Agenda of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board - Tuesday, 15 February 2022

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche Two - Site Selection for Māori Naming of Parks

File No.: CP2021/18019

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite mana whenua to provide Māori names as dual names for 23 parks, two libraries and the Papatoetoe Town Hall in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area as part of the second tranche of the Te Kete Rukuruku naming programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In April 2019 the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board resolved (OP/2019/46) to invite mana whenua to name 50 parks in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe area, as tranche one of Te Kete Rukuruku, the Māori naming of parks and community places programme.

3. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has two activities in their 2021/2022 work programme for Te Kete Rukuruku: Tranche one sharepoint ID 3114 and tranche two sharepoint ID 841.

4. Eighteen names were adopted in February as part of tranche one. COVID-19 impacts have caused delays for iwi with the remaining 23 tranche one names and these will now be presented as part of tranche two

5. One iwi withdrew from naming so the nine sites allocated to them have been rolled over into tranche two for reallocation.

6. The Māori name will be added to the existing name resulting in a dual name for each site. No existing names will be removed unless specifically requested by the local board.

7. The local board has requested any contiguous sites should be considered holistically and if appropriate one Māori name may be supplied.

8. Te Kete Rukuruku staff are now seeking approval from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to invite mana whenua to name an additional 26 sites, which will equate to a total of 58 sites for naming within tranche two.

9. Where reserves are classified under the Reserves Act 1977, gazettal of the dual park names will occur once the names are adopted.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) invite mana whenua to provide Māori names for an additional 23 parks, two libraries and the Papatoetoe Town Hall, as detailed in Attachment A as part of Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche Two

b) request iwi consider one Māori name when covering contiguous sites should this be appropriate

c) endorse the Te Kete Rukuruku programme and process for Māori naming of parks and facilities, noting that it supports the visibility of te reo Māori and seeks to capture and tell the unique stories of Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Tāmaki Makaurau

d) acknowledge the intent for Auckland Council to enter a mātauranga agreement that commits to upholding the correct use of Māori names and to use them only for purposes that have a community outreach or educational purpose (non-commercial use)

e) note that it is expected the Māori names will be adopted by the local board for use as dual names to enrich the stories of our parks and support the Māori language to be visible, heard, spoken and learned.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

13. Mana whenua have the mātauranga and the mana for deciding on appropriate Māori names for the whenua and these names should not be subject to public debate. If the board does not consider it appropriate for a site to receive a Māori name, then iwi should not be invited to name it.

Project Scope

14. The scope of the TKR programme, particularly regarding Māori naming, is defined as the naming, renaming or dual naming of parks and places throughout Tāmaki Makaurau.

15. The programme recognises there was a rich layer of Māori names that existed prior to European settlement. It provides an opportunity for Aucklander’s to learn te reo, Māori history and Māori values relevant to places throughout Tāmaki Makaurau.

16. It is expected that, in most cases, Māori naming will be dual naming. Dual naming means that a Māori name is added to the existing name, thereby enriching the stories about that place or facility. The existing name is not removed. This means signage will present both names with the English name following the Māori name. This is in accordance with the council’s Māori language policy and signage guidelines.

17. Dual naming also means that a Māori name sits alongside another name that is not related in its meaning. In other words, the two names are not translations of each other but independent and unique.

18. The local board may choose to adopt a sole Māori name after considerations such as the history of the existing name, the connection and usage of the name by the community and whether any impacts might arise from its removal. Where it is considered appropriate to replace a name, the board will also need to carefully consider who the affected parties are and determine if community engagement is appropriate.

19. Public consultation on site selection is not undertaken by TKR or mana whenua. Any consultation with community groups, stakeholders or the public is at the local board’s discretion and is recommended to occur prior to the parks becoming part of the TKR programme and being put forward to iwi for naming.

20. TKR is not a signage project. Once names are adopted signage will be replaced only when due for renewal except for one bilingual exemplar park selected per tranche. Should the local board wish to upgrade signage sooner to reflect the new names, funding would be required from the local board’s Locally Driven Initiatives budget.

21. The rationale and benefits of naming through Te Kete Rukuruku, as well as the process for identifying and adopting names and narratives, was agreed to by Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board at its business meeting in April 2019. At that meeting, the Board invited mana whenua to provide Māori names and narratives for 50 parks (OP/2019/46). This was included in their FY 2020 work programme as tranche one. Refer to Attachment A for the full list, of which some sites are now proposed to be delivered as part of tranche two.

22. Where land is vested in council and held as a reserve under the Reserves Act council may name or change the name of a reserve by notice in the Gazette. Where reserves are classified under the Reserves Act 1977, gazettal of the dual park names will occur once the names are adopted.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Tranche two sites in scope

23. Tranche one was originally made up of 50 proposed sites. In February 2021 the first 18 names from tranche one were presented to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and adopted (resolution OP/2021/10).

24. Thirty-two sites remain for naming from tranche one. Progress on these is as follows:

· Twenty-three were due to be received by the local board from iwi in September 2021. COVID-19 impacts have caused delays and these names will now be presented as part of tranche two.

· Nine sites were not named as one iwi withdrew due to these parks being outside of their rohe. These sites require reallocation to other iwi so naming is also deferred to tranche two.

25. The local board resolved on 20 April 2021 resolution OP/2021/47 to:

request officers to include as part of the Te Kete Rukuruku programme the naming for the 10 hectares of Colin Dale Park that remains as local purpose reserve following the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee resolution to allocate the decision making of the motorsport precinct to the Governing Body (PAC/2021/4)

26. There are four libraries in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area.

27. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has two libraries with Māori names previously adopted, being the Manukau Library / Te Paerangi and the Tupu Youth Library. It is intended that these names remain but are brought into line with the new regional naming convention to incorporate Te Pātaka Kōrero as part of a dual name.

28. At an Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board workshop, held in August 2021, tranche two was discussed, including the inclusion of the other two libraries for naming, Papatoetoe War Memorial Library and Ōtara Library.

29. The Papatoetoe Town Hall and Ōtara Library are included in the upcoming Community Facilities renewal programme and therefore it is suggested they be included for naming to align with this.

30. Eke Panuku staff have requested that Manukau Square be considered for naming in tranche two.

31. A list was finalised, and a memo was sent to the local board on 23 November 2021 for further feedback.

32. Feedback received confirmed the list of sites and requested the addition of Sunnyside Domain.

33. As part of the feedback the local board requested that any contiguous sites be considered for one Māori name. Examples included Colin Dale Park and Puhinui Reserve and sites contiguous with Hamill Reserve only separated by a road.

34. The local board may choose to remove an existing name from a park and have a sole Māori name rather than a dual name. Consultation with stakeholders and those with an interest in the park is at the local board’s discretion but is recommended with any key stakeholder groups or when names have significance to the local community.

35. All parks will go forward for dual naming at this time but the local board may wish to consider removal of the existing names and sole naming for:

· Colin Dale Park (10-hectares of local purpose reserve (SEC 2 SO 422986) and a two-hectare esplanade reserve (SEC 3 SO 422986))

· Puhinui Reserve

· Motatau Park.

36. Given the large size of the list, it may not be possible for mana whenua to name all the sites indicated at one time. This is the reason for the prioritisation shown in the spreadsheet which indicates the high priority sites to progress first.

Bilingual signage exemplar park

37. Bilingual signage visibly raises the profile of te reo Māori in the public domain. It provides the opportunity to learn the story behind the name as well as making it easy for the public to familiarise themselves with, and use, te reo.

38. In tranche one the board was offered the opportunity to select one park where all signage will be upgraded to be fully bilingual. The park selected was Waenganui / Allenby Reserve and a whakarewatanga was held acknowledging the adoption of these names along with unveiling of the signage on 4 May 2021.

39. An additional exemplar park may be selected for tranche two. The local board has requested Hayman Park, Manukau Sports Bowl and Sunnyside Domain be considered. An assessment will be completed of these sites and any others being named in tranche two that may be suitable. Mana whenua will also be asked for input. Options will then be workshopped with the local board to receive direction on the final site selection.

40. It is important to note that any name provided for the Manukau Sports Bowl and Velodrome will only be applicable to the park land and not the facilities that sit upon it.

41. The bilingual signage for one exemplar park is fully funded from Long-term Plan regional funding for Māori outcomes. The new signage will include:

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

· bilingual wayfinding, information and bylaw signage.

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

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

Communications approach

43. As with tranche one, the local communications team will use local board and council channels to communicate the decision made by the board for tranche two names, with a focus on when the new names will be adopted, what the community is gaining and being proud of what we are doing for all Aucklanders.

44. Information for park stakeholders including hirers, leases, volunteers etc, will also be developed, informing them on the decisions and the new names.

45. Content will be developed in consultation with mana whenua.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. The inclusion on signage of Māori names for parks adopted through the TKR programme is planned to align with signage renewal projects, or by re-skinning when necessary. This minimises environmental impacts and unnecessary wastage of resource.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47. The adoption of dual or sole Māori names supports and delivers on multiple council policies and plans including:

a) the Auckland Plan outlining the council’s commitment to support te reo to flourish

b) Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2021-2031 strategic priority of promoting te reo Māori

c) the Māori Language Policy actions that include increasing bilingual signage and dual naming.

48. The Māori language policy acknowledges that te reo Māori is an official language of Aotearoa and should receive equal status to English and NZ Sign Language.

49. Te Kete Rukuruku programme aligns with the aspirations of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) as articulated in the Schedule of Issues of Significance 2017, Māori Plan.

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

51. The Community Facilities team is responsible for renewal of existing signage and will incorporate the new dual names as and when signage is renewed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

55. Māori naming and dual language or bilingual signage of parks are aligned to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan 2020:

· Outcome four: Parks and facilities that meet our people’s needs and the objective “Celebrate a thriving Māori identity as Auckland's point of difference in the world”.

· Key Initiative: Work to increase the exposure of te reo Māori in our area through naming and signage.

56. The adopted names are permitted for use by Auckland Council for community outreach and educational purposes i.e. non-commercial purposes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

59. Adopting Māori names and narratives increases the visibility of te reo Māori, safeguards the stories of mana whenua and helps to ensure their survival.

60. Te Kete Rukuruku continues to establish a best practice approach to Māori naming and the collection and sharing of stories.

61. Mātauranga agreements are being developed to ensure that names and stories are protected by the council to uphold their correct use being only for purposes that have a community outreach or educational purpose (non-commercial use).

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has set aside funding from its Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budget for this programme. In FY 2020 $33,000 was allocated for tranche one and $10,000 has been carried forward to complete delivery this year (Sharepoint ID 3114). A further $21,000 was approved for tranche two as part of the FY 2022 annual work programme (Sharepoint ID 841).

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

66. Currently seven iwi have indicated interest in naming sites in tranche two. This is an increase from tranche one where four iwi were involved in naming. If all seven iwi contribute to naming in tranche two a further $1,500 is likely to be needed. Once iwi have confirmed their naming interests for tranche two budget requirements will be finalised and the local board advised.

67. The local board may choose to hold a small community event in the park selected for bilingual signage to acknowledge and celebrate the adoption of the names. Additional funding would be required from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board civic events budget for this purpose. The board should advise the TKR team if they wish to hold such an event and costings can be confirmed.

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

69. Bilingual signage in one exemplar park per tranche is funded by Long-term Plan regional funding for Māori outcomes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

70. Several risks and issues were highlighted at the outset of this programme or added as the programme has progressed. These include:

· multiple mana whenua having an interest in Ōtara-Papatoetoe, with differing views on naming.

· extended delays in the adoption of Māori names, continuing the predominance of English only names and missing signage renewal opportunities.

· potential negative public reaction to the addition of Māori names.

· costs of replacement signage.

· delays caused by COVID-19 impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

72. Once the tranche two sites are resolved the TKR team will provide mana whenua with the confirmed list for naming.

73. A hui will be held with specific iwi who have an interest in naming in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area to discuss the list of sites in order to identify and agree on which iwi will be naming each site.

74. It is difficult to accurately predict a timeline for finalising this agreement but it is expected that the sites will be allocated amongst iwi by March 2022.

75. Once the allocation of sites is agreed then naming research will commence with most iwi requiring a further 2-3 months for this purpose. Some iwi may require a longer timeframe for their naming process and once sites are allocated TKR staff will be able to provide a firmer timeframe.

76. TKR will keep the local board informed on progress and update timelines through the council’s quarterly reporting process.

77. TKR will commence assessment of the tranche two sites to identify recommendations for the exemplar site to receive bilingual signage. This will be presented for discussion at a local board workshop.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche Two Site List	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dawn Bardsley - Naming Lead

Authorisers

Anahera Higgins - Te Kete Rukuruku Programme Manager

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

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00269

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 three Have Your Say feedback and 93 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 three Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 93 research survey respondents (RS) from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal:

· for Proposal One there was majority opposition, lesser than the level of support in overall feedback

· for Proposal Two there was majority support for two general rules and split support for the maximum stay and no-return period rule

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

General rule feedback (Proposals 1 and 2)

Proposal	Local board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted	33 per cent HYS support 85 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	66 per cent HYS support · 33 per cent preferred that vehicles should not be required to be self-contained 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	33 per cent support · 33 per cent preferred 1 night 61 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	66 per cent support · 33 per cent preferred no departure time rule 49 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	33 per cent support · 33 per cent preferred no no-return period rule 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

33 per cent HYS support

85 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

66 per cent HYS support

· 33 per cent preferred that vehicles should not be required to be self-contained

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

33 per cent support

· 33 per cent preferred 1 night

61 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

66 per cent support

· 33 per cent preferred no departure time rule

49 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

33 per cent support

· 33 per cent preferred no no-return period rule

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=1)^{^[1]}

Auckland-wide feedback

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

· Hayman Park: 1 support 0 oppose

· Ōtara Centre, Town Centre and Bairds Road playground: 1 support, 0 oppose

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

Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas

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

· Note: there are no proposed restricted areas in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area

· One person commented on restricted areas outside of your local board area.

Majority support for restrictions at one area^{^[3]}

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

· respondents are fundamentally in favour of the right to freedom camp.

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The following risks have been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of all public feedback to proposed new Freedom Camping Bylaw	35
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area	231

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Bayllee Vyle - Policy Advisor

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

PDF Creator

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00497

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

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

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation (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 25 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 on 25 March 2022.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

· obligations for owners of industrial cooling water tower systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

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

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

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

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

· removing legacy council bylaws which have expired

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

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

Process to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

Diagram

Description automatically generated

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

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

Support of proposal in the local board area

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

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The following risk has been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report	253
b ⇩	Feedback from people in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area	269

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00451

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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. One organisation (Ōtara Gambling and Alcohol Action Group) from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal in a written submission.

22. Opinions (for example support or opposition) were not provided for each proposal. Key themes of the submission highlighted issues with façade posters, exterior wall wraps, and vivid building colours and bollard sleeve signage in Neighbourhood Centre Zones. These themes relate to portable signs (Proposal 5B), posters (Proposal 6) and wall-mounted signs (Proposal 11B).

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	No opinion selected No opinion selected	No opinion selected No opinion selected	73 per cent	22 per cent
P2A: Election signs (9-week display)			53 per cent	36 per cent
P2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks or reserves, or at an Open Space Zone)			63 per cent	35 per cent
P2C: Election signs			67 per cent	21 per cent
P3A: Event signs (temporary sales)			54 per cent	34 per cent
P3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)			59 per cent	27 per cent
P3C: Event signs			78 per cent	7 per cent
P4: Free-standing signs			66 per cent	14 per cent
P5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)			65 per cent	20 per cent
P5B: Portable signs			74 per cent	8 per cent
P6: Posters			76 per cent	16 per cent
P7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)			56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs			62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs			71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs			40 per cent	43 per cent
P10: Verandah signs			54 per cent	18 per cent
P11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)			60 per cent	24 per cent
P11B: Wall-mounted signs			59 per cent	24 per cent
P12: Window signs			69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones			48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones			59 per cent	21 per cent
P13C: Commercial sexual services			73 per cent	20 per cent
P14A: General (safety and traffic)			67 per cent	13 per cent
P14B: General (tops of buildings)			79 per cent	18 per cent
P14C: General (illuminated signs)			74 per cent	8 per cent
P14D: General (business that cease trading)			58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals			52 per cent	24 per cent
P16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings			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^{^[4]}

· 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	281
b ⇩	Copy of local feedback from the local board area	341

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

Resource Management System Reform

File No.: CP2022/00429

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

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

7. Cabinet adopted the following objectives for reform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

· the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) to provide for land use and environmental regulation (this would be the primary replacement for the current RMA). It would require a single national planning framework (NPF), which would set national direction and environmental limits, and require Natural and Built Environments Act plans (NBA plans)

· the Strategic Planning Act (SPA) to integrate with other legislation relevant to development (such as the Local Government Act and Land Transport Management Act) and require long-term, regional spatial strategies (RSSs)

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

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

Graphical user interface, diagram, PowerPoint

Description automatically generated

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

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

Formal engagement with Auckland Council on resource management system reform

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Summary of discussion document

Purpose

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

· national planning framework

· regional spatial strategies

· NBA plans

· RSS and NBA joint committees

· consenting

· compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· monitoring and system oversight

· role of local government in the future system

· national Māori entity

· joint committee composition

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

· funding in the future system.

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

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

National Planning Framework (NPF)

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

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

Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs)

21. RSSs will identify areas that are:

· suitable for development

· need to be protected

· require infrastructure

· vulnerable to climate change effects and natural hazards.

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

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

Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSS and NBA joint committees

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

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

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

Consenting

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement

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

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

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

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

· prohibiting the use of insurance for prosecution and infringement fines

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

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

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

Monitoring and system oversight

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

37. The proposed approach to monitoring will include:

· a suite of tools in the NBA to direct monitoring

· consistent and regular local-level environmental monitoring and reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of local government in the future system

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

In RSS and NBA plan development

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

RSS and NBA plan implementation

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

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

Compliance, monitoring, enforcement and oversight

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

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

Timeframe for development of feedback on the discussion document

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

Further material

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

National Māori entity

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

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

Joint committee composition

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Funding in the future system

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Council submission points on the Discussion Document	359

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jacob van der Poel - Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00455

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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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^{^[5]}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^{^[6]}.

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^{^[7]} and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series^{^[8]}.

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^{^[9]} 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	381

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategist

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00558

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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name to be adopted as is	419
b ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name adopted with the addition of macrons	421
c ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name where more information or clarification is sought regarding whether the name has been captured correctly	423
d ⇩	Previously unofficial non-Māori place name to be adopted as is	425

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2021) Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi

File No.: CP2022/00133

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2021) and supporting documents. This report was deferred from the 21 September 2021 meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The BID Team has implemented a review of the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi and supporting documents, as advised in the memo to local board members dated 23 April 2021. The memo can be found on the Auckland Council website, InfoCouncil.

3. The review sought informal and formal feedback from local boards, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, council-controlled organisations (CCOs), council departments and other external stakeholders.

4. The review has focused on strengthening those parts of the policy relating to issue resolution and, following local board feedback, the financial sustainability of BID programmes.

5. The review also focused on elected member needs and identifying any political risks and mitigations.

6. The draft BID Policy (2021) has been discussed with the Finance and Performance committee at a workshop on 18 August 2021. Feedback received has been incorporated into this version of the BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents.

7. Staff are now seeking formal feedback from local boards on the draft BID Policy (2021) provided as Attachment A.

8. As advised in a second memo to local board members dated 13 October 2021, the formal feedback period has been extended to 28 February 2022 to accommodate the difficulties and strains resulting from the extended lockdown and to allow the BID-operating business associations more time to send in feedback.

9. Following formal feedback received from local boards, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, CCOs, council departments and other external stakeholders, the final version of the BID Policy (2021) and support documents will be presented to the Finance and Performance Committee for adoption on 19 May 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) provide formal feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2021) and supporting documents by 28 February 2022.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Auckland BID programme

10. BID-operating business associations are membership-based organisations independent of Auckland Council. The draft BID Policy (2021) supports the independent nature of the BID-operating business associations. They are responsible for the BID programme delivery, its success, and are accountable to BID members/BID affiliates.

11. Local boards have the primary relationship with BID-operating business associations in their area:

· Local boards and business associations have a vested interest in a particular place and share similar goals. Working collaboratively achieves greater outcomes

· Local boards have significant allocated decision-making responsibility for BID programme establishments, amending existing BID programmes, BID boundary changes, continuation/discontinuation and issue resolution.

12. Auckland Council requires BID-operating business associations to fully comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Kaupapa Hereā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) (refer Attachment A).

13. The BID policy sets out the process for:

· establishing, continuing/discontinuing BID programmes

· changes to the BID programme boundary area/map

· changes to the BID targeted rating mechanism

· issue resolution

· key stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

14. The BID policy includes the engagement and reporting requirements for BID-operating business associations to ensure all BID members/BID affiliates have access to the relevant BID programme information. BID-operating business associations must use their Annual General Meeting (AGM) process to obtain formal member approval for the BID programme delivery, budget, and to confirm their BID targeted rate grant amount for the following financial year.

15. The BID policy describes the balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability role council has for monies collected as a public sector organisation. This balance is necessary to sustain public trust and confidence with the Auckland Council BID programme.

The review

16. Commencing April 2021, the review of the current policy began with communicating with local boards and all stakeholders involved in the management and operation of BID programmes across Tāmaki Makaurau. This included both BID-operating and non-BID business associations, council departments and interested parties. The process to date has included informal feedback and comments on the current policy.

17. The review process focused on strengthening parts of the policy (and updating supporting documents) relating to issue resolution and, following local board feedback, financial sustainability of BID programmes.

18. The review has also provided the opportunity to clarify the documentation between Auckland Council (collecting the BID targeted rate and the funder) and the BID-operating business association relating to the BID Programme Agreement (2016) document.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Rationale for the review

19. The primary objective for reviewing the current 2016 policy is a focus on the issue resolution sections. Experience over the last five years has illustrated gaps in the usefulness of the current policy to address and resolve issues in a timely manner.

20. The review provided an opportunity to update parts of the policy relating to Auckland Council changes in operation, current business practices and where the advancement of technology has contributed to how business is done, for example, online meetings.

21. There was also an early opportunity to capture informal feedback from local boards and BID-operating business associations.

22. The information and informal feedback collected in May, June and July of this year has been incorporated into the draft BID Policy 2021 and supporting documents provided in Attachments A, B and C. A summary of the BID Policy (2021) requirements is provided with this report Attachment D.

23. BID programmes are operated by independent business associations, and their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent status, the BID policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. That is a matter for business association members to determine. Staff, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

Participants in the review

24. In addition to local boards, there are a range of stakeholders involved in BID programmes, both internal and external to Auckland Council. The BID team set a programme of informal engagement, outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1 – Key engagement activity

Stakeholder	Engagement	Dates
BID-operating business associations Business associations without BID programmes	BID communication including newsletters and emails: Sent to 50+ BID-operating business associations and other interested parties	March, April, May, June and July 2021
	Three network meetings	May, June and July 2021 An average attendance exceeded 20+ BID-operating business associations
	Four special workshops - topics included: issue resolution, conflict of interest and developing a board charter	June and July 2021 An average of 23+ BID programmes were represented at each workshop
Local boards	18 local board workshop presentations	June and July 2021 Introduction memo and BID policy review information
	Three special topic workshops - topics included: issue resolution, conflict of interest and developing a board charter	June and July 2021 An average of 16 local board elected members attended each workshop
Local Board Services Department Lead team	Presentation and information feedback received	Presentation on 18 June 2021
Finance and Performance Committee	Memo on BID policy review project	April 2021
Council departments including: · Legal Services · Connected Communities · Ngā Mātārae · Risk and Assurance · Finance and Policy · Local Board Services	Regular meetings, engagement and feedback	May, June, and July 2021
Independent polling agent	Engagement and feedback regarding the ballot/polling process	June 2021
Finance and Performance Committee workshop	The draft BID Policy (2021) V1 and support documents were presented, and feedback received	18 August 2021

25. The process to undertake the review of the current policy (2016) takes place from February 2021 to June 2022. Progress to date is set out in Table 2 below:

Table 2 - Progress to date

Date	Progress
2021 Feb/March	Project planning, stakeholder communications
April to July	· Directed consultation with local boards and stakeholders on the current BID policy and identified themes o issue resolution o conflicts of interest o board charter development
May/June	Cross council, external engagement and feedback
June/July	Draft BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents created
August 18	Finance and Performance Committee workshop
August/September	Distribution of draft BID Policy (2021) for formal feedback
December	Eight smaller BID network meetings capturing BIDs at local board level to allow for a more intimate conversation on the draft policy and an opportunity to discuss and ask questions.

Informal local board feedback

26. Discussions with local boards during workshops centred around:

· issue resolution – how to do this fairly and in a timely manner

· operational issues – relating to management and governance of BID-operating business associations

· opportunities for collaboration and cost savings between BIDs

· elected members involvement with BID-operating business associations

· growth opportunities for BID-operating business associations

· continued dependence on local board funding.

Seeking local board formal feedback on the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

27. Local boards are now being asked to provide formal feedback on a revised draft policy (2021) and support documents provided in Attachments A, B and C. Local boards are encouraged to engage with BID-operating business associations in their local board area (where relevant/possible) to help to inform this feedback process.

28. The formal feedback period has been extended to 28 February 2022 to accommodate the impact of the lockdown restrictions and allow the BID-operating business associations to send in feedback.

29. Any feedback from local boards will help the further development of BID Policy (2021). It would be, however, particularly useful to get local board views on proposed changes set out in Tables 3 and 4 below.

30. Feedback from local boards, external stakeholders and any further feedback from BID-operating business associations will be reviewed by staff and this will help inform the final version of the policy. Formal feedback can be sent to bids@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.

Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

31. Once the BID Policy 2021 is approved, other support material will be made available on the BID Auckland Council website www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and include:

· BID-operating business association constitution (template 2021)

· BID-operating executive committee board charter (template 2021)

· individual BID programme area maps

· BID affiliate/BID business association membership qualification diagram

· local board BID representative position description

· template documents, including:

o AGM agenda

o AGM minutes

o BID programme income and expenditure budget (for BID grant of $120,000).

Summary of changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

32. The key proposed changes incorporated into the draft BID Policy (2021) are set out in Table 3:

Table 3 - Key changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

Key change from current policy	Description	Note	2021 section, page
Issue resolution	Improving the ability to resolve issues with a clear process in a timely manner	An issue is identified as non- compliance with the BID policy	3.5, Requirement 24
BID Programme Funding Agreement (2021) Attachment B	Replaced BID Programme Agreement (2016)	Clarifies the relationship between the parties	3.1, Requirement 18
Size and scale of BID programmes Minimum BID targeted rate grant $120,000 No change from 2016	Minimum BID targeted rate grant $120,000 remains A new requirement for legacy BID programmes (11 in total) that currently receive less than $120,000pa to increase their targeted rate up to that amount over the next five years A variety of options are suggested to achieve this	This requirement is a result of local board feedback on concerns to continually fund non-financially sustainable BID programmes	1.4, Requirement 3 and 4
Exceptional or unexpected circumstances	Council may, at its discretion, depart from the requirement set out in section 2.4 (25% of total voting forms must be returned for the ballot to be valid	Council will consider evidence of support to date, what is fair and any impact from amending the voting threshold mandate	3.4.2
BID operating business association constitution (template 2016)	This supporting document was included as part of the current policy and now removed from the BID Policy (2021)	This allows the business association to amend their constitution to suit their local needs, on the basis it’s not inconsistent with the BID policy A template document is provided on the www.bid.auckland.govt.nz website	1.1, 2.3.2 Requirement 12
BID operating executive committee board charter (template 2016)	This supporting document was included as part of the current policy and now removed from the BID Policy (2021)	This allows the business association to amend their board charter to suit their local needs, on the basis it’s not inconsistent with the BID policy A template document is provided on the www.bid.auckland.govt.nz website	1.1, 2.3.2 Requirement 12

33. Minor changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) are set out in Table 4 below:

Table 4 - Minor changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

Minor changes to current policy	Description	Note	2021 section, page
Other council funding	Organisational view on risk regarding BID-operating business association receiving other council funding	The draft BID policy acknowledges other council funding grants allocated to BID-operating business associations	2.3.4, Requirement 16
Local boards – other roles	Updated	Refer to elected member conflicts of interest policy A link to these documents can be found here	2.5.3
BID Annual Accountability Report (2021) Attachment C	Name change from BID Annual Accountability Agreement (2016)	To include BID targeted rate grant amount and copy of AGM resolution	3.2, Requirement 22, Table 2, item 9
Audit – provision for a review audit or full audit	Recognition of increased risk and increased reporting requirement based on the amount of targeted rate received	Set as a sliding scale BID targeted rate grants less than $200,000pa must commission a review audit BID targeted rate grants more than $200,000pa must commission a full audit	3.2, Requirement 23, Table 2, item 4
Rating mechanism - flat rate	Lifted the maximum flat rate amount from $500 to $900 per rateable property	To provide more flexibility for BID-operating business associations when considering BID programme budgets and the impact of BID targeted rates on ratepayers	3.1.2

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34. The BID Policy (2021) focuses on the governance and accountability for BID-operating business associations. Individually the BID programme, through targeted rate-funding, can focus on advocacy and activities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. Formal feedback will be sought from other council teams including CCOs and those who work and have an interested in the BID programme and business community space.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. Local boards have engaged with the review of the BID Policy (2016) and their informal feedback has been incorporated into the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents. Table 1 outlines local board engagement to date.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. Officers are working with Auckland Council’s Ngā Mātārae Unit to ensure that the BID Policy (2021) aligns with the Auckland Council Māori Responsiveness Framework.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. There are no financial implications for local boards under the draft BID Policy (2021).

39. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or the council that could result from the draft BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents.

41. The policy describes the balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

42. The draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents set out the requirements and obligations for BID-operating business associations and are intended to help minimise the potential for business associations to misuse BID targeted rate funds by requiring each BID to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members, and to undertake and meet all requirements set out in the policy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43. Following formal feedback received from local boards, CCOs, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, council departments, other external stakeholders and those with an interest in BID programmes, the final BID Policy (2021) and support documents will be updated, and the steps outlined in Table 5 below will be completed by the BID team:

Table 5 - Progress to completion

Date	Progress
2021 August	· Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents updated to post Finance and Performance Committee workshop feedback
Mid-August to 1 October	· Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents distributed to local boards, BID-operating business associations, council departments, CCOs and other stakeholders for formal feedback · Update www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz website with feedback link · Feedback open 24 August to 20 October
October to 28 February 2022	Formal feedback extended from 20 October to 28 February 2022
19 May 2022	Presentation of final version of BID Policy (2021) and support documents to Finance and Performance Committee meeting

44. The BID Policy (2021), if approved by the Finance and Performance Committee in May 2022, would become operational on 1 July 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft BID Policy (2021)	437
b ⇩	BID Funding Agreement	459
c ⇩	BID Annual Accountability Report	471
d ⇩	Draft BID Policy requirements	473

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Claire Siddens - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Louise Mason – General Mnager Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

15 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00772

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 is aligned with the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· One hundred and twenty-one activities within the agreed work programmes of 129 activities are on track (green), including seven which are complete. There are seven activities with some risk or issues which are being managed (amber), and no cancelled activities (grey).

· Community groups and places successfully adapted from their usual business and instead provided different services to the community, including supporting the vaccination events and foodbanks (#376, #379)

· Many activities and programmes were adapted to be able to be delivered virtually (#368, #1671, #1362)

· Despite the lockdown and COVID-19 restrictions, mana whenua engagement was able to take place (#677)

· Once libraries were open, staff played a role in upskilling and assisting the community with vaccine passes (#1358)

· Environmental initiatives were able to progress (#3128, #888).

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 activity is reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

· CARRY FORWARD: Diversity Festival 2020/2021 (#3202).

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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

c) approve the minor changes to the Community Facilities work programme as outlined in table 2 and Attachment C:

i) reallocate saving of $230,000 from Pearl Baker Reserve - renew playground and Investigate options develop a walkway and volleyball court (#30112) to Ōtara Town Centre - renew fish canopy (#20187)

ii) reallocate saving of $49,000 from Allan Brewster Leisure Centre - renew roof and gutters (#30232) to Aerovista Park - renew heritage bridge (#23787)

iii) reallocate saving of $1,000 from Allan Brewster Leisure Centre - renew roof and gutters (#30232) to Ōtara Town Centre - renew fish canopy (#20187)

iv) change the scope of work for Manukau Sports Bowl - renew training lights (#30532): removal of ‘renewal of training lights’ from the scope work and addition of ‘renew lighting of carpark and accessway’

v) change the scope of work for Aerovista Park renew heritage bridge and walkway (23787): removal of ‘walkway’ from the scope work

d) approve grant applicant LG2213-148 to carry forward the funding of $17,000, granted on 21 September 2021 (OP/2021/136), for the Ōtara Christmas Lights event from 1 November 2021 to 31 January 2022, into December of 2022 for the next Ōtara Christmas Lights event.

Horopaki

Context

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

· Customer and Community Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· Plans and Places

· Auckland Emergency Management

· Auckland Unlimited.

8. The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet the 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 light system. 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 had 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

Key activity updates from quarter two

15. Community grants (#389): On 21 September 2021 the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board allocated $17,000 to the Community Builders NZ Trust (application: LG2213-148), towards the 2021 Ōtara Christmas Lights event (resolution: OP/2021/136). Due to COVID-19 restrictions this event was cancelled and as a result the applicant requested repurposing the grant towards a similar event to be held in April 2022. Staff recommended to decline this change of purpose due to the reduced ability to track accountability and to promote equity with other Christmas events which have been cancelled. Staff recommended to allow the applicant to carry the funding into December of 2022 for the next Ōtara Christmas Lights event, to reduce the repetition of applying for the applicant and staff.

16. Access to community places (#379): Council and community-managed venues remained closed to the general public for October and November. However, some venues continued to support essential services such as foodbanks, pop up vaccination centres and the NZ Blood Service throughout the lockdown.

17. Youth: Community capacity building with young people (#376): The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Squad (TOPS) supported the community vaccination events “Know Your Vaccine”, Street Drive Call-out and the Two-Day Vaccination station “Pasifika Youth United”, with Prime Minister Jacinda Arden. Do Good Feel Good (DGFG) hosted the DGFG Documentary Premiere, to share Milestones, the positive narrative of the power of young people when harnessed for social change. This will be made available to the public in 2022.

18. Community Arts Initiatives Programme (#368): Sistema Aotearoa delivered 14 programmes with 74 sessions, three of which had Māori outcomes, to a combined total of 454 participants and attendees. During the lockdown, Sistema continued with the online programme of activity for tamariki, rangatahi and whānau with 1,251 attendances for lessons over Zoom, 792 online orchestra attendances, 16 music books created with over 300 pages of individualised content for each instrument and orchestra group, and 30+ videos created for their Facebook page including online celebrations of Māori and Pacific Language weeks.

19. Support community & customer connection through cultural diversity celebrations (#1671): For Niue and Tuvalu Language Weeks online quizzes were posted onto Facebook to share useful words and phrases. All four libraries also promoted online competitions for Diwali.

20. Whai Pūmanawa Literacy - we support communities to thrive (Children and Youth) - Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#1362): The Level up Summer Reading Challenge ran from December 13 to January 28 with the aim to encourage youth to use the Beanstack Tracker app to record their reading, complete challenges, and win prizes. Each library provided in-house activities to safely do onsite, as well as takeaway packs.

21. Access to Library services (#1358): From November 17 all four libraries were open and provided customers with library loans, click and collect service and computer assistance. Staff also helped customers to create My Health accounts, printed and laminated vaccine passes, and provided digital assistance for those customers who purchased new phones that support the COVID-19 tracer app and vaccine passes.

22. Priority playspace service assessment (#677): During November and December the first round of mana whenua engagement took place to define play experiences and outcomes for Othello Park, Aorere Park, Pā o Tahi/Hillside South Park, Ngati Ōtara Park, Kohuora Park and Pearl Baker Reserve.

23. CARRY FORWARD: OPE year three: sustainable communities with Ōtara-Papatoetoe Enviroschools (#3128): Funding agreements are being finalised which will provide for the materials for a greenhouse to be built with the help of the children from Enviroschools. The greenhouse will provide seedlings for the community.

24. Building sustainable community Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#888): Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate and two kindergartens became Bronze Enviroschools during lockdown, with work on kai, waste and biodiversity.

Activities with significant issues

25. CARRY FORWARD: Diversity Festival 2020/2021 (#3202): This work programme’s status is categorised as red (significant issues) as there is a high-risk that the Diversity Festival will not be able to go ahead this financial year due to COVID-19 safety precautions, and therefore there is significant risk that the budget will not be spent this financial year. Staff will work to ensure that if the event cannot go ahead this financial year, that the budget is retained to deliver a Diversity Festival in the next financial year.

26. As the Diversity Festival could not be delivered in the previous financial year due to COVID-19, the Events Production Team recommended reallocation of this budget to support the remaining events: Movies in Parks (#387) and the 2021/2022 Diversity Festival (#386). This funding would go towards covering additional safety requirements, up to $6,000 per event, and the remaining 2020/2021 Diversity Festival budget will be reallocated to the 2021/2022 Diversity Festival.

Activities on hold

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

· Hillside Park - renew carpark at Manukau Indian Association (30434)

· Papatoetoe Recreation Grounds and Papatoetoe Centennial Pools – renew carpark (28606).

28. These two work programme activities are identified as part of the risk adjusted programme, and do not have budget for this financial year. They are a part of the approved work programme and are listed as on hold to enable them to replace delays in other projects that may not be delivered for unforeseen reasons, if required.

Changes to the local board work programme

Activities with changes

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

Table 1: Work programme change formally approved by the board

ID/Ref	Work Programme Name	Activity Name	Summary of Change	Resolution number
3202	CCS: RSPIP – Events	CARRY FORWARD: Diversity Festival 2020/2021	At the 7 December 2021 business meeting the local board resolved to reallocate up to $6,000 per event to Movies in Parks at Hayman Park (#387) and the 2021/2022 Diversity Festival (#386) using the underspend from the cancelled 2020/2021 Diversity Festival to cover additional safety requirements. The local board also resolved that any remaining 2020/2021 Diversity Festival funding be reallocated to the 2021/2022 Diversity Festival.	OP/2021/210

30. 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.

31. Community Facilities have identified the following work programme items that require minor changes. The local board were made aware of these changes through a memo (Attachment C) and these items were also discussed with the local board at a workshop on 1 February 2022.

Table 2: Minor change to the local board work programme

ID/Ref	Work Programme Name	Activity Name	Change	Reason for change	Budget Implications
30112	CCS: Community Facilities – Project Delivery	Pearl Baker Reserve - renew playground and Investigate options develop a walkway and volleyball court	No physical work will be undertaken during the financial year 2021/2022 as originally anticipated. Any anticipated changes to future years funding for physical works will be included in the draft financial year 2022/2023 work programme.	The COVID-19 pandemic has had an adverse impact on the overall progress on this project, and subsequent levels imposed around public consultation meetings. The investigation and design phase of the project is taking longer than anticipated.	$230,000 (reduction)
30232	CCS: Community Facilities – Project Delivery	Allan Brewster Leisure Centre - renew roof and gutters	Savings reallocated to Aerovista Park - renew heritage bridge (#23787) and Ōtara Town Centre - renew fish canopy (#20187) as these lines will require additional budget in financial year 2021/2022.	Staff have identified savings of $50,000 in this project during the investigation and design phase.	$50,000 (reduction)
23787	CCS: Community Facilities – Project Delivery	Aerovista Park - renew heritage bridge	Savings from Allan Brewster Leisure Centre - renew roof and gutters (#30232) project reallocated to this project to cover additional costs. Variation to the activity name and activity description: omission of ‘walkway’.	Additional costs of $49,000 have been incurred due to work stoppages on site with Council processing the tree consenting, examining new sand samples, engineers’ amendments to the steel support packers, disassembling and re-assembling the bridge’s wooden access ramp to allow for piling access, Covid shut down period and heavy rain and flooding on site.	$49,000 (increase)
20187	CCS: Community Facilities – Project Delivery	Ōtara Town Centre - renew fish canopy	Savings from Allan Brewster Leisure Centre - renew roof and gutters (#30232) and Pearl Baker Reserve - renew playground and Investigate options develop a walkway and volleyball court (#30112) projects reallocated to this project to cover additional costs.	Additional budget of $231,000 renewals funding is required due to an increase in number of glass panels which have been identified on closer inspection with scaffolding in place. In addition, the extension of the corrosion on the steel members is also more extensive after the sand blasting process to remove the rust.	$231,000 (increase)
30532	CCS: Community Facilities – Project Delivery	Manukau Sports Bowl - renew training lights	Staff propose a change to the approved project scope to replace the lighting of the carpark and accessway. Variation to the activity name and activity description: omission of ‘renewal of training lights’ from the scope of works and addition of ‘renew lighting of carpark and accessway’.	Staff recommend that this work be given high priority to provide adequate night-time pedestrian conditions as well as for motorists, including preparedness and readiness for the ASB Polyfest event scheduled to take place in March 2022.	None for this financial year. Budget reduction of $15,000 in financial year 2022/2023 and $250,000 in financial year 2023/2024.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

33. 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.

34. 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. The key areas of these projects include:

Building resilience through teaching skills and creating a strong sense of place and community:

· OP: Auckland Teaching Gardens programme FY22 (#1660)

· Multi-cultural community emergency resilience programme - Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#1594)

· Taonga tuku iho - Legacy - we preserve our past, ensure our future. (Environment) - Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#1366)

· OPE phase two: Building sustainable community Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#888)

· OP: Community Garden - service assessment (#676)

· Programming in community places Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#381)

· Access to community places Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#379)

· OP: Bike Programme (#1615)

Improving biodiversity and water quality:

· CARRY FORWARD: OPE year three: sustainable communities with Ōtara-Papatoetoe Enviroschools (#3128)

· Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum - Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#1189)

· Pest Free Urban South - Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#1186)

· Manukau Harbour Forum - Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#1011)

· Ōtara Waterways and Lake Trust - Ōtara-Papatoetoe projects (#890)

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe Industrial Pollution Prevention programme (#889)

· OP: Urban Ngahere Growing FY22 (#807)

· OP: ecological and enviromental volunteers programme FY22 (#774).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. 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

36. This report informs the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board of the performance for quarter two ending 31 December 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has many work programme activities and projects that have a direct Māori outcome and focus. The following work programme lines have a strong focus on Māori and are all on track for quarter two:

· Operational expenditure for Ōtara Music Arts Centre (Council facility) (#369)

· Build Capacity: Community-led response to social concerns (#372)

· Whakatipu i te reo Māori - we grow the Māori language Celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori - Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#1360)

· Youth: Community capacity building with young people (#376)

· Māori Responsiveness (#377)

· Community grants Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#389)

· Community Arts Initiatives Programme (#368)

· Operational expenditure for Fresh Gallery Ōtara (Council facility) (#367)

· Apply the Empowered Communities Approach: Connecting communities Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#390)

· Ōtara Waterways and Lake Trust - Ōtara-Papatoetoe projects (#890).

38. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board is working in collaboration with, or engaged in partnerships with mana whenua on the following programmes (noting this is not an exhaustive list as it does not include programmes delivered by Council Control Organisations such as Auckland Transport and Eke Panuku):

· Carry forward of Puhinui Reserve and Colin Dale Park service assessment (#3048)

· Develop Manukau Sports Bowl Master Plan (#1548)

· Carry forward of Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of parks and places) tranche one (#3114)

· Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of parks and places) tranche two (#841)

· Renew signage -Te Kete Rukuruku - Māori naming of parks and places (#28374)

· Restoring biodiversity and improving water quality in local streams, the Manukau Harbour and the Tāmaki Estuary (#3128)

· Manukau Harbour Forum (#1011)

· Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum (#1189)

· Enviroschools phase two: Building sustainable community Ōtara-Papatoetoe (#888)

· Pearl Baker Reserv

Chairperson	Apulu Reece Autagavaia
Deputy Chairperson	Dawn Trenberth
Members	Dr Ashraf Choudhary, QSO, JP
	Dr Ofa Dewes
	Lotu Fuli
	Swanie Nelson
	Ross Robertson, QSO, JP

Author	Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services
Authoriser	Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Author	Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager