Agenda of Howick Local Board - Monday, 21 February 2022

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Local Board - Urgent Decision - Celebrating Cultures Event	13

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Local Board - Urgent Decision - Movies in the Parks	19

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Local Board - Urgent Decision - Music in the Parks	25

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Local Board - Urgent Decision - Feedback on Government's Resource Management System Reform Amendment Proposal	31

Howick Local Board

21 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00114

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 53 Have Your Say feedback and 127 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 Howick 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 2021 the Governing Body gave staff new direction to inform development of a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw for Auckland. This decision followed consideration of possible elements to replace an earlier proposal developed in 2018, which was set aside by the Governing Body in August 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

21. A total of 53 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 127 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 all four general rules, with mixed views on the departure time and no-return rules.

· 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 areas 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	76 per cent HYS support 90 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	88 per cent HYS support · 6 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 73 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	42 per cent support · 26 per cent preferred 1 night 65 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	38 per cent support · 27 per cent preferred 10am · 15 per cent preferred 8am 52 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	39 per cent support · 32 per cent preferred 4 weeks 49 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

76 per cent HYS support

90 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

88 per cent HYS support

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

73 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

42 per cent support

· 26 per cent preferred 1 night

65 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

38 per cent support

· 27 per cent preferred 10am

· 15 per cent preferred 8am

52 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

39 per cent support

· 32 per cent preferred 4 weeks

49 per cent RS support

40 per cent support

· 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks

55 per cent RS support

Site-specific feedback (Proposals 3 and 4)

Proposal

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

Auckland-wide feedback

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

· Barry Curtis Park (Flat Bush Road entrance and Ormiston Activity Centre: 14 support, 4 oppose

· Barry Curtis Park (Stancombe Road entrance):13 support 4 oppose

· Pakuranga Community Hall: 15 support, 3 oppose

· Two people commented on prohibited areas outside your local board area^{^[2]}.

Majority support for prohibition at 11 areas^{^[3]}

Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas

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

· Barry Curtis Park (parking area off Chapel Road, St Pauls area): 8 support, 9 oppose

· 27 Moore Street carpark: 5 support, 12 oppose

· 20-24 Uxbridge Road carpark: 6 support, 10 oppose

· Two people commented on restricted areas outside your local board area².

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

· many respondents are fundamentally opposed to freedom camping

· the proposed rules are not restrictive enough of 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, inlcuding 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 Howick 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

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

21 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00536

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 Howick 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 two people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal.

22. There was majority support for Proposals 1, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C, 4, 5A, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11A, 11B, 12, 13A, 13C, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D and 15, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 2A and 5B, and majority opposition for Proposals 3A, 7A and 7B. 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)	50 per cent	50 per cent	53 per cent	36 per cent
P2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks or reserves, or at an Open Space Zone)	100 per cent	0 per cent	63 per cent	35 per cent
P2C: Election signs	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)	100 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	27 per cent
P3C: Event signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	78 per cent	7 per cent
P4: Free-standing signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	66 per cent	14 per cent
P5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)	100 per cent	0 per cent	65 per cent	20 per cent
P5B: Portable signs	50 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P6: Posters	100 per cent	0 per cent	76 per cent	16 per cent
P7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	0 per cent	100 per cent	56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs	0 per cent	100 per cent	62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	40 per cent	43 per cent
P10: Verandah signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	54 per cent	18 per cent
P11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	100 per cent	0 per cent	60 per cent	24 per cent
P11B: Wall-mounted signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	24 per cent
P12: Window signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones	100 per cent	0 per cent	48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones	0 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	21 per cent
P13C: Commercial sexual services	100 per cent	0 per cent	73 per cent	20 per cent
P14A: General (safety and traffic)	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	13 per cent
P14B: General (tops of buildings)	100 per cent	0 per cent	79 per cent	18 per cent
P14C: General (illuminated signs)	100 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P14D: General (business that cease trading)	100 per cent	0 per cent	58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals	100 per cent	0 per cent	52 per cent	24 per cent
P16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings	0 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

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

21 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00693

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 Howick 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^{^[6]}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^{^[7]}.

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^{^[8]} and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series^{^[9]}.

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^{^[10]} that are reflected in their whakapapa, waiata, and whaikōrero tuku iho (stories of the past). Protecting the health and mauri of our freshwater ecosystems is fundamental to providing for the food, materials, customary practices, te reo Māori, and overall well-being of iwi and hapū.

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

· Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Guidance to the Water Strategy 2019

· submissions to the Our Water Future Public Discussion Document 2019

· Te Pou Taiao engagement throughout 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Risk

Assessment

Mitigation/Control measures

Insufficient or inconsistent implementation of the strategy

Medium risk

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

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

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

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

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

High risk

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Water Strategy Core Content	69

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategist

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - 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.	103

Howick Local Board

21 February 2022

Quarterly Performance Report FY22 Q2

File No.: CP2022/01047

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Howick 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 Howick Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· Healthy Howick: Diverse communities

(Customer and Community Services work programme ID 227)

· Howick Beach – renew seawall

(Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme ID 2231)

· Pest Free Howick

(Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme ID 664)

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):

· Bramley Drive Reserve – renew seawall and club boat ramp

(Customer and Community Services work programme 15595)

· Howick – develop shared pathway – HWCNP – Aviemore Road to Botany Road

(Customer and Community Services work programme 30025)

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.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

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

b) 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

7. The Howick Local Board has an approved 2021/2022 work programme for the following:

· Customer and Community Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services;

· External Partnerships;

· Plans and Places;

· Auckland Unlimited.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 activity status and department

Graph 4: Work programme performance by activity status

Key activity updates from quarter two

15. The key achievements to report for the period include:

· Healthy Howick: Diverse communities (Customer and Community Services work programme ID 227). Officers signed two funding agreements: with Inclusionz Trust on intercultural tours and workshops, and with Independent Living Services Trust (ILS) on senior support. The highlight of the Inclusionz Trust proposal is to focus more on engaging with young people and let them appreciate the multiculturism and diversity in Howick. ILS have prepared a plan to cater to the need of seniors under possible lockdown by delivering services online.

· Howick Beach – renew seawall (Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme ID 2231). Strategic assessment has been completed and the project will move to the initiate phase in the third quarter. Design and physical works will be undertaken in the third and fourth quarters.

· Pest Free Howick (Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme ID 664). This initiative featured as a finalist in three categories in the NZ Biosecurity Awards, as well as being a finalist in the AsureQuality Emerging Leader Award and the Mayoral Conservation Awards.

Activities with significant issues

16. The renewal of the Bramley Drive Reserve seawall and club boat ramp (Community Facilities work programme 15595) is still identified as RED. However, due to reporting timing, this project should be identified as GREEN and is currently on track.

17. The development of a shared pathway from Aviemore Drive to Botany Road (Community Facilities work programme 30025) is still identified as RED. However, due to reporting timing, this project should be identified as GREEN and is only waiting for the funding agreement for the allocation of $410,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (approved at the December 2021 business meeting, resolution number HW/2021/210) to be completed.

Activities on hold

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

· Barry Curtis Park – renew Chapel Road Carpark (Customer and Community Services, ID 30540).

· Highland Park Library – renew interior fittings (Customer and Community Services, ID 23996).

· Howick – improve green assets (Customer and Community Services, ID 23332).

· Lloyd Elsmore Park – renew skate park (Customer and Community Services, ID 30575).

· Rogers Park – renew playground (Customer and Community Services, ID 20663).

· Ara Tai Reserve 21R Ara Tai Drive Bucklands Beach Yacht Club Incorporated, new lease (Customer and Community Services, ID 1685).

· Bucklands Beach 56R The Parade, Bucklands Beach Yacht Club Incorporated, new lease (Customer and Community Services, ID 1682).

· Howick Domain 90R Wellington Street Howick, new lease (Customer and Community Services, ID 976).

Changes to the local board work programme

Cancelled activities

19. These activities are cancelled:

· LB Event – Stockade Hill and Mainstreet lights (Customer and Commmunity Services, ID 242).

Activities with changes

20. The following work programmes activities have changes which been formally approved by the local board.

Table 1: Work programmes change formally approved by the board

ID/Ref	Work Programme Name	Activity Name	Summary of Change	Resolution number
669	Infrastructure and Environmental Services	Howick Stream Improvement programme	for water connectivity sensors and a wai care kit, budget reallocation $3,000.	HW/2021/208
666	Infrastructure and Environmental Services	Howick Schools Waste Minimisation Programme	for schools to become more sustainable and reduce their carbon footprint, budget reallocation $3,000	HW/2021/208
664	Infrastructure and Environmental Services	Pest Free Howick	for arborist restoration work in the Te Naupata Reserve, budget reallocation $26,900	HW/2021/208
226	Customer and Community Services	Healthy Howick Placemaking and Connectedness	for the Greater East Tamaki Business Association to administer a Covid-19 Response Recovery Fund, budget reallocation $10,000	HW/2021/208
243	Customer and Community Services	Kiwi Anthems music concert	for additional resource to meet the new government guidelines, budget reallocation $6,000	HW/2021/208
240	Customer and Community Services	Movies in the Park	for additional resource to meet the new government guidelines, budget reallocation $12,000	HW/2021/208
1584	Customer and Community Services	Celebrating Cultures	for additional resource to meet the new government guidelines, budget reallocation $6,000	HW/2021/208

21. The following work programmes activities have been amended to reflect minor change, the implications of which are reported in the table below. The local board was informed of these minor changes and they were made by staff under delegation.

Table 2: Minor change to the local board work programmes

ID/Ref

Work Programme Name

Activity Name

Change

Reason for change

Budget Implications

27334

Customer and Community Services

Simon Owen Place – Install footpath

Budget reduction

The investigation and delivery stage of the project required less budget than anticipated this financial year due to the level of scoping that was determined.

$17,000 reduction

18084

Customer and Community Services

Maclean Park – renew park paths and culverts

Budget increase

Macleans Pathway needs additional budget due to the fact that 70metres of the path was unfortunately missed in the original project schedule. This section of the pathway does not require drainage, but only an aggregate surface renewal. We cannot exclude this piece of the pathway as it forms part of the original renewed pathway. The 70metre pathway needs to be brought up to the same maintenance standard as the rest of the pathway already completed. This variation will pay for the delivery of this segment.

$17,000 increase

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

· Howick Schools Waste Minimisation Programme (Infrastructure and Environmental Services, ID 666) includes a Carbon Footprint education element.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. 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

26. This report informs the Howick Local Board of the performance for quarter two ending 31 December 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. Two activities have a direct Maori outcome focus:

· Maori Engagement: Improving responsiveness to local Maori Howick (Customer and Community Services work programme ID 228). Staff continued to work with the Te Tahawai Marae in particular, with the challenges they are face because of COVID-19 lockdowns.

· Whakatipu i te reo Māori - we grow the Māori language Celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori – Howick (Customer and Community Services work programme ID 1343). Matariki was celebrated in July 2021 and included activities introducing children and whānau to the te ao Māori world. Pakuranga library invited local Kuia Taini Drummond to talk about pre-European Māori plants and school Kapa Haka groups performed at the Botany library.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. This report is provided to enable the Howick 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

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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 ⇩	Quarterly Operating Performance Q2 2021 Financial Appendix	157

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Ian Milnes - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

21 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00688

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 are 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 are 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 are also consulting directly with mana whenua to ensure their views are represented.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick 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, they must make it clear in their 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 ⇩	Howick Local Board - NZ Geographic Attachment A	169
b ⇩	Howick Local Board - NZ Geographic Attacment B	171
c ⇩	Howick Local Board - NZ Geographic Attachment C	173
d ⇩	Howick Local Board - NZ Geographic Attachment D	175

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

21 February 2022

Proposed Auckland Council submission on the Hākaimangō-Matiatia Marine Reserve application

File No.: CP2022/01286

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek Local Board feedback to inform a council-wide submission through the Environment and Climate Change Committee on the proposed Hākaimangō-Matiatia Marine Reserve application to Department of Conservation (DOC).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Friends of the Hauraki Gulf Incorporated have lodged an application to DOC for a proposed marine reserve northwest of Waiheke Island (Hākaimangō-Matiatia).

3. Given the regional implications of significant marine protection initiatives at any one location, Auckland Council’s submission on this application is being considered through the Environment & Climate Committee on 10 March 2022. The Natural Environment Strategy Unit is leading this work.

4. Local Board feedback will help inform a council wide submission drawing on a request for input from mana whenua, and other technical staff evaluation and input.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) provide feedback to inform a council-wide submission through the Environment and Climate Change Committee on the proposed Hākaimangō-Matiatia Marine Reserve application to Department of Conservation (DOC).

Horopaki

Context

5. Central government have publicly notified council and other interests of an application for the proposed Hākaimangō-Matiatia Marine Reserve at the northwestern end of Waiheke Island, lodged by Friends of the Hauraki Gulf Incorporated. Further information on the application can be found here.

6. The proposed Hākaimangō-Matiatia Marine Reserve application covers 2,350 ha with boundary limits between Hakaimango Point to Matiatia Point (see Figure 1).

7. There is an existing strategic direction for marine protection within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park / Tikapa Moana / Te Moananui-ā-Toi (the Gulf). The Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (Sea Change) was publicly released in December 2016. Sea Change included numerous objectives and recommendations for multiple stakeholders to improve the waiora (health) and mauri (life force) of the Gulf.

8. In 2020 central government released a Government Response Strategy to Sea Change titled Revitalising the Gulf: Government action on the Sea Change Plan (Government Response Strategy). This included 11 proposed new high protection areas, two additional areas of marine protection adjacent to existing marine reserves and five proposed seafloor protection areas in the Gulf. Our current understanding is that central government intend to formally consult on these areas on as part of a generic process, with the prospect of successfully considered sites being recognized in law in 2024.

9. The proposed Hākaimangō-Matiatia Marine Reserve application is distinct and additional to the proposed marine protected areas within the Government Response Strategy. However, the Government Response Strategy did note that it did not include proposed marine protection adjacent to Waiheke Island and recognised that there were other community driven initiatives on the island seeking greater marine protection in the Gulf.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. Council’s submission will assess the application’s merits in line with the Marine Reserves Act 1971, noting that under the Act marine reserves may be established to preserve areas for scientific study, that contain underwater scenery, natural features, or marine life of distinctive quality, or so typical, beautiful, or unique that their continued preservation is in the national interest.

11. Regarding this, we note that in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (2000), the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments are recognized as nationally significant. A number of statutory agencies need to reflect that recognition in each of their own decision-making under other legislation (e.g., Resource Management Act).

12. For the proposed area within the Gulf, an ecological survey was undertaken in 2016 by Haggitt (2016), found here, who concluded that the area contained a diverse range of physical and biological habitats. However, reef fish biodiversity was low. Council staff assessment will consider other information sources to contextualise the local information available.

13. As part of council’s submission process, we will also consider the relationship of the application with Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan and the Government Response Strategy, found here, as well as any impacts (positive or negative) on local community use and Auckland’s strategic / planning context.

14. In evaluating this application, Natural Environment Strategy staff noted Waiheke Local Board passed resolutions in May 2021 (Resolution number WHK/2021/84) which state:

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) consider marine protection proposals for the board’s endorsement if sought prior to an application being lodged with the relevant Minister.

b) will consider endorsing any marine proposals based upon the following factors:

i) tangata whenua views

ii) alignment with endorsed local board policies and plans

iii) specialist supporting advice

iv) level of wider community involvement and support.

c) seek further assurances from the Minister that the Ngāti Pāoa rāhui is being progressed to a timely conclusion.

d) seek to understand progress on the ministerial proposal on which the local board and community may respond with respect to Sea Change and proposed protections for the waters of the Hauraki Gulf.

Additional documents

15. The Marine Reserves Act (1971) can be accessed here Marine Reserves Act 1971 (external site)

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

16. The decision to submit on the proposed application will not alter emissions or alter our adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

17. Climate change will result in impacts on marine environments and managing the environment through protection measures like marine reserves may help support some species (e.g., increase their abundance, less stressors) although this may change over time.

18. Assessments for marine reserves do not explicitly require climate change consideration.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Internal staff views are being sought across the following council divisions:

· Chief Planning Office (Plans and Places, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research)

· Regulatory Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services (Environmental Services)

· Customer and Community Services.

20. Positive or negative impacts on council activities will be assessed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. Since 2013, the Waiheke Local Board has been developing their aspirations for marine protection initiatives around Waiheke Island. This had included the option of a potential marine reserve site (for the purposes of the Marine Reserves Act 1971), at the northern area off Waiheke Island.

22. Any placement of a marine reserve in the Hauraki Gulf will lead to different outcomes and uses for the wider Gulf. Whilst assessing this application on its own merits against relevant statutory tests, there is a need to consider the wider marine protection proposed and being developed across the Gulf. A wider network of marine protection is being considered in the Gulf under the Revitalising the Hauraki Gulf, Central Government’s Response strategy to Sea Change. This application represents an additional marine protection area to those included in the government response strategy to the Sea Change Plan. How the proposed site compares with alternative locations will be considered.

23. There is a range of marine protections being considered for the Hauraki Gulf. Marine reserves have a specific purpose defined under the Marine Reserves Act (1971). Other forms of protection are available through measures in the Fisheries Act 1996. Marine protection sites in the government’s response strategy to the Sea Change plan range from full protection (i.e., Marine Reserves) through to other forms of high protection areas (i.e., equivalent to a range of Fisheries Act tools).

24. Local board feedback is being sought on the proposed Hākaimangō-Matiatia Marine Reserve application and will be used to to inform a council-wide submission through the Environment and Climate Change Committee. Local Boards will be able to convey any impacts that may arise, should central Government decide to create a marine reserve at this or nearby sites.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Staff are seeking views from mana whenua. A memo has been sent to mana whenua representatives across the Auckland region seeking their feedback.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. For Auckland Council activities, it is not expected to generate extra direct costs as marine reserves are administered by DOC.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. The application process administered by DOC is to seek public submissions to ascertain what are the opportunities and challenges presented by the proposal. For Auckland Council, this internal consultation with Local Boards, mana whenua and specialist staff is to identify where the potential risks and mitigations are prior to the council taking an overall position.

28. There may be a potential reputational risk for council in either supporting or opposing the application. To address this risk, our approach is to be objective and evaluate the proposal on both the merits and any potential impacts of the proposal.

29. Council will need to understand, where possible, the mana whenua perspective on this application before making recommendations to the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. The deadline for local board feedback is Wednesday 23 February 2022.

31. Auckland Council staff, led by Natural Environment Strategy, will be presenting to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 10 March 2022.

32. A final council submission on the proposed application is expected to be submitted prior to the closing date of 20 March 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jacob van der Poel - Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

21 February 2022

Auckland Transport - proposed speed limit changes (Tranche 2A)

File No.: CP2021/17840

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To formalise local board feedback on Tranche 2A of Auckland Transport’s proposed speed limit changes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Through Vision Zero, Auckland Transport has adopted the goal of eliminating road transport related deaths and serious injuries within the Auckland road network by 2050. One of the faster and most cost-effective ways to prevent deaths and serious injuries is to set safe and appropriate speed limits for the function, safety, design and layout of roads.

3. As part of Tranche 1 of Auckland Transports Safe Speeds Programme safe speed limits were set on many high risk urban and rural roads and within town centres across Auckland between June 2020 and June 2021.

4. Roads where safe speed limits were set on 30 June 2020 have experienced a 67 per cent reduction in fatalities, 19 per cent reduction in all injury crashes, and a minor reduction in serious injuries^{^[11]}. Total deaths and serious injuries reduced on these roads by seven per cent, compared to an upward trend in road trauma seen on the rest of the road network.

5. Further changes to speed limits are now being proposed for a number of roads across Auckland where current speed limits are not deemed safe and appropriate. This is referred to as Tranche 2A of the Safe Speeds Programme.

6. Details of the changes proposed in each local board area are provided as Attachment A to the agenda report.

7. Public Consultation on Tranche 2A closed on 14 November 2021. A summary of the consultation feedback is provided as Attachment B to the agenda report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) provide feedback on Tranche 2A of Auckland Transport’s proposed speed limit changes.

Horopaki

Context

8. Auckland Transport (AT) is the road controlling authority for all roads within the Auckland transport system. Generally, this is the local road network which includes public roads and beaches but excludes State Highways for which Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency has responsibility.

9. Reviewing and ensuring that speed limits across Auckland are set at speeds that are appropriate for road function, safety, design and use, is one of the key measures that AT is undertaking to improve safety on Auckland’s roads. Setting safe and appropriate speed limits will contribute to a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads and ensure speed limit consistency on the network.

10. Setting safe and appropriate speed limits also supports Auckland Transport’s Vision Zero approach (adopted by the AT Board in September 2019), which provides that no deaths or serious injuries (DSI) are acceptable while travelling on our transport network.

11. Auckland Transport controls more than 7,300 kilometres of roads and - through the Safe Speeds Programme - is working through a multi-year programme to review all speed limits across its network.

12. Speed limits must be reviewed and set (by bylaw) in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017. In line with government strategy and legislation, AT is prioritising high risk roads for review.

13. Previously AT made the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 (under the Land Transport Act 1998) which set new speed limits for the highest risk roads following AT’s first tranche of speed limit reviews. Within this first tranche, speed limits were reviewed on around 10 per cent of the local road network. Where new safe and appropriate speed limits were required to be set, these came into effect from mid-2020 to mid-2021.

All road performance

14. Roads where speed limits were changed on 30 June 2020 have experienced a 67 per cent reduction in fatalities, 19 per cent reduction in all injury crashes, and a minor reduction in serious injuries. Total deaths and serious injuries (DSI) reduced by seven per cent.

15. This equals four lives saved and 48 less injury crashes on roads treated with safe and appropriate speeds.

Rural road performance

16. Rural roads where speeds were changed on 30 June 2020 have seen a 78 per cent reduction in fatalities and a small reduction in serious injuries.

17. This equates to a DSI reduction of 16 per cent on the rural network where speed limit changes have been made. The overall number of crashes is similar to pre-implementation, but the crash severity rates have reduced, this is what would be expected on higher speed roads.

18. While it will take additional time to confirm that these trends are sustained, initial indications are promising.

19. Auckland Transport is now proposing further speed limit changes for a number of roads across Auckland after reviewing and finding that their current speed limits are not safe and appropriate. This is part of the second tranche of reviews under the Safe Speeds Programme (Tranche 2A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Auckland Transport is proposing to amend the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 and set new safe and appropriate speed limits for 823 roads across Auckland with a total length of 614km (approximately eight per cent of the road network), with these new limits proposed to come into force mid-2022.

21. Auckland Transport has reviewed the existing speed limits for each of the roads identified and found they are not safe and appropriate for the function, design and use of the roads. This means there is now a legal obligation to improve the safety of the roads. Making no change is not an option. This means AT is required to either:

· set a new safe and appropriate speed limit, or

· install engineering measures to improve the safety of the road, like road widening, resurfacing, barriers, road markings, speed humps etc.

22. Physical constraints and the corresponding costs involved mean that it isn’t viable to ‘engineer up’ these roads to support their existing speed limits. Setting safe and appropriate speed limits is one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

Community Engagement

23. Public consultation on the Safe Speeds Programme Tranche 2A took place from 27 September – 14 November 2021, including:

· a flyer mailout to 340,257 properties and PO Boxes on/near the roads where changes to speed limits are proposed

· advertising in the NZ Herald, community newspapers, specialist/ethnic media:

o Central Leader, East & Bays Courier, Eastern Courier, Manukau Courier, North Harbour News, North Shore Times, Nor-West News, Papakura Courier, Rodney Times, Franklin County News, Western Leader, Hibiscus Matters, Pohutukawa Times, Chinese Herald, Mandarin Pages, Ponsonby News

· radio advertising on: Niu FM, Radio Samoa and Radio Waatea

· radio interviews and adlibs on: Niu FM, Radio Samoa and Radio Waatea

· media release and on-going media management

· published an article in Our Auckland

· translated consultation materials into Te Reo Māori, Tongan, Samoan, Simplified Chinese, Korean and NZ Sign Language

· sent flyers, posters and hardcopy Freepost feedback forms, in multiple languages to every library and service centre in Auckland

· put posters on trains, buses and ferries that could reach 280,000 commuters each day

· 15 online webinars.

24. Feedback has been provided through a number of channels:

· online via http://AT.govt.nz/haveyoursay

· via a survey

· via a mapping tool

· at public hearings held on 25 November 2021.

25. Local boards have also had the opportunity to present at public hearings.

26. A summary of feedback from the local community has been provided as Attachment B. This includes feedback on specific streets in your area, as well as broad feedback about the Safe Speeds Programme more generally.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The primary climate change benefit of safe and appropriate speed limits is that they support and encourage greater take-up of walking, cycling and micromobility by reducing the risk to vulnerable road users, making these modes more attractive. This supports emissions reductions.

28. For town centres where speed limits were reduced and safety improvements introduced under the first tranche of speed limit changes, there has been strong positive feedback, with 19 per cent of respondents advising they are now participating in at least one active mode activity (e.g. walking or cycling) more often since the projects have been completed.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. The Safe Speeds Programme has been endorsed by the AT Board, the Auckland Council Planning Committee and conforms with direction from the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018/19 – 2027/28 and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

30. In March 2021, Auckland Transport staff held a workshop with Auckland Council’s Planning Committee to provide an update to Councillors on Vision Zero, road safety performance over the past three years and sought feedback on the direction and priorities for Tranche 2 of the programme. The Committee expressed informal strong support for the direction of the Safe Speeds Programme, with a number of members supportive of the programme moving faster into their community areas.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. Public submissions and feedback are provided as Attachment B.

32. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to provide feedback on changes proposed in Tranche 2A.

33. Feedback provided in relation to Tranche 1 has also been considered by Auckland Transport in the development of the current proposals.

34. For the residential areas where speed limits have been reduced under the first tranche of the Safe Speeds Programme, there has been strong positive feedback on the safety improvements, with 79 per cent of respondents commenting that the area feels safer overall. As noted above, 19 per cent of respondents advised they are now participating in at least one active mode activity (e.g. walking or cycling) more often since the projects have been completed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. Engagement on Tranche 2 has been undertaken with kaitiaki at northern, central and southern transport hui during 2021 alongside detailed engagement on the rural marae workstream, which is part of the second stage of Tranche 2.

36. Mana whenua are, in general, supportive of the Safe Speeds Programme and positive safety, community and environmental outcomes arising through safe and appropriate speed limits. There is in particular strong engagement and support for the rural marae workstream which forms part of the second phase of Tranche 2.

37. Further engagement will be undertaken following the public engagement period to determine feedback on and support for the final proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. There are no financial implications arising from local boards providing feedback on the Safe Speeds Programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39. Delays due to COVID-19 and lockdown in the Auckland Region have added complexity to both public consultation and implementation timelines.

40. When Auckland moved into alert level four, a temporary pause was put on all new consultations to allow time to adapt our consultation strategy and increase our digital engagement. The following measures were undertaken to ensure a quality engagement process:

· the consultation start date was delayed by three weeks from 6 September to 27 September 2021

· the consultation length was extended from five to seven weeks

· the number of online events during the consultation was significantly increased

· digital advertising spend was increased, and digital engagement plans were put in place with Auckland Council’s Engagement Partners who helped reach our diverse communities.

41. Steps have also been taken to ensure flexibility in the implementation timeline, and local boards will be kept up to date with any changes to the dates that the new speed limits will take effect.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Early in 2022 Auckland Transport will finalise an analysis and feedback report, including feedback from both the public and local boards.

43. On 31 March 2022 staff will present this report and recommendations to the AT Board.

44. The new speed limits are proposed to come into force on 31 May 2022 for the majority of roads, and 13 June 2022 for roads associated with schools, allowing for school speed changes to be made at the start of a school week.

45. These dates may need to be revised due to the impacts of Covid-19 and to take into account consultation feedback. Local boards will be kept updated if any changes are made.

46. More speed limit changes (Tranche 2B) are planned to be publicly consulted in 2022. AT has engaged with all local boards affected by Tranche 2B and will continue to keep local boards updated as the speed reviews are finalised.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2 December 2021 Howick Local Board AT Speed Tranche 2A	189
b ⇩	Howick Local Board - Public Feedback on Proposed Speed Limit Changes	191

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts - Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

21 February 2022

Proposed Auckland Council submission on the Kia kaha ake te tiakina o ngā puna wai-inu/Improving the protection of drinking-water sources: Resource Management (National Environmental Standards four sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007

File No.: CP2022/01413

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek Local Board feedback to inform a council-wide submission on the proposed amendments to the Kia kaha ake te tiakina o ngā puna wai-inu / Improving the protection of drinking-water sources: Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 consultation document (NES-DW).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The objectives of proposed amendments to the NES-DW are to strengthen and align national direction (including with the Water Services Act 2021) for protection and management of source water.

3. Given the regional and operational implications of these regulations to the supply of Drinking Water services and managing the impacts of activities on water sources, Auckland Council’s submission on this application is being considered through the Planning Committee on 3 March 2022.

4. Local Board feedback will help inform a council wide submission drawing on a request for input from mana whenua, and other technical staff evaluation and input.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) provide feedback to inform a council-wide submission on the proposed amendments to the Kia kaha ake te tiakina o ngā puna wai-inu / Improving the protection of drinking-water sources: Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 consultation document (NES-DW).

Horopaki

Context

5. The objectives of proposed amendments to the NES-DW are to strengthen and align national direction (including with the Water Services Act) for protection and management of source waters.

6. The proposed amendments to the NES-DW are technical in nature, but aim to improve water quality by improving:

i. how at-risk source water areas are delineated by establishing scientifically derived methodology for mapping source water risk management areas

ii. how activities that pose risks to source water are regulated or managed by ensuring higher-risk activities are managed either through more stringent controls or direction where necessary, or through consistent consideration of source water effects, and

iii. protecting all registered water supplies by allowing the NES-DW to cover the same supplies as the Water Services Act (i.e. all water suppliers other than domestic self-suppliers).

7. The proposed amendments to the NES-DW are part of a package of work to improve drinking water standards as encompassed by the government’s wider Three Waters review, as well as in response to the Havelock North Enquiry following an outbreak of gastroenteritis from the town’s water supply in 2016. The Havelock North Enquiry identified various issues with the regulatory regime, including ‘significant problems’ with the NES-DW. The current NES-DW came into effect in 2007.

8. The following diagram highlights the range of instruments that form the regulatory framework for protecting drinking water (source: NES-DW discussion document).

9. Public consultation on the consultation document closes on 6 March 2022.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. The council’s submission will assess the proposed amendments to the NES-DW against current priorities for managing source water and delivering drinking water services across the Auckland region. This will include current and future planning objectives within the Auckland Unitary Plan, management of land use activities through consenting processes, and operational priorities for the delivery of drinking water services.

11. The discussion document aligns with several other recent and/or ongoing regulatory reforms, including:

I. instruments under the Essential freshwater package, including National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM), National Environment Standards for Freshwater 2020, and section 360 regulations for Stock Exclusion

II. Water Services Act 2021

III. Resource Management Act reform

IV. Three Waters reform

12. The council’s submission will seek alignment between the above instruments wherever possible. However, until the draft wording for the proposed NES-DW is released, it is difficult to highlight exact areas where the proposals may come into conflict with other legislative instruments.

13. Managing rivers, lakes and aquifers, and land uses that may affect water quality or quantity, is the responsibility of regional councils under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Activities that may affect source water include discharges of contaminants into the environment, such as from wastewater management, other water sources, damming and diverting water flows, works in riverbeds, earthworks, and drilling into aquifers.

14. These activities can increase the likelihood of contaminants, such as bacteria (including pathogens), chemicals, sediment, and other substances, entering the water body. These risks often go unrecognised, especially contamination of groundwater in aquifers.

15. Water treatment is intended to remove or treat contaminants to acceptable levels for drinking, but not all contaminants can be addressed, and treatment can be costly. Activities that may introduce contaminants to source water pose a risk that needs to be appropriately managed.

Additional documents

16. The Kia kaha ake te tiakina o ngā puna wai-inu / Improving the protection of drinking-water sources: Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 consultation document can be found online here:

https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/nes-dw-consultation-document.pdf

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. The decision to submit on the proposed amendments will not alter emissions or alter our adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. Internal staff views are being sought across the following council divisions:

i. Chief Planning Office (Plans and Places, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research)

ii. Regulatory Services

iii. Infrastructure and Environmental Services (Environmental Services)

iv. Customer and Community Services

v. Council Controlled Organizations (Watercare and Auckland Transport).

19. Positive or negative impacts on council activities will be assessed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. Local board feedback is being sought on proposed amendments to the Kia kaha ake te tiakina o ngā puna wai-inu / Improving the protection of drinking-water sources: Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 consultation document (NES-DW) to inform a council-wide submission through the Planning Committee.

21. The NES-DW, when it comes into effect, will require updates to the Auckland Unitary Plan and regional planning and consenting decisions that local boards may be asked to provide future input on. Ongoing impacts to local boards decision making (when the NES-DW is brought into effect) may include additional regulatory requirements for some management activities on public land (such as parks) which fall within a Source Water Risk Management Area (SWRMA).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. National environmental standards cannot require direct participation of iwi/Māori in their implementation because this would necessitate larger RMA revisions. Measures such as the NPS-FM, on the other hand, require regional councils to actively incorporate tangata whenua in freshwater management and decision-making, either through authority transfers or delegations, or through joint management agreements. Iwi and hapu are likely to get more involved in freshwater issues as a result of the NPS-FM. As the NES-DW will be built to work within the larger NPS-FM framework, the NPS-requirements FM's should be carried over to the NES-DW.

23. Staff are seeking views from mana whenua. A memo has been sent to mana whenua representatives across the Auckland region seeking their feedback.

24. The proposed amendments to the NES-DW are not intended to affect Treaty settlements and arrangements. Officials have not identified any proposed changes that are inconsistent with resource management arrangements or rights established by specific Treaty settlement legislation.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. The decision to submit on the proposed application will not have a financial impact on the Auckland Council group.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. There may be a potential reputational risk for council in either supporting or opposing the application. To address this risk, our approach is to be objective and evaluate the proposal on both the merits and any potential impacts of the proposal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. The deadline for local board feedback is Tuesday 22 February 2022.

28. Auckland Council staff, led by Natural Environment Strategy, will be presenting to the Planning Committee on 3 March 2022.

29. A final council submission on the proposed application is expected to be submitted prior to the closing date of 6 March 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jacob van der Poel - Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

[1] Refer Submitter Numbers 20, 135, 266, 337, 506, 642, 833, 886, 975, 998, 1114, 1202, 1303, 1306, 1314, 1338, 1347, 1367 and 1374 in Attachment B.

[2] Refer Submitter Numbers 20 and 135 in Attachment B.

[3] 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.

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

[7] National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management policy 3.5

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

[11] For the 12-month period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, compared to an average of the prior five years.

Chairperson	Adele White
Deputy Chairperson	John Spiller
Members	Katrina Bungard
	Bo Burns
	David Collings
	Bruce Kendall
	Mike Turinsky
	Bob Wichman
	Peter Young, JP

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Local Board Workshop Record - 2 December 2021	233
b ⇩	Howick Local Board Workshop Record - 9 December 2021	235
c ⇩	Howick Local Board Workshop Record - 16 December 2021	237
d ⇩	Howick Local Board Workshop Record - 27 January 2022	239
e ⇩	Howick Local Board Workshop Record - 3 February 2022	241
f ⇩	Howick Local Board Workshop Record - 10 February 2022	243

Author	Blair Morrow – Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Authors	Blair Morrow - Administrator
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager