respond when this monitoring identifies problems that need to be addressed.

38. System oversight ensures there is transparency and accountability for the performance of the system and the delivery of its objectives.

39. The following functions of system oversight are proposed to be reflected in the future system:

· stronger regulatory stewardship and operational oversight of the system by central government and other independent oversight bodies

· regular reporting to Parliament on the performance of the system, in relation to environmental limits, targets and outcomes of the NBA

· legislated requirements for central government to respond to national level reports on the state of the environment and system performance

· independent oversight of system and agency performance, to provide accountability and impartial analysis and advice

· mechanisms to monitor how the system gives effect to the principles of Te Tiriti

· a range of powers for ministers to intervene and direct the system.

40. It is expected councils will continue to be responsible for undertaking monitoring, with greater opportunities for Māori to be involved in monitoring activities.

41. Central government is expected to play a stronger role in providing oversight of the system alongside independent bodies such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the proposed national entity for enabling Māori involvement at the national level.

Role of local government in the future system

42. The proposed role of local government in the future system is outlined below. Some of these are subject to further decisions. These delineate the roles of local government from joint planning committees for unitary authorities.

In RSS and NBA plan development

· play an essential connecting role between local communities and RSS and NBA plan development. Local authorities will support effective community engagement processes to ensure RSS and NBA plans enable local place-making and will give effect to significant views through governance and decision-making arrangements

· contribute to RSS and NBA plan development, including through provision of information, resource and expertise. Involvement of councils through the secretariat will provide an avenue for council input into drafting

· provide local plans to inform strategy and plan development. Specifically, it is intended the NBA will provide for place-shaping documents, such as local plans, under the Local Government Act 2002 (eg, town centre plans, community plans)

· Collaborate with hapū/iwi/Māori to review and provide feedback on draft strategies and plans, potentially through timebound review stages.

Joint committees

· Local authority appointments to RSS and NBA joint committees would be responsible for giving effect to local voice. It is expected other governance roles would be provided for local government through potential cross-regional and sub-regional sub-committees.

RSS and NBA plan implementation

· Regional councils will retain responsibility for natural resource functions, and territorial authorities will retain their core land use and subdivision responsibilities. As a unitary authority, the council retains both regional and territorial functions.

· Local authorities will implement RSSs through local authority plans and functions under the Local Government Act 2002 and through implementation agreements.

Compliance, monitoring, enforcement and oversight

· Local authorities will continue to be responsible for the delivery of CME services, including decision-making about when to take enforcement action and what type of action to take

· Local authorities may be required to provide consistent and regular local-level environmental reporting and would likely have roles in monitoring the implementation of RSS and regulatory instruments under NBA plans.

Timeframe for development of feedback on the discussion document

Milestone	Date
Report to Planning Committee	3 February 2022
Deadline for incorporated feedback	14 February 2022
Deadline for appended feedback	17 February 2022
Consultation period closes	28 February 2022

Further material

43. Existing agreed positions in the council’s recent submissions are mainly from:

· Auckland Council’s submission on the Natural and Built Environments Bill, August 2021

· Auckland Council’s submission on Transforming the resource management system: opportunities for change - Issues and options paper, February 2020.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. The decision to submit on the discussion document will not alter emissions or alter our adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

45. The document acknowledges addressing climate change challenges as being a key consideration in future-proofing our resource management system.

46. A reformed resource management system is expected to significantly impact Auckland Council’s roles and responsibilities as Auckland prepares for and adapts to the effects of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47. The council group was involved in establishing existing council positions. Substantive Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) have also been asked for their input on this discussion document.

48. The decision to submit on the discussion document will not impact on the council group. There are likely to be impacts from resource management system reform across the council group, although the nature and scale of these impacts will not be clear until the final legislation is produced.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49. Wide resource management system reform will impact on the role and function of council, as well as several of its key strategic documents. This could have flow on impacts on the governance model of Auckland Council including the role of local boards.

50. Local board feedback is being sought on the discussion document and will be incorporated into the council’s final submission as appropriate. Local boards provided strong direction through the development of Resource Management System Reform, and this will inform the overall direction of the submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

51. The Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) secretariat have been engaged in the development of this submission. MfE have engaged directly with the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum in this process and sought their input on the discussion materials.

52. Resource management system reform is likely to be of significant interest to and impact on Māori. An explicit objective of reform is ‘give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori, including mātauranga Māori’.

53. The discussion document outlines a number of ways that this is proposed to be achieved.

National Māori entity

54. A national entity would be established to enable Māori as Treaty partners to participate in decision-making at a national level.

55. Possible roles for the entity could include input into the development of the NPF, appointing Māori members to any board of inquiry process, and in system oversight and monitoring (including monitoring of Te Tiriti performance).

Joint committee composition

56. Hapū/iwi/Māori appointments to RSS and NBA joint committees (alongside local government appointments) would be worked through region by region, but 50/50 governance is not proposed.

57. Treaty settlements that have governance arrangements through PSGE will be fully transitioned into the new system as will takutai moana rights.

Enhanced Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements, integrated with transfers of powers and joint management agreements

58. Mana Whakahono ā Rohe: Iwi Participation Arrangements are a tool designed to assist tangata whenua and local authorities to discuss, agree and record how they will work together under the Resource Management Act (RMA). This includes agreeing how tangata whenua will be involved in decision making processes.

59. The Mana Whakahono ā Rohe process would be enhanced by better enabling Māori participation in the system through an integrated partnerships process that would integrate with the existing RMA tools for transfers of powers and joint management agreements.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Funding in the future system

60. To work effectively, the future system requires appropriate funding mechanisms for its different roles and activities.

61. The MfE is exploring what provisions and guidance can be provided in the future system, to set clear expectations regarding who should pay for what, and to support the availability and use of appropriate funding tools. Proposals will use existing guidance on charging in the public sector and look at applying this to the context of the future resource management system.

62. Implementation and operation of the new resource management system will require significant investment from the council. Central government’s approach to sharing these costs is unclear. These costs will be driven by factors such as the transition from the current system, establishment and support of joint committees, development of new plans and strategies, changed workforce needs, and increased legal action. In addition, there are likely to be impacts on the ways the council approaches financial and infrastructure planning.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

63. The decision to submit on the discussion document carries no risk.

64. There are many possible financial, legal, strategic and reputational risks to the council associated with resource management reform. These will be identified and addressed as the reform programme progresses.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. Staff will seek delegation for approval of the council’s formal input at the Planning Committee on 3 February 2022.

66. Staff will utilise previous submissions to develop a draft submission for engagement across the council family and with elected members and members of the IMSB.

67. Local boards’ formal feedback on the discussion document will be appended to the Auckland Council submission on this matter.

68. The SPA and NBA are likely to be introduced in the third quarter of 2022 and their progress through the house is likely to take around eight months. This will include the usual opportunity to submit to the select committee.

69. Below are the key dates for input into the submission:

· 14 February 2022: deadline for feedback to be considered in the council’s submission.

· 17 February 2022: final date for any formal local board feedback to be appended to the submission.

· 28 February 2022: The final submission will be approved under delegated authority.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Council submission points on the Discussion Document	861

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jacob van der Poel - Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Classification of Philomel Reserve, Bayswater

File No.: CP2022/00771

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To classify a parcel of land that forms Philomel Reserve situated at R39 Philomel Crescent, Bayswater as recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Philomel Reserve (the reserve) is made up of one parcel of land being Lot 28 DP 37884 which is held as unclassified recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act).

3. In April 2021, Auckland Council’s Land Advisory team assessed and approved a landowner approval application from the owner of 50 Philomel Crescent, Bayswater to connect a new power line from the existing power pole located on the reserve to a new house at 50 Philomel Crescent.

4. To enable these works, an easement over a small part of the reserve must be created and granted to Vector.

5. Under the Act, Auckland Council cannot grant easement over an unclassified reserve and therefore completing the reserve classification process at the reserve will enable Auckland Council to grant the easement to Vector.

6. Auckland Council and Vector have entered into Works Agreement. However, this agreement is conditional on classification of the reserve.

7. Land advisory staff recommend formal classification of Philomel Reserve as recreation reserve.

8. The purpose of recreation reserves as set out in Section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977 is to provide for recreation activities and physical welfare and enjoyment of public, with emphasis on the retention of open spaces.

9. Auckland Council is statutorily obliged to classify all unclassified reserves. This is undertaken under section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 and if not taken would mean Auckland Council is not meeting its statutory Obligations.

10. Local Boards hold the delegated authority under Section 16 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify council held reserves.

11. The cost of classification under the Reserves Act 1977 will be borne by Auckland Council’s Community Facilities Department.

12. This report recommends that Devonport – Takapuna Local Board classify Philomel Reserve as recreation reserve to comply with the statutory requirements as set out in the Reserves Act 1977.

13. A map showing the location of the proposed easement is included in Attachment A.

14. The approved landowner approval is included as Attachment B. Feedback provided on behalf of the Devonport- Takapuna Local Board regarding landowner approval application as Attachment C.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) classify pursuant Section to 16 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977 Lot 28 Deposited Plan 37884 situated at R39 Philomel Crescent, Bayswater (Philomel Reserve); as a recreation reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and iwi consultation with no objection.

Horopaki

Context

15. Classification is a mandatory process under section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 which involves assigning a reserve (or parts of a reserve) to the appropriate class. The class determines the principal or primary purpose of the reserve. The present values of the reserve are considered as well as the future “potential” values and the possible future uses and activities on the reserve.

16. Philomel Reserve is currently held as an unclassified recreation reserve.

17. To comply with the statutory requirement to classify reserves according to their principal or primary purpose, Philomel Reserve must be classified for its principal or primary purpose. It is recommended that Philomel Reserve is classified as recreation reserve.

18. Local boards hold delegated authority under Section 16(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 to approve classifications of council held reserves, subject to all statutory processes having been satisfied.

19. As the proposed classification is substantially the same as the purpose for which the reserve is held, council is not required to publicly notify its intention to classify the reserve. However, engagement with iwi is still necessary in terms of statutory compliance with - Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987. The proposal for classification will be presented to the North/West Mana Whenua Forum on the 10 February 2022.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Philomel Reserve is located at R39 Philomel Crescent, Bayswater. It consists of one piece of land legally described as Lot 28 Deposited Plan 37884 and shown outlined blue below:

Map

Description automatically generated

21. Originally Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown) was registered as proprietor of an estate in fee simple in the entirety of the parcel of land described as Lot 1 DP 31218 and being portion of Allotment 13 Section 1 of the Parish of Takapuna, comprised in NA795/115, containing 9.3652 hectares of land.

22. In 1950 the Crown subdivided the land comprised in NA795/115 on deposit of Plan 37884 for the purposes of Housing Act 1919, thereby creating Lot 28.

23. In 1952 pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Housing Amendment Act 1940, Lot 28 DP 37884, being land subject to the Housing Act 1919 was declared to be Crown Land available for reservation under the Land Act 1948, as recorded under NZ Gazette 13700 (Proclamation) published on 20 November 1952 page 1863.

24. In 1953 pursuant to Section 167 of the Land Act 1948, Lot 28 DP 37884 was declared to be land reserved for recreation purposes, as recorded on NZ Gazette 1953 page 225.

25. Pursuant to Section 17 of the Public Reserves, Domains and National Parks Act 1928, Lot 28 DP 37884 was declared land that has been duly set apart as a reserve for recreation purposes and vests the control of the reserve in the Takapuna Borough Council (now Auckland Council).

26. The reserve is currently held by the Crown through Department of Conservation as an unclassified recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and is controlled and managed by Auckland Council.

27. The reserve is zoned as Open Space – Conservation Zone under the Auckland Unitary Plan.

28. There are no natural resources, heritage layers or special character areas indicated on council’s Geomaps.

Reserves Act 1977

29. The Reserves Act 1977 requires all reserves to be classified for their primary purposes.

30. The purpose of recreation reserves as set out in section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977 is to provide for recreation with the emphasis on the retention of open spaces. Staff consider this classification is appropriate as it allows for walking, formal and informal recreation in an almost totally urbanised area, enabling local residents and visitors to enjoy the reserve in a manner supported by the Reserves Act 1977. This was also the intended purpose for the reserve when it was originally set aside by the Crown.

Vector Easement

31. In April 2021, Auckland Council’s Land Advisory team assessed and approved a landowner approval application from the owner of 50 Philomel Crescent, Bayswater to connect a new power line from the existing power pole located on the reserve, to a new house at 50 Philomel Crescent. The application highlights that the power line will be trenched underground and that the applicant (vector) will be responsible for reinstating any damage caused to the reserve to current condition or better upon completion of works. Land Advisory staff consider installation to be minor, and that the proposal will not impact the long-term use of Philomel Reserve.

32. Local board members delegated the responsibility to provide feedback on such matters supported staff recommendations as indicated via email dated 24 March 2021 (refer Attachment C).

33. Under the Act, Auckland Council cannot grant easements over unclassified reserve, and therefore completing the reserve classification process at the reserve will enable Auckland Council to grant the easement to Vector

34. It should be noted Auckland Council and Vector have already entered into Works Agreement, which is conditional on classification of the reserve.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. There will be no climate impact because the classification of a reserve is the formalisation of:

· statutory requirement under the Act; and

· current status of the reserve.

36. Philomel Reserve is not subject to any floodplains.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. The proposed reserve classification has no identified impact on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

38. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board holds the delegated authority under Section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify the reserve.

39. The formal classification of the reserve will enable Auckland Council to grant certain rights over the reserve such as leases, licences or easements.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. Prior to proceeding with the classification, the council is required under Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 to engage with local iwi. The proposal will be presented to the mana whenua groups identified as having an interest in the land. Should iwi raise any concerns or objections to the proposed classification that cannot be resolved at officer level, staff will seek the views of the local board at that point.

41. Auckland Council’s Cultural Heritage Implementation Team has advised that there are no identified sites of value or significance to mana whenua in relation to this site.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. There are no financial implications for the local board arising from the proposal to classify the reserve.

43. The local board’s resolution to classify the reserve will be published in the New Zealand Gazette to provide a public record of the classification. The cost of classification under the Reserves Act 1977 will be borne by Auckland Council’s Community Facilities Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. If the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board does not resolve to classify Philomel Reserve as recommended, this decision would contravene the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. Land Advisory staff will complete the classification statutory requirements.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Vector easement plan	875
b ⇩	Signed LOA	877
c ⇩	Local Board comments	887

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Tamara Zunic - Specialist Technical Statutory Advisor
Authoriser	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 February 2022

Auckland Council’s Performance Report: Devonport-Takapuna Local Board for quarter two, 2021/2022 financial year

File No.: CP2022/00311

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Devonport Takapuna Local Board (the local board) with an integrated performance report for quarter two, 1 October 2021 to 31 December 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report and its attachments include financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the local board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2021/2022 work programme.

3. The local board has an approved 2021/2022 work programme with the following operating departments:

Date approved

Council department and / or unit

Resolution number

15 June 2021

 Customer and Community Services.

 Infrastructure and Environmental Services. (I&ES).

 External Partnerships.

 Auckland Emergency Management.

 Auckland Unlimited.

DT/2021/83

DT/2021/86

DT/2021/87

DT/2021/88

DT/2021/89

4. The majority of the local board work programme is tracking against its key objectives, milestones and timelines for delivery. Notable project updates from the 1 October to 31 December 2021 period include:

· Devonport Peninsular Trust (ID 117) and Takapuna North Commnuity Facilities Trust (ID 113) have continued to provide localised support services and programming during the COVID lockdown;

· Whai Pūmanawa Literacy (Auckland Libraries supporting communities):

o Children and youth services and programming (ID 1431): Te Ara Poutama began on 13 December 2021 to 28 January 2022, where children can log their reading and complete activities to earn badges and go in the draw to win a summer prize pack from their local library. Free book bags will also be given to the first 4,000 children who register for the Level Up challenge.

o Services and programmes (ID 1432): book groups have continued online via Zoom meetings. This has enabled connections during the pandemic and help people keep in touch, and stay connected. Libraries have also contributed to welfare phone calls to seniors in the community to check in with library customers and offer assistance where necessary;

· Youth development (ID 115): Shore Junction adapted quickly to closure of the building due to COVID-19 and launched a diverse online programme via the youth- friendly web platform Discord. This platform supports resilience and wellbeing through continued engagement with education, connection with peers and youth-led initiatives;

· Activation of parks, places and open spaces (ID 1190): the delivery of the programme has commenced during quarter two and is being undertaken in accordance with the COVID protection framework;

· Takapuna Pool and Leisure Centre Operations (ID 30): The Centre was closed from 18 August to 2 December 2021 due to the COVID-19 lockdown. Staff continued to engage with customers through wellness checks of our vulnerable members via phone, regular email and social media updates, and online and outdoor fitness classes. Kauri Kids early childhood education was open through level three with limited numbers, and fully reopened to all families when the Centre moves to the red COVID protection framework setting, however many parents have chosen to wait to return until 2022.

The centre re-opened fitness services on 3 December 2021 and most aquatic services, including Learn to Swim and Aqua Aerobics, on 6 December 2021. Visitor numbers have been low, which was to be expected, and user groups such as North Shore Swim Club have chosen to return in 2022;

· ANZAC services (ID 121): planning for these events have commenced, however they may be subject to COVID-19 restrictions at that time. The local board will be kept informed as planning continues in early-2022;

· Ecological and environmental programme FY22 (ID 610): There were 382 volunteer hours invested by eight community groups across 11 reserves. Effort was focused on plant care, mulching, weeding and pest animal control. 64 hours were spent on nursery work as the capacity to grow from seed and pot on unplanted seedlings, increases.

A highlight for quarter two was the regeneration of the Mt Cambria Reserve native garden behind the Devonport Museum. A Māori-led restoration plan with Restoring Takarunga Hauraki has also been commissioned for the ecological improvement of Jutland Reserve.

· Pest-free environmental coordinators (ID 742): Due to COVID-19 restrictions, both Restoring Takaranga Hauraki and Pupuke Birdsong have been limited in their ability to host many of their volunteer activities and events which were on hold until early November 2021. Both organisations have been holding regular meetings online with members and different networking groups.

Restoring Takaranga Hauraki have set up new possum traps along Ngātaringa Reserve and Shoal Bay and have started a contactless delivery of rat and possum traps to neighbouring properties.

Pupuke Birdsong are developing a monitoring plan to be implemented early next year and have been working on new databases designed to record and share important milestones with members and volunteers;

· Construction has commenced on the following renewals:

o Linwood Reserve – renew park play spaces (ID 24264);

o Gould Reserve – renew toilets and changing rooms (ID 20482)

· Completion of the following renewals:

o Milford Reserve – renew toilets and changing rooms (ID 20584)

o Nile Reserve – renew park play spaces (ID 24258)

· Montgomery Reserve – renew park play spaces (ID 24228): concept design was approved by the local board at their December 2021 business meeting;

· Sunnynook Park – construct new toilet at the Tonkin Drive end (ID 30862): Manufacturing of the toilet building is well underway, and staff are meeting with Ngaati Whanaunga to develop the puurakau and kowhaiwhai components of the exterior wrap;

· Windsor Reserve – renew band rotunda and seating (ID 24601): the project is in the final stages as resource consent is being lodged for a new power supply for the lighting, power outlets for the band rotunda and a new footpath.

· Milford Beach Front Reserve - renew the seawall stairs (ID 1867): Staff have assessed the staircases along Milford Beach and have determined that:

o two of the stairs are to be reshaped to current standards

o the other two are to be tidied up and made as safe as practicable, or decommissioned.

5. All work programme updates are detailed in Attachment A.

6. In 2020, Next Generation Rotary (NGR) gave a presentation to the local board about supporting improved water quality through the purchase of a SeaBin, which would collect rubbish from the Wairau Estuary. NGR were fundraising the costs of purchasing the SeaBin and requested support from the local board for the ongoing maintenance. The local board allocated $5,000 operational funding to ensure the council contractor would empty the SeaBin, once installed at the Wairau Estuary.

7. NGR have informed staff that they are no longer fundraising towards the purchase of the SeaBin. NGR were advised that the SeaBin company have changed their supplier and business model and are no longer selling single units. As a result, the local board’s $5,000 operational funding allocation is available for reallocation. Staff recommend that the funding be reallocated to the local board’s community grants programme, so the budget can used towards community-initiated programmes, activities and events in the 2021/2022 financial year.

8. There is no funding available in the Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget (LDI: CAPEX). The entire budget was allocated to the new toilet at the Tonkin Road end of Sunnynook Park at the June 2021 business meeting (DT/2021/83). This means that there is no budget to consider new assets for the remainder of the term.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for quarter two ending 31 December 2021.

b) reallocate the $5,000 operational funding budget from the SeaBins - Milford Marina rubbish removal project (ID 29203) to the local board grants programme (ID 125), as the installation of the SeaBin is no longer being undertaken by Next Generation Rotary.

c) note the financial performance report in Attachment B of the agenda report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council Group half-year results for 2021/2022 are released to the New Zealand Exchange (NZX), which are expected to be made public on or about 28 February 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Work programme update for quarter two, 2021/2022 financial year	895
b ⇩	Financial summary for quarter two - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Tristan Coulson - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

[1] Refer Submitter Numbers 207, 247, 469, 474, 501, 593, 613, 655, 1101, 1113, 1141 1189, 1193, 1315 1335 , 1360, 1385, 1417 and 1463 in Attachment B.

[2] Proposed prohibited areas with majority support were Pakuranga Community Hall, St Heliers Community Library and Hall, Leigh Library and Grounds, Ti Point Walkway, Warkworth Town Hall Grounds, Onetangi Cemetery, Waiheke Island Artworks, Entrance of Goldie Bush Walkway, Lopdell Hall and House, Sandys Parade and Highwic House.

[3] Refer Submitter Numbers 247, 474 and 613 in Attachment B.

[4] Proposed restricted area with majority support was Whisper Cove (adjacent roadside parking).

[5] For example, the proposal does not apply council controlled public place rules to land under the control of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority or to internal signs not on or visible from council controlled public places or the Auckland transport system. The proposal does however apply rules to signs on marae that are visible from council controlled public places or Auckland transport system as these could have safety impacts.

[6] This included 61 individuals and 18 organisations.

[7] The decision-making responsibility for Te Arai Drainage District, the Okahuhura Drainage Area and the Glorit Drainage District was reallocated to the Governing Body on 9 December 2020 (GB/2020/140).

[8] Three waters refers to drinking water, wastewater, and storm water.

[9] National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management policy 3.5

[12] Streams, springs, rivers, lakes, wetlands, groundwater, estuaries, harbours.

Chairperson	Ruth Jackson
Deputy Chairperson	Jan O'Connor, QSM
Members	Aidan Bennett, QSM
	Trish Deans
	Toni van Tonder
	George Wood, CNZM

Author	Michelle Riley - PA/Office Manager
Authoriser	Eric Perry - Local Area Manager