Agenda of Henderson-Massey Local Board - Tuesday, 15 February 2022

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Approval for a new private road name at 38 and 40 Westgate Drive, Massey

File No.: CP2022/00092

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Henderson-Massey Local Board to name a new private road, being a commonly owned access lot (COAL), created by way of a subdivision development at 38 and 40 Westgate Drive, Massey.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines (the Guidelines) set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names. The Guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider /developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

3. The developer and applicant, Muxi Jiang of Jebel Limited, has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

4. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the Guidelines and the Australian & New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing, AS NZS 4819:2011 and the Guidelines for Addressing in-fill Developments 2019 – LINZ OP G 01245 (the Standards). The technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity. Mana Whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the Guidelines.

5. The proposed names for the new private road at 38 and 40 Westgate Drive are:

· Dotterel Place (applicant’s preference)

· Oystercatcher Place (alternative)

· Pied Stilt Lane (alternative).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve the name ‘Dotterel Place’ (applicant’s preference) for the new private road created by way of subdivision at 38 and 40 Westgate Drive, Massey, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60370244 and SUB60370246, and road naming reference RDN90097218).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent reference BUN60370244 (subdivision reference number SUB60370246) was issued in June 2021 for the construction of 38 new residential freehold units and one commonly owned access lot (COAL).

7. Site plan and location map of the development can be found in Attachment A.

8. In accordance with the Standards, any public road or any private way, commonly owned access lots (COAL), and right of way, that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

9. In this instance, the COAL requires a name because it serves more than five lots. This can be seen in Attachment A, where the COAL is highlighted in yellow.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. The Guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region. The Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

11. The Guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

· a historical, cultural, or ancestral linkage to an area; or

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature; or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

12. Theme: The Applicant proposed the following names, as detailed in the table below:

Proposed name

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Dotterel Place

(applicant’s preference)

The New Zealand dotterel is a familiar bird of sandy east coast beaches in the northern North Island but is sparsely distributed around much of the rest of the country.

A bulky plover with a heavy black bill, relatively long grey legs and large round dark eyes. The upperparts are brown and the underparts off-white, becoming orange-red from May, with the depth and extent of red varying individually and seasonally, and males generally being darker than females.

Oystercatcher Place

(alternative)

The variable oystercatcher is a familiar coastal bird with a long, bright orange bill, found around much of New Zealand. They are often seen in pairs probing busily for shellfish along beaches or in estuaries.

A large heavily built wader with black upperparts and underparts that vary from all black through a range of ‘smudgy’ intermediate states to white. The long straight bill is bright orange, the stout legs coral-pink, and the eyes red each with an orange eye-ring.

Pied Stilt Lane

(alternative)

The pied stilt is a dainty wading bird with, as its name suggests, black-and-white coloration and very long legs. It is common at wetlands and coastal areas throughout New Zealand and may be seen feeding alongside oystercatchers.

Pied stilts tend to be shy of people and fly away, yapping, when approached.

13. Assessment: All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the Guidelines and the Standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity. It is therefore for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

14. Confirmation: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

15. Road Type: ‘Place’ and ‘Lane’ are acceptable road types for the new private road, suiting the form and layout of the COAL.

16. Consultation: Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the Guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. The naming of roads has no effect on climate change. Relevant environmental issues have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the associated approved resource consent for the development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. The decision sought for this report has no identified impacts on other parts of the Council group. The views of Council controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. To aid local board decision making, the Guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua, particularly through the resource consent approval process, and the allocation of road names where appropriate. The Guidelines identify the process that enables mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications and in this instance, the process has been adhered to.

21. On 7 December 2021, mana whenua were contacted by Council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the Guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Trust Board)

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara (Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust)

· Ngāti Te Ata (Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua)

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust)

· Te Kawerau ā Maki (Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust)

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua).

22. By the close of the consultation period, no responses, comments, or feedback were received. Dependent on the scale of the development and its level of significance, not all road naming applications receive comments from mana whenua.

23. The site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua, it is considered that a suitable period of time has been made available to receive commentary from mana whenua and, as no feedback has been received, the naming process can continue.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the Council.

25. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. There are no significant risks to Council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process, with consultation being a key component of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. Approved road names are notified to LINZ which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database. LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	38 & 40 Westgate Drive site plan and location map	13

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Dale Rewa - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche Two - Confirmation of Sites for Māori Naming and Bilingual Exemplar Park

File No.: CP2021/18021

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To confirm the list of sites for naming in Te Kete Rukuruku tranche two, including the addition of Royal Reserve.

2. To approve Starling Park for installation of bilingual park signage.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. On 17 July 2018, the Henderson-Massey Local Board resolved (HM/2018/104) to invite mana whenua to name 179 parks in the Henderson-Massey area, as part of Te Kete Rukuruku, the Māori naming of parks and community places programme.

4. Sixty-six sites were prioritised for naming as tranche one and 63 names were adopted on 18 May 2021 (HM/2021/63). Three sites were removed from the tranche as they were unsuitable for naming.

5. Forty-one parks from the original list of 179 sites, plus Royal Reserve and Waitākere Central Library, have been prioritised for naming in tranche two and were supported by the local board at a workshop held on 5 October 2021. This will leave 72 sites remaining for naming in tranches three and four.

6. This report seeks the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s approval to include Royal Reserve and Waitākere Central Library for naming and confirmation of the tranche two list as shown in Attachment A.

7. One bilingual exemplar park may be chosen in each tranche where all signage is upgraded to be fully bilingual. A memo was emailed to the local board in December 2021 where information was provided and feedback was sought.

8. Local Board feedback supported the recommendation of Starling Park as the bilingual exemplar park for tranche two. This report seeks formal approval for Starling Park to be selected to receive a full suite of bilingual signage.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve the list of 43 sites for naming in tranche two of Te Kete Rukuruku, including Royal Reserve and Waitakere Central Library, as detailed in Attachment A,

b) approve Starling Park as the preferred location for the installation of bilingual signage in Te Kete Rukuruku tranche two.

Horopaki

Context

9. Te Kete Rukuruku is a culture and identity programme that collects and tells the unique Māori stories of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. It is a partnership, led by mana whenua, between Auckland Council and all 19 mana whenua groups that have interests across the region.

10. A key outcome of the programme is for te reo Māori to be seen, heard, learned and spoken. The programme contributes to reclaiming the Māori identity which is Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique point of difference in the world.

11. A subset of the programme involves the reintroduction of ancestral and contemporary Māori names to the city’s parks and places.

12. The rationale and benefits of the programme, as well as the process for identifying and adopting names and narratives, was agreed by Henderson-Massey Local Board at its business meeting on 17 July 2018.

13. On 17 July 2018, the Henderson-Massey Local Board invited mana whenua to provide Māori names and narratives for 179 parks (HM/2018/104). This was included in its 2018/2019 work programme for naming.

14. From this large list, 66 sites were prioritised for naming. Sixty-three names were adopted on 18 May 2021 (HM/2021/63). Three sites were removed from the tranche as they were unsuitable for naming.

15. Te Kete Rukuruku process, as agreed with mana whenua and local boards, is that te reo Māori names are being restored by mana whenua. Consequently, public feedback on specific names is not sought. In some cases, the Māori names have been attached to the park or area for hundreds of years prior to the English name being adopted.

16. When dual naming, existing park names are not removed and will not be lost.

17. Public consultation on sites selected for Māori naming is not undertaken by Te Kete Rukuruku or mana whenua as part of this process. Any communications with park stakeholders that is considered necessary by the local board should be identified and undertaken separately.

18. When received, the Māori names will be accepted and adopted by the local board. Communication and public notification of the new names will commence upon this formal adoption.

19. One park is identified within each tranche where signage will be reviewed and upgraded or replaced to include both Māori and English text. Upon project completion, all signage within the selected park will be bilingual.

20. The local board identified Pukewhakataratara / Rush Creek Reserve and the Massey Leisure Centre site as its exemplar park for tranche one and a full suite of bilingual signage, including interpretive text, was installed in November 2021.

21. Unfortunately, due to impacts from COVID-19 a whakarewatanga was unable to be held to unveil the signage and celebrate the adoption of the 63 tranche one names with the local community. A new date will be identified and discussed with the local board and iwi.

22. Once names are adopted signage will be replaced only when due for renewal except for the bilingual parks selected. Should the local board wish to upgrade signage sooner to reflect the new names funding would be required from the Locally Driven Initiatives fund.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and adviceSite Selection

23. A workshop was held on 5 October 2021 where the remaining 113 tranche one sites were considered. Forty-one parks, plus Waitakere Central Library, were prioritised for naming in tranche two and these were supported by the local board. This will leave 72 sites remaining for naming in tranches three and four. These sites are shown in detail in Attachment A.

24. At the request of iwi, the addition of Royal Reserve into tranche two was discussed and supported by the local board at the workshop.

25. All 43 sites have been identified for dual naming where the existing name is retained, and the Māori name is added creating a dual Māori / English name. The Māori names precede the English in line with Auckland Council Māori naming policy.

26. The local board may subsequently choose to remove the English name from the park and have a sole Māori name rather than a dual name. Consultation with stakeholders and those with an interest in the park is at the local boards’ discretion but would be recommended should the board wish to pursue this as an option. No sites have been identified for sole naming at this time.

Bilingual exemplar park signage

27. Rush Creek Reserve and Massey Leisure Centre (park) were selected in tranche one to have all signage upgraded to be fully bilingual.

28. This bilingual signage is fully funded from long-term plan regional funding for Māori outcomes. No additional funding is required.

29. The new signage includes:

· dual language entrance signage, stating the te reo Māori and English names

· bilingual wayfinding, information and bylaw signage

· a bilingual interpretative sign to tell the story behind the Māori name.

30. With a view to spending Aucklanders’ money wisely, existing signs will be reskinned, unless the signage is damaged or worn and needs to be replaced.

31. An assessment was undertaken of the 42 tranche two parks. Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara have been confirmed for naming in tranche two and options were discussed with them. Iwi identified Starling Park as the preferred park to receive the bilingual signage.

32. A memo was sent to the local board on 9 December 2021 for feedback on the recommendation of Starling Park as the bilingual exemplar park for tranche two.

33. Starling Park was recommended for the following reasons:

· assessed as the park most fully meeting the criteria for a bilingual exemplar park. It has high community value with significant infrastructure.

· high use sports park, meaning the story and the name will have a high level of visibility particularly with the location of the sea scouts here and the adjacent campground.

· existing signage assets within the park are of poor quality and in need of immediate repair/replacement.

· the outcome of enabling te Reo to be visible, heard, spoken and learnt as detailed in Auckland Council’s Māori Language Policy will be met more fully with the installation of bilingual signage within this site as opposed to any of the other parks being named.

· both iwi support this site as the bilingual exemplar park.

34. Feedback on this recommendation was received from five local board members including the Chair and Deputy Chair. All feedback supported the selection of Starling Park.

35. Bilingual signage will visibly raise the profile of te reo Māori in the public domain. It will provide the opportunity to learn the story behind the name as well as making it easy for the public to become familiar with, and use, te Reo.

36. If the local board does not approve the installation of bilingual signage at Starling Park all signage will remain in its present condition. Signage will then only be replaced either via the renewals programme or, if funded separately by the local board from its Locally Driven Initiatives budget, as a stand-alone project.

37. For the reasons outlined above it is recommended that the local board approve the installation of bilingual signage in Starling Park.

Communications approach

38. The local communications team will continue to work with the board and mana whenua, with support from the programme team to develop communication outputs.

39. Messaging will be focused on what the community is gaining and being proud of what we are doing for all Aucklanders.

40. Local board communication channels will be used to get messages out, including Facebook pages and e-newsletters. The local communication team will also work with local boards to develop media opportunities at the time of the whakarewatanga. Board members will be provided with messages to share with their networks. With COVID-19 restrictions delaying the whakarewatanga for Pukewhakataratara / Rush Creek Reserve communication activities have been delayed until the event is rescheduled.

41. Information was provided in September 2021 to all park stakeholders identified by the TKR team regarding the adoption of the tranche one dual names.

42. Upon adoption of the tranche two sites a similar communications approach will be followed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement43. There are no substantive climate change impacts relating to this matter.

44. Signage will be replaced as it comes up for renewal with the only exception being the bilingual signage at one selected exemplar park where existing signs will be reskinned if replacement is not warranted.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45. The Te Kete Rukuruku project is a regional programme that delivers on the council’s Māori Language Policy and Kia Ora Te Reo, which is a priority within Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, the organisation’s Māori Outcome Performance Management Framework. It also delivers on Kia Ora Te Ahurea (the Māori culture and identity outcomes) as the programme helps to reclaim our Māori identity and unique point of difference in the world.

46. The programme aligns with the aspirations of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), as articulated in the Schedule of Issues of Significance 2017, Māori Plan.

47. This programme is a partnership programme with the naming and narratives being led by mana whenua. It seeks to bring rigour to the process of naming across the council group over time.

48. The programme has also triggered the development of new bilingual signage templates that are now being used across the organisation.

49. The council’s Community Facilities department is responsible for renewal of existing signage and will incorporate the new dual name as and when signage is renewed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

50. Through partnering with mana whenua on this project, it is envisaged that relationships between mana whenua and local boards will be strengthened.

51. The programme’s recommendation of dual naming adds an additional name and narrative to each park, as opposed to taking anything away from the community.

52. Dual language naming signage and bilingual signage help to enrich park user experience.

53. Māori naming and bilingual signage in parks is aligned to the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2020:

· Outcome three: Thriving Māori culture and identity

· Key Initiative: Progress Te Kete Rukuruku.

54. The local board formally resolved to name 41 of the parks on this tranche two list in July 2018 (HM/2018/104).

55. The local board supported the addition of Royal Reserve and the Waitakere Central Library at a workshop in October 2021. This equates to total of 43 sites for naming in tranche two.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56. This project helps to increase Māori identity and belonging and is aligned with outcomes in the Auckland Plan.

57. The project contributes towards outcomes from the Te Reo Māori Action Plan 2020-2023. The action plan brings to life the Māori Language Policy (2016) and describes actions to champion a bilingual city where te reo Māori is seen, heard, spoken and learned.

58. Adopting Māori names and narratives for parks increases the visibility of te reo Māori in the local board area and safeguards the stories of mana whenua to help ensure their survival.

59. Te Kete Rukuruku has sought to establish a best practice approach to Māori naming and the collection and sharing of stories.

60. Mātauranga agreements are being developed to ensure that names and stories are protected by the council. Their correct use which will be upheld, primarily for purposes that have a community outreach or educational purpose (non-commercial use).

61. As a partnership programme, all aspects of providing names and narratives are led by the mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau. This is appropriate as mana whenua are those with the mana in this area to carry the responsibility for Māori naming.

62. There are a large number of resident mataawaka (Māori who live in Auckland and are not in a mana whenua group) who will have a great interest in these new names and narratives. This provides an opportunity to engage with mataawaka Māori organisations and invite them to embrace and help champion the names and narratives once the names are adopted.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

63. Henderson-Massey Local Board has set aside Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) funding for this programme and this has been carried forward into the current financial year.

64. This funding provides a partial contribution to mana whenua for their time in supporting the process including research and ratification.

65. The Henderson-Massey Local Board allocated $41,500 in 2018/2019 for naming 179 parks as tranche one of this project. Sixty-three parks had dual names adopted as tranche one in 2020/2021 and an additional 43 sites are identified for naming in tranche two.

66. Funding of $31,626 (Sharepoint ID 3123) has been carried forward to continue naming this financial year. Forty-three sites have been identified for tranche two and no further funding is requested.

67. A small community event to unveil the bilingual signage in either Rush Creek Reserve or Massey Leisure Centre (park) is planned to celebrate the adoption of the tranche one names.

68. Sufficient funding remains to allow for this small community event and to continue with delivery of the remaining sites selected for naming.

69. Updated dual name signage for these parks will be delivered through Community Facilities’ existing renewals programmes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

70. A number of risks and issues were highlighted at the outset of this programme or added as the programme progressed including:

· multiple mana whenua having an interest in Henderson-Massey, with differing views on naming

· extended delays in the adoption of Māori names with implications of continuing the predominance of English only names and missing renewal opportunities

· potential negative public reaction to the addition of Māori names

· costs of replacement signage.

71. These risks are carefully managed throughout the process and mitigated in a variety of ways, including:

· timeframes are extended when required to allow robust discussion around the names being submitted. The approach of the programme has been to focus on a quality outcome

· splitting the tranche to allow for adoption of names as they are finalised rather than waiting for completion of the entire tranche. This is particularly relevant when such a high number of parks are being named

· the existing park name will be retained with the Māori named being returned/added. No existing names will be removed. Communications with stakeholder and community groups will communicate this once the Māori names are adopted

· signage will be replaced as it comes up for renewal with the only exception being the bilingual signage installed at exemplar parks selected.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

72. Upon Henderson-Massey Local Board’s formal approval, iwi will research and submit Māori names as dual names for the sites confirmed as tranche two. It is expected these names will be able to be presented to the local board in March/April 2022.

73. Upon Henderson-Massey Local Board’s formal approval a signage assessment will be undertaken in Starling Park and a signage upgrade plan will be prepared. The local board will be updated on progress. Visuals will be drafted once the dual name is known and has been adopted.

74. A new date for the whakarewatanga for tranche one will be discussed and confirmed.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey Sites for Māori naming	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Dawn Bardsley - Naming Lead

Authorisers

Anahera Higgins - Maori Outcomes Delivery Manager - Kia Ora Te Reo

Justine Haves - General Manager Regional Services Planning, Investment and Partnership

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Proposed Plan Change - Category A* Historic Heritage Places

File No.: CP2022/00078

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, if 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 Henderson-Massey 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 Henderson-Massey 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, as appropriate.

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. Five historic heritage places in the plan change are within the Henderson-Massey Local Board area:

· ID 00056 Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand Transmitter Station, 2-12 Selwood Road, Henderson

· ID 00127 Falls Hotel (former), 22 Alderman Drive, Henderson

· ID 00134 Swan Arch, Swan Arch Reserve, Central Drive, Te Atatū South

· ID 00143 Henderson Railway Station, Railside Avenue, Henderson

· ID 00168 Residence, 19 Longbush Road, Te Atatū.

15. The plan change proposes the Broadcasting Corporation Transmitter Station be Category A and the other places be Category B.

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 will be 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.

22. Council heritage staff and Eke Panuku staff have discussed amendments proposed in the plan change to Falls Hotel.

23. Council heritage staff supported a request from Eke Panuku to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan mapping of the Historic Heritage Overlay for Falls Hotel to align with a subdivision/ boundary adjustment being pursued by Eke Panuku.

24. In July 2021, Eke Panuku sought a further amendment to the mapping of the Falls Hotel to accommodate proposed works for the Oratia Link cycleway. In 2021, the cycleway was in the planning phase, with two route options being considered. Council heritage staff considered the information was not certain enough to make further mapping changes before notification of the plan change. Also, the provisions of the Historic Heritage Overlay in the Auckland Unitary Plan allow for maintenance and repair of footpaths, cycling and walking tracks as a permitted activity, subject to standards. Depending on the works needed for the cycleway, resource consent for works proposed near Falls Hotel may not be required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

26. The plan change includes five Category A* historic heritage places in Henderson-Massey.

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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).

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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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 Henderson-Massey Local Board to express its views and preferences

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

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

35. 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

36. 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.

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00111

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 23 Have Your Say feedback and 107 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 Henderson-Massey 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 is an appropriate way to manage freedom camping in Auckland.

12. In March 2021c, 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 23 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 107 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 three general rules and support for an alternative departure time

· for Proposal Three there was majority support for the proposed prohibited areas in the local board area

· for Proposal Four there was majority opposition for the proposed restricted area in the local board area.

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	55 per cent HYS support 91 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	42 per cent HYS support · 17 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 79 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	58 per cent support · 25 per cent preferred 1 night 70 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	22 per cent support · 56 per cent preferred 10am · 22 per cent preferred no departure time rule 54 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	45 per cent support · 27 per cent preferred no non-return period rule 52 per cent RS support	40 per cent support · 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks 55 per cent RS support

Proposal

Local board feedback

Auckland-wide feedback

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

55 per cent HYS support

91 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

42 per cent HYS support

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

79 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

58 per cent support

· 25 per cent preferred 1 night

70 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

22 per cent support

· 56 per cent preferred 10am

· 22 per cent preferred no departure time rule

54 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

45 per cent support

· 27 per cent preferred no non-return period rule

52 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==9)^{^[1]}

Auckland-wide feedback

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

· Fred Taylor Park: 3 support, 2 oppose

· McLeod Park: 3 support, 2 oppose

· Waitākere Central and Central One: 3 support, 2 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.

· Trusts Arena: 1 support, 5 oppose (prefer freedom camping be allowed with different or no restrictions)^{^[3]}

· Three people commented on restricted areas outside your local board area.

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:

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

· the proposed rules are too restrictive of freedom camping

· some respondents are fundamentally opposed to freedom camping.

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 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Public feedback from people in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Bayllee Vyle - Policy Advisor

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00450

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.

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 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 Henderson-Massey 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 (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 28 March 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

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 seven people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal.

22. There was majority support for Proposals 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3C, 4, 5A, 5B, 12, 13B, 13C, 14A, 14B and 14C, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 3B, 6, 7B, 9 and 15, and majority opposition for Proposals 3A and 14D. 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)	100 per cent	0 per cent	53 per cent	36 per cent
P2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks or reserves, or at an Open Space Zone)	75 per cent	25 per cent	63 per cent	35 per cent
P2C: Election signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	21 per cent
P3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	0 per cent	100 per cent	54 per cent	34 per cent
P3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	50 per cent	50 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)	67 per cent	33 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	50 per cent	50 per cent	76 per cent	16 per cent
P7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	0 per cent	50 per cent	56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs	50 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs	0 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs	50 per cent	50 per cent	40 per cent	43 per cent
P10: Verandah signs	50 per cent	0 per cent	54 per cent	18 per cent
P11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	33 per cent	33 per cent	60 per cent	24 per cent
P11B: Wall-mounted signs	40 per cent	40 per cent	59 per cent	24 per cent
P12: Window signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones	0 per cent	0 per cent	48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones	100 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)	0 per cent	100 per cent	58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals	50 per cent	50 per cent	52 per cent	24 per cent
P16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings	50 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 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Copy of local feedback from the local board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend Stormwater Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/01110

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 Henderson-Massey 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. Four people from the local board area provided feedback summarised in Table 2.

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.	25 per cent support	60 per cent support
2: Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals	50 per cent support	47 per cent support
3: Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points	75 per cent support	64 per cent support
4: Restricting or excluding activities for parts of the stormwater network	75 per cent support	48 per cent support
5: Updating the bylaw wording, format, and definitions	75 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
33	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 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area	77

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Dean Yee – Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021: Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report.	89

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa - New Zealand Geographic Board: recording of unofficial place names as official

File No.: CP2022/00674

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To inform local boards about an opportunity to provide input to a project being undertaken by Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa New Zealand Geographic Board to record large numbers of unofficial place names as official.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa New Zealand Geographic Board is undertaking a project to record unofficial place names as official.

3. Around 30,000 place names throughout New Zealand have been shown on maps and charts for many years yet are not official. Of this there are 1,421 identified within the Auckland Region.

4. Where there is no other recorded name for a place, and where Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa considers it unlikely that the public would object, a fast-track process is enabled under legislation.

5. Of the 1,421 names proposed to be made official, 690 are non-Māori in origin, and 731 are te reo Māori.

6. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa is consulting with councils and relevant mana whenua to ensure names are adopted correctly and remove place names from the fast-track process if there are any objections. The fast-track process does not require public consultation.

7. Within Auckland Council, local boards are best placed to provide local views. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa is also consulting directly with mana whenua to ensure their views are represented.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the report, including attachments which detail the unofficial place names in the local board area which are proposed to be made official.

b) provide feedback on any place names that, in their view, should not proceed under the fast-track process.

Horopaki

Context

8. Around 30,000 place names throughout New Zealand have been shown on maps and charts for many years yet are not official. Of this there are 1,421 identified within the Auckland Region.

9. Making place names official is important as it means there is one agreed and correct name for a place, which is especially important in an emergency. It is also an important way to formally recognise New Zealand’s unique culture and heritage.

The fast-track process

10. Section 24 of the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 2008, known as the fast-track process, authorises Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa to use its discretion to make existing recorded (unofficial) place names official when:

· there is no other recorded name for a place or feature on a map or chart, or in a database that Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa considers to be authoritative, and

· Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa considers it unlikely that the public would object.

11. A recorded place name is one that has been used in at least two publicly available publications or databases that Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has agreed are authoritative.

12. A programme to implement this fast-track process is divided into the councils by region so that hundreds of existing recorded place names can be made official as part of one process.

13. The fast-track process does not require public consultation. However, Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa is consulting with councils and relevant mana whenua.

14. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has sought expert advice from a licensed te reo Māori translator about the correct standard conventions for writing the Māori place names, for example, spelling and macron use.

15. This project does not include applying formal boundary extents to any suburbs or localities – it is only about their names.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has given Auckland Council the opportunity to provide feedback on 1,421 unofficial places names throughout the Auckland Region to ensure that any issues or concerns are identified before the place names are officially adopted.

17. Within the shared governance structure of Auckland Council, local boards are best placed to represent local views.

18. The 1,421 place names are spread across all 21 of Auckland’s local boards, distributed as follows:

Table 1: Number of unofficial place names proposed to be adopted as official

Local Board	Number of place names
Albert-Eden Local Board	22
Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board	171
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board	24
Franklin Local Board	177
Henderson-Massey Local Board	17
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board	58
Howick Local Board	21
Kaipātiki Local Board	22
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board	17
Manurewa Local Board	11
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board	20
Ōrākei Local Board	28
Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board	5
Papakura Local Board	10
Puketāpapa Local Board	14
Rodney Local Board	397
Upper Harbour Local Board	44
Waiheke Local Board	184
Waitākere Ranges Local Board	133
Waitematā Local Board	29
Whau Local Board	17

19. There is also an online map available showing the locations of each place name at https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=ef47da1929664e3aba10233306a5449a

20. The list of proposed place name approvals has been divided into four types of change that Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa are proposing to make:

a) previously unofficial Māori place name to be adopted as is (376) (Attachment A)

b) previously unofficial Māori place name adopted with the addition of macrons (205) (Attachment B)

c) previously unofficial Māori place name where more information or clarification is sought regarding whether the name has been captured correctly (150) (Attachment C)

d) previously unofficial non-Māori place name to be adopted as is (690) (Attachment D).

21. The process for local boards to provide input is as follows:

· this report provides each local board with a list of recorded unofficial names that are proposed to be made official, organised into the four different types noted above

· each local board is invited to provide feedback on the following matters:

o any concerns, such as incorrect spelling, or other known names for the places or features

o any history/origin/meaning of these names that they wish to provide

o identification of any place names should not proceed under the fast-track process.

22. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa will not proceed with making a place name official if it is likely to cause controversy within a community. If a local board wishes to have a place name removed from the fast-track process, it must make it clear in its feedback to Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa which name they object to, and why.

23. Any place names removed from the fast-track process will remain as an unofficial recorded place name and will not be discontinued or deleted.

24. More information on proposing a name change outside of the fast-track process can be found at https://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/propose-place-name

25. Each local board will receive a follow up memo at the conclusion of this project advising which names have been formally adopted within their local board area and which remain as an unofficial recorded place name.

26. Any stories that relate to local place names provided to Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa may be entered in the New Zealand Gazetteer.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. There are no climate implications from providing feedback on unofficial names proposed to be made official.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Auckland Council’s GIS team is involved in this project to ensure that place names are recorded correctly with regards to feature type, and coordinates/position.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. The list of proposed place names includes a substantial number of Māori names, and all local board plans include objectives relating to delivering on commitments to Māori.

30. Any place name that the local board or mana whenua object to will be removed from the fast track process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa is consulting directly with mana whenua on the appropriateness of formalising place names that are currently in common use.

32. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has worked with a licensed Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori translator to ensure that Māori place names currently in common use reflect correct spelling and macrons, and that their correct meanings are understood. Any place names mana whenua are not able to clarify will be removed from the fast track process.

33. Any proposed names that mana whenua object to will be removed from the fast-track process.

34. The Auckland Plan 2050 includes the outcome Māori Identity and Wellbeing: A thriving Māori identity is Auckland's point of difference in the world. It advances prosperity for Māori and benefits all Aucklanders.

35. The Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework - Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau – includes a number of mahi objectives which are relevant to this work:

· the council group supports te reo Māori to be seen, heard, spoken and learned throughout Tāmaki Makaurau

· the council group reflects and promotes Māori culture and identity within the environment, and values mātauranga Māori

· the council group fulfils its commitments and legal obligations to Māori derived from Te Tiriti o Waitangi and has the capability to deliver Māori outcomes.

36. Ensuring that unofficially recognised Māori place names currently in use become part of New Zealand’s official list of place names is an important step to delivering on these outcomes.

37. Likewise, ensuring that non-Māori names are not officially adopted where there is a te reo Māori name known to local iwi also delivers on these commitments.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. There are no financial implications from receiving this report.

39. There are no requirements to update signage, as all of the place names are commonly in use and would not create a name change.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa will not proceed with making a place name official if it is likely to cause controversy within a community. Any place name that the local board or mana whenua object to will be removed from the fast-track process.

41. If any concerns arise in the future over the newly adopted official place names Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa may publish an amending notice in the NZ Gazette, or the public can make a proposal to Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa, depending on the nature of the change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Local boards are invited to provide formal feedback on the list of place names attached.

43. A follow-up memo will be shared with local boards indicating which place names were approved in each local board area as part of the fast-track process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name to be adopted as is	141
b ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name adopted with the addition of macrons	143
c ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name where more information or clarification is sought regarding whether the name has been captured correctly	145
d ⇩	Previously unofficial non-Māori place name to be adopted as is	147

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Resource Management System Reform

File No.: CP2022/00442

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 Henderson-Massey 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	159

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacob van der Poel - Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00446

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 Henderson-Massey 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 ⇩	Core Content for Auckland Water Strategy framework	179

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Toby Shephard - Strategist

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

15 February 2022

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Henderson-Massey Local Board for quarter two 2021/2022

File No.: CP2022/00223

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Henderson-Massey Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter two, 1 October – 31 December 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report includes 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 work programme is produced annually and aligns with Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· The Indigenous Entrepreneur Programme assisted seven local creatives to establish their own enterprise using local mentors and support systems, following earlier consultation with the Pacific Community.

· The Tuhonohono Diversity Programme for migrant and refugees in the Henderson-Massey local board area got underway with the aim to support innovation, collaboration and intercultural activities that increase opportunities for inclusion and participation for these local communities.

· age-friendly/older people activities successfully continued in this quarter with neighbourhood-led responses for older people carried out through the community hubs of Ranui Action Project (RAP) and McLaren Park Henderson South (MPHS) Community Hub to extend networks and reduce isolation.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery. Activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred, or merged). The following activities are reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

· continued council lease for The Western District Model Railway Club Incorporated at Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Winery, basement.

· continued council lease for the West City Darts Association at Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Winery, top floor.

6. The financial performance report for the quarter is attached but is excluded from the public. This is due to restrictions on half-year annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on 28 February 2022.

7. At the 8 February 2022 workshop staff advised the board that due to the cancellation of some events because of COVID-19, there will be unspent Locally Driven Initiatives operating expenditure budget for reallocation in the 2021/2022 financial year as follows:

· $35,000 - Henderson Christmas Festival 2021.

· $5,000 - Te Atatu Peninsula Santa parade 2021.

· $8,139 - Film revenue is available for allocation.

8. At the workshop staff presented a proposal for the allocation of funding for engineering and supplier advice/new equipment for Auckland Diving Community Trust (Auckland Diving) at West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre (West Wave) in Henderson.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

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

b) reallocate $25,000 of locally driven initiatives budget from the 2021/2022 Henderson Christmas Festival 2021 project towards engineering and supplier advice/new equipment at West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre (West Wave) in Henderson.

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.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has an approved 2021/2022 work programme for the following:

· Customer and Community Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· External Partnerships

· Local Economic Development

· Plans and Places

· Auckland Unlimited.

10. The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet Local Board Plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

11. Auckland faced COVID-19 restrictions (Alert Level 3) from the start of the quarter to 2 December 2021, when all of New Zealand moved to the COVID-19 Protection Framework, also known as the traffic lights. Auckland went into traffic light red, moving to traffic light orange on 30 December 2021.

12. Auckland Council regional and community facilities were closed in Alert Level 3. Restrictions eased slightly in Level 3, Step 2 and from mid-November 2021 libraries and the majority of arts and community centres were reopened. Pools and leisure centres were able to reopen from 3 December 2021 when New Zealand moved to the COVID-19 Protection Framework.

13. From 23 January 2022, Auckland moved back into traffic light red setting under the COVID-19 Protection Framework, which will impact council and community-delivered event planning and programming.

14. Noting much of the quarter two commentary was completed prior to the shift back to the traffic light red setting, impacts on individual activities are reported in the work programme update (Attachment A) where practicable, with further updates to be provided in quarter three.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

15. The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme performance by RAG status

16. The graph below shows the stage of the activities in each departments’ work programmes. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes.

Graph 3: Work programme performance by department

Graph 4: Work programme performance by activity

Chart

Description automatically generated

Key activity updates from quarter two

17. The Indigenous Entrepreneur Programme assisted 7 local creatives to establish their own enterprise with local mentors and support following earlier consultation with the Pacific Community. The funding agreement was signed in November 2021 following a talanoa (a process of inclusive, participatory, and transparent dialogue). This project continued throughout Covid-19 lockdown via Zoom meetings, emails, and other connections, helping young entrepreneurs prepare for the Christmas pop-up shop market event at West City, which launched on 9 December 2021 and was very successful.

18. The local board funded Belong Aotearoa to deliver the Tuhonohono Diversity Programme. The purpose of this programme is to support innovation, collaboration and intercultural activities that increase opportunities for inclusion and participation for local migrant and refugee communities. In October 2021, a co-design online dreaming workshop for ethnic women living in the area was completed. The results showed future focus areas which could help grow the capability of our local ethnic communities. An interactive map of local organisations and ethnic community projects was also completed in this quarter, with the intent to turn this information into impact.

19. Age-friendly/older people activities continued in this quarter with neighbourhood-led responses for older people carried out through local community hubs to extend networks and reduce isolation. The JOY (Just Older Youth) club from MPHS Community Hub maintained momentum via Zoom, Messenger, and phone calls. Eight online events were held in this quarter and a Christmas celebration was held. RAP revamped its Older Persons project, and it is now called the Wise and Wonderful. The programme will resume this year as Covid lockdowns prevented meetings. RAP have actively worked with 36, 50+ year olds to get their vaccine passes. All people identified the difficulties they have with IT, and classes will continue for this group. Taumatua (Our Elders) funding agreement was signed in November 2021 with Pacifica Mamas.

Activities with significant issues

20. The following two projects are all relating to the Birdwood Winery Building in Ranui, which requires significant structural investment before ongoing council leases can be granted. A future discussion with staff and the local board is planned to discuss options:

· lease for The Western District Model Railway Club Incorporated at Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Winery, basement.

· lease for West City Darts Association at Te Rangi Hiroa Birdwood Winery, top floor.

Activities on hold

21. The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as on hold:

· the rebuild of the Corban Estate Old Wine Shop heritage building, which was removed in early 2021 after being hit by a car for the second time and being deemed unsafe, is on hold. The local board indicated a preference to design and install heritage information signage at the original site of the building (this is underway) and rebuild the wine shop on an agreed alternative site, utilising salvaged and suitable new materials, when funding is available.

· the refurbishment of the exterior of the Mill Cottage heritage building in is on hold with funding approved in financial year 2022/2023, when the project will restart.

· Te Rangi Hiroa/Birdwood Winery building requires refurbishment following investigation. To date, minor refurbishment work has been undertaken on the roof. A larger refurbishment project will be discussed with the local board as a part of the work programme discussions over the next few months, when staff will request additional funding for financial years 2022/2023 and 2023/2024.

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

22. There are no deferred activities from the current work programme into future years in this quarter.

Cancelled activities

23. These activities were cancelled:

· The Henderson Christmas Festival, which was planned for December 2021, was cancelled due to COVID-19 alert level restrictions. The budget allocated to this event will be reallocated to other local board projects or initiatives in due course.

· as part of the local boards Event Partnership Fund, the Te Atatu Peninsula Santa Parade was cancelled due to COVID-19 uncertainty. The budget allocated to this event can be reallocated to other local board projects or initiatives in due course.

Activities merged with other activities for delivery

24. There are no activities that have been merged with other activities for efficient delivery in this quarter.

Allocation of unspent operating expenditure from the 2021/2022 financial year

25. West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre (West Wave) is owned and operated by Auckland Council Pools and Leisure and includes the only Olympic specification dive pool in the Auckland region.

26. Auckland Diving Community Trust (Auckland Diving) is based at West Wave, where it provides diving programmes ranging from school-age beginners to adults and high-performance athletes.

27. In 2016 the Henderson-Massey Local Board provided funding to Auckland Diving to produce a needs assessment and feasibility study for improvements at West Wave. The study identified that it was feasible to undertake certain improvements which would support Auckland Diving to further develop its Diving programme. Identified improvements included installation of a harness and camera system over the dive pool, and upgrades to the dry-land training room.

28. There is an opportunity for Auckland Diving to install the harness and camera system during a planned comprehensive renewal programme close-down of West Wave main pool hall (including the dive pool) in July 2022. West Wave is willing to accommodate the harness and camera on the basis that Auckland Diving is responsible for purchase, installation and maintenance of the equipment.

29. The immediate priority for Auckland Diving is to obtain engineering and supplier advice to satisfy Auckland Council that the equipment will be safe for the building, divers and visitors and the equipment can be inspected and maintained by Auckland Diving. Depending on the outcome of this, Auckland Diving will seek funding for the infrastructure.

30. To implement its proposals Auckland Diving faces the following costs:

· Pre-construction engineering - $25,000

· Harness - $33,000

· Camera - $34,000

· Dry-land upgrades - $180,000.

31. At the 8 February 2022 workshop, the Henderson-Massey Local Board considered allocating budget towards engineering and supplier advice/new equipment at West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre (West Wave) in Henderson from the following unspent operating expenditure from the 2021/2022 financial year:

· $35,000 - Henderson Christmas Festival 2021 was cancelled due to Covid-19 restrictions.

· $5,000 - Te Atatu Peninsula Santa parade 2021 was also cancelled due to Covid-19 restrictions.

· $8,139 - Film revenue available for allocation.

32. At the time of this report, any unallocated funding from this unspent operating expenditure from the 2021/2022 financial year will be allocated in a later Henderson-Massey Local Board business meeting prior to 30 June 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. Receiving performance monitoring reports will not result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

34. Work programmes were approved in June 2021 and delivery is already underway. Should significant changes be required to any projects, climate impacts will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.

35. The local board is currently investing sustainability projects, which aim to build awareness around individual carbon emissions, and changing behaviour at a local level. These include:

· the procurement process for a Climate Action Activator for the local board is underway. This new position will drive the implementation of the Henderson-Massey Local Climate Action Plan (Whakarauora Āhuarangi) 2020-2023. This will involve developing a work programme for climate action priorities and enabling further initiatives that achieve carbon reduction targets set by the local board.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36. When developing the work programmes, council group impacts and views are presented to the local board.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. This report informs the Henderson-Massey Local Board of the performance for quarter two ending 31 December 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. The local board continues to fund Te Korowai Arkiki to deliver the Tumoana Dive programme for local rangatahi. Rangatahi build mana by learning how to dive and collect kai moana. In this quarter, wetsuits for the programme were purchased for the next cohort, with discussions underway with West Wave Aquatic Centre to book the programme in from January 2022.

39. Investigation for the concept design options for the access driveway for the future Te Atatū Marae at Harbourview/Orangihina have been undertaken and agreed on by all stakeholders. Next steps have been agreed which will see the development of the agreed design and obtaining relevant council consents.

40. Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of parks and places) project progressed with the local board providing and Iwi providing direction on Tranche 2 sites for naming. 41 parks from the original list of 179 sites, plus Royal Reserve and Waitākere Central Library, have been prioritised for naming in tranche two and were supported by the local board. This will leave 72 sites remaining for naming in tranches three and four.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. This report is provided to enable the Henderson-Massey Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2021/2022 work programme. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial Performance

42. Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZ Stock Exchange (NZX). As a result, the Council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board & Debt Market Listing Rules and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 sections 97 and 461H. These obligations restrict the release of half-year financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on 28 February 2022. Due to these obligations the financial performance attached to the quarterly report is excluded from the public.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and is susceptible to market conditions.

44. The approved Customer and Community Services capex work programme include projects identified as part of the Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP). These are projects that the Community Facilities delivery team will progress, if possible, in advance of the programmed delivery year. This flexibility in delivery timing will help to achieve 100 per cent financial delivery for the financial year if projects intended for delivery in the current financial year are delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

45. Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

46. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter three (31 March 2022).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Henderson-Massey Local Board Q2 work programme update	243
b ⇩	Henderson-Massey Local Board Q2 financial summary - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Tracey Wisnewski - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

[1] Refer Submitter Numbers 105,137, 206, 485, 583, 640, 1130, 1192 and 1530 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 105, 1130 and 1530 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	Vanessa Neeson, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Brenda Brady, JP
Members	Chris Carter
	Peter Chan, JP
	Dr Will Flavell
	Matt Grey
	Brooke Loader
	Ingrid Papau

Authors	Brenda Railey - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Authors	Wendy Kjestrup - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager