Agenda of Ōrākei Local Board - Thursday, 17 February 2022

An apology from Member David Wong has been received.

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 2 December 2021 including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - Men's Shed Expansion Proposal

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To deliver a presentation to the Board during the deputation segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Alan Minson and Mal McLennan on behalf of the Men’s Shed Auckland East Inc. will be in attendance to address the Board on a proposal for extending Men’s Shed facilities within the Ōrakei Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Alan Minson and Mal Mclennan for their attendance.

Attachments

a Attachment A - Alan Minson Mens Shed Expansion Summary.......................... 349

b Alan Minson Mens Shed Expansion Powerpoint......................................... 359

8.2 Deputation - Annual Report for Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To deliver a presentation to the Board during the deputation segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Julie Chambers and Nichola Jane on behalf of the Tamaki Estuary Environmental Forum, will be in attendance to address the Board and present on the Annual Report for Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Julie Chambers and Nichola Jane for their attendance

Attachments

a Attachment A - TEEF Annual Report. 365

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Public Forum - Fleur Revell-Devlin - Issues at Churchill Park

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To deliver a presentation to the local board during the public forum segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Fleur Revell-Devlin, will be in attendance to present to the local board on concerns about the development of Churchill Park.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Fleur Revell-Devlin for her attendance.

9.2 Public Forum - Kimberly Graham - Needs of our Disability Community and Accessbility Issues

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To deliver a presentation to the local board during the public forum segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Kimberly Graham, from Accessible Travel Forum New Zealand, will be in attendance to present to the local board on awareness of the needs of our disability community and accessibility issues in the Ōrākei Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) receive the presentation and thank Kimberly Graham for her attendance.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

Under Standing Order 7.1, Notices of Motion have been received from Member Troy Churton for consideration under items 12.

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion	11

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00789

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The work programme is produced annually and aligns with Ōrākei Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· Business Awards were adapted to proceed during COVID-19 restrictions by contactless in-person presentation of certificates and trophies by local board members for respective businesses. The winners were announced via social media on the 16 November. A celebration cocktail event will follow in early 2022. (Business Awards – 1457)

· Ellerslie Sports Club Incorporated successfully secured construction funding arrangements and construction for the clubrooms commenced in November (Ellerslie Sports Club Facility Development – 3101).

· Detailed site investigation for Crossfield Reserve was completed in October 2021. A concept plan was completed in December (Crossfield Reserve – 26329).

· Physical works for Madills Farm toilets and changing rooms commenced in early October 2021 and are largely complete, with remaining works being the installation of new partitions. (Madills Farm renew changing rooms – 26098).

· Despite the limitations on activities imposed by COVID restrictions, three trap handout events were held (Eastern Bays Songbird Project – 1447) and rat tracking and trapping work and privet control work for the group recommenced in December 2021. (Newmarket-Middleton Stream Restoration – 854).

· The field officer for Pourewa Valley held a community weeding event in Selwyn Bush in December and scheduled additional weeding events for the next quarter. The draft wayfinding report has been completed and reviewed by staff for board workshop in the next quarter (Pourewa Valley Integrated Plan – Programme Management 755).

· Public consultation for The Landing was scheduled for this quarter, however this was postponed to Quarter Three due to the COVID-19 restrictions.

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):

· Carols on the Green (361)

6. Carols on the Green (361) was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions. $6,000 was reallocated to Movies in the Park in quarter one (Resolution number OR/2021/1). This leaves a remaining budget of $16,000 in this work programme line to be reallocated.

7. Movies in the Parks (362) is scheduled for quarter three, however staff have advised of the possibility this may need to be cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions under the red traffic light. Staff will provide further advice on the event in mid-February. If cancelled, there will be a total of $20,000 available for reallocation which includes the additional funding from Carols on the Green.

8. The local board also has the following locally driven investment operating (LDI opex) budgets available for allocation in 2021/2022:

· Community Response Fund - $38,922

· Transitional grants - $10,100

· Film revenue - $2,730.44

9. Staff will provide advice on recommended projects for allocations and reallocations.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

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

· Customer and Community Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services;

· Auckland Unlimited.

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

COVID-19 restrictions

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

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

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

18. 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

Chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

Key activity updates from quarter two

Customer and Community Services

19. Business Awards were adapted to proceed during COVID-19 restrictions by contactless, in-person presentation of certificates and trophies by local board members for respective businesses. The winners were announced via social media on the 16 November. A celebration cocktail event will follow in early 2022. (Business Awards – 1457)

20. Ellerslie Sports Club Incorporated successfully secured construction funding arrangements and construction for the clubrooms commenced in November (Ellerslie Sports Club Facility Development – 3101).

21. Detailed site investigation for Crossfield Reserve was completed in October 2021. A concept plan was completed in December (Crossfield Reserve – 26329).

22. Physical works for Madills Farm toilets and changing rooms commenced in early October 2021 and are largely complete, with remaining works being the installation of new partitions. (Madills Farm renew changing rooms – 26098).

23. The field officer for Pourewa Valley held a community weeding event in Selwyn Bush in December and scheduled additional weeding events for the next quarter. The draft wayfinding report has been completed and reviewed by staff for board workshop in the next quarter (Pourewa Valley Integrated Plan – Programme Management 755).

24. Public consultation for The Landing was scheduled for this quarter, however this was postponed to Quarter Three due to the COVID-19 restrictions.

25. Staff presented the findings for potential locations for a new toilet facility at Ōrākei Basin at the 7 October 2021 workshop. Staff will finalise the assessment in Q3 to assist the local board and Community Facilities with confirmation of the appropriate site for a new toilet installation (Service assessment for public toilets at Ōrākei Basin – 1766).

Infrastructure and Environmental Services

26. The field officer for Pourewa Valley held a community weeding event in Selwyn Bush in December and scheduled additional weeding events for the next quarter. The draft wayfinding report has been completed and reviewed by staff for board workshop in the next quarter (Pourewa Valley Integrated Plan – Programme Management 755).

27. Despite the limitations on activities imposed by COVID restrictions, three trap handout events were held (Eastern Bays Songbird Project – 1447) and rat tracking and trapping work and privet control work for the group recommenced in December 2021. (Newmarket-Middleton Stream Restoration – 854).

Auckland Unlimited

28. Youth of Orakei delivered multiple projects in the quarterly period. This included a Virtual Sustainability Week, a Study Server, a TikTok Challenge and Care Packages. All of these were direct responses to supporting youth during lockdown (Youth empowerment – 353).

Activities with significant issues

29. Carols on the Green (361) - The event was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions. Unspent budget of $6,000 was allocated to Movies in the Park in Q1. This leaves a remaining budget of $16,000 in this work programme line. Staff will investigate options for reallocation while the best approach to general budget reallocation of widespread event cancellations is determined.

Activities with risks

30. Movies in Parks (362) - The board provided additional funding of $6,000 in Q1 to cover the cost of extra measures needed to meet the new Central Government requirements for outdoor community events under the COVID-19 Protection Framework. The event is scheduled for March 2022 and can proceed at orange and green. Staff will continue to update the board as the situation develops, bearing in mind that the Board may have to cancel the event and look to reallocate funding within the financial year. Staff will investigate options for reallocation if this event is cancelled due to being at red in March.

31. Feasibility study for Ellerslie War Memorial Hall (1747) - There were some delays in completing the study due to staff resourcing issues. However, this has been addressed and staff will present findings to a board in workshop scheduled in February.

32. Urban Ngahere Growing FY22 (806) - Planting priorities were to be established with the board in Q2 however, due to staffing issues complicated by extended sick leave this was delayed. Staff will come to the board in Q3 workshop to seek this direction.

33. Ōrākei – rabbit eradication implementation (31002) - At the time of reporting, this was in amber due to resource shortages and uncertainty whether the project could be delivered.

34. Shore Road Reserve – install sand carpet and lighting on field 3 (16172) - The physical works tender is currently being evaluated. Though on track to deliver by the end of the financial year, this is in amber due to delays pushing out original timelines.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

36. 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.

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

· Pourewa Valley Integrated Plan – Programme Management (755) delivers a community-led vision to restore and enhance Pourewa Valley. Weeding events scheduled in Q3 will be in collaboration with Sustainable Schools

· Ōrākei sustainable schools moth plant competition (857) delivers on a moth plant competition with schools in partnership with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38. 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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. Ōrākei community arts programmes (348) – initial discussions have commenced for Matariki 2022 with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei representatives.

41. Māori responsiveness Ōrākei (354) – a draft funding agreement with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Maia was arranged for another ten Te Reo and Te Ao Māori sessions in Q3.

42. Whakatipu i te reo Māori – celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori (1380) – the use of te reo continues to be encouraged in the libraries and was used throughout lockdown during pre-recorded story-times and rhyme-times posted to Facebook.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

44. Carols on the Green (361) was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions. $6,000 was reallocated to Movies in the Park in quarter one (Resolution number OR/2021/2). This leaves a remaining budget of $16,000 in this work programme line to be reallocated.

45. Movies in the Parks (362) is scheduled for quarter three however staff recommend cancelling this event due to COVID-19 restrictions under the red traffic light. If cancelled, there is a total of $20,000 which includes the additional funding to be reallocated.

46. The local board Community Response Fund has a budget of $38,922 which is currently unspent. This amount is available to the local board to reallocate in 2021/2022.

47. Recipients of the legacy rates remission schemes were notified that the transitional rates grants ended 30 June 2021. The Ōrākei Local Board retains the $10,100 Asset Based Services (ABS) budget and can allocate this to locally driven initiatives in 2021/2022.

48. During the 2020/2021 financial year, Auckland Unlimited collected $2,730.44 of revenue related to filming in the Ōrākei Local Board area. This funding is now available to be allocated to other operating projects in 2021/2022.

49. Staff will provide advice on recommended projects for allocations and reallocations.

Financial Performance

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ōrākei Local Board - 1 October – 31 December Work Programme Update	21
b ⇩	Ōrākei Local Board Operating Performance Financial Summary - CONFIDENTIAL - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Rachel Cho - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report

File No.: CP2022/00851

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to the Ōrākei Local Board on its local board transport capital fund (LBTCF) and to recommend allocation of part of the remaining Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) budget.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1. The Ōrākei Local Board has $1,055,238 remaining in its LBTCF budget following the June 2021 adoption of the Regional Land Transport Plan 2021 – 2031.

2. Auckland Transport is advising on two projects for the board to consider allocating part of its remaining LBTCF budget. These projects are the St. Heliers CCTV network and a raised crossing at St Kentigern’s School.

3. In order to address the safety issues in the St. Heliers area, particularly around Achilles Point, the board included CCTV camera installation as an initiative in its Local Board Plan 2020. “Outcome 1 key initiative: support community groups and patrols to put in place measures (lighting, CCTV etc) to improve the safety of our public places.”

4. Safer Cities has formed a proposal for a CCTV network in St. Heliers. The wider CCTV network would deter antisocial behaviour including vehicle related behaviour in the road corridor and boat ramp area within the network. This would also promote transport related safety.

5. This can be funded from the board’s Local Board Transport Capital Fund. AT would take ownership and responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the asset.

6. AT and the Ōrākei Local Board attended several meetings with schools in the Remuera area to discuss road safety programmes and initiatives, including St Kentigern’s School.

7. St Kentigern’s expressed a need to provide a safer crossing point for pupils to move to the nearby Martyn Wilson Field for recreation and sporting opportunities in response to the proposed relocation of their Girls’ School to the Shore Road campus and the growing roll projected for their Boys’ School.

8. The crossing was not included in the AT work programme as it was not deemed a regional priority. However, AT investigated the site and provided the school with a crossing design suitable for the location.

9. Ultimately, a raised zebra crossing was considered the most suitable and safe solution and was progressed by the school. However, due to the rise in construction costs, St Kentigern’s College has asked the local board to consider a contribution of $20,000 towards the project.

10. This new raised zebra crossing is expected to encourage slow vehicle speeds and provide a safe crossing for pedestrians, particularly students. It aligns with the safe transport outcomes outlined in the Ōrākei Local Board Plan as well as AT’s commitment to Vision Zero by providing survivable speeds and reducing the likelihood of death or serious injury.

11. The project aligns within the framework of the Ōrākei Local Board Plan outcome of advocating for “transport infrastructure that is efficient and connected, enabling people to move around safely and effectively using a range of options” and expresses Orakei local board’s priorities for safety initiatives, upgrades and improvements around schools.

12. If the board chooses to fund the St Heliers CCTV network and provide a financial contribution to the raised zebra crossing for St. Kentigern’s school, this will leave a considerable sum of $985,238 remaining in the board’s Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) receive this report updating the board on its local board transport capital fund.

b) approve the allocation of $70,000 of its local board transport capital as follows:

· allocate $50,000 to Modules 1b, 2 and 3 being Achilles Point (large) and St Heliers Boat Ramp and Playground CCTV project.

· allocate $20,000 as a contribution towards the new raised pedestrian crossing on Shore Road delivered by St Kentigern’s College.

Horopaki

Context

2. Auckland Transport (AT) is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. As set out in our Local Board Engagement Plan, we report on a regular basis to local boards. The regular reporting commitment acknowledges the important role local boards play in the governance of Auckland on behalf of their local communities.

3. AT has been reporting in 2021 on projects and operations in the local board areas by way of a monthly central bulletin. Information on local board consultations and updates on the status of the Community Safety Fund (CSF) and the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) have been conveyed by memo or email.

4. The CSF is a capital budget established by AT for use by local boards to fund local road safety initiatives. The purpose of this fund is to allow elected members to address longstanding local road safety issues that are not regional priorities and are therefore not being addressed by the AT work programme.

5. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by AT. Local boards can use this fund to deliver minor transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of AT’s work programme. Projects must also be:

· safe

· not impede network efficiency

· be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

6. In October 2021, the the Ōrākei Local Board allocated $900,000 from its transport capital fund to five projects. These are noted below.

Project	Description	Notes	Estimates
Roberta Reserve Playground Crossing	A crossing to be established near the T intersection of Riddell Road and Roberta Avenue.	Design and consultation for this project is to be completed by end of June 2022 with construction starting in September with works completed by the end of the school holidays (Mid-October).	$260,000
Ōrākei School	A new crossing to be established on Coates Avenue as the school has closed its back gate and the desire line for pedestrians has now altered.	Design and consultation for this project is to be completed by end of June 2022 with construction starting in September with works completed by the end of the school holidays (Mid-October).	$300,000
Victoria Avenue	Raise the crossing at 274 Victoria Avenue (approximately) to improve safety for school children.	Design and consultation for this project s is to be completed by end of June 2022 with construction starting in September with works completed by the end of the school holidays (Mid-October).	$260,000
Stonefields Bus Shelter	To be located at stop 1317.	Consultation on this project is timed for late January 2022. If all goes well delivery should be in May/June 2022.	$40,000
St Johns Road Bus Shelter	To be located at approximately 131 St Johns Road, St Johns.	Design and consultation for this project is to be completed by end of June 2022.	$40,000
		TOTAL	$900,000

With new LBTCF budgets approved in late June 2021, and the subsequent allocations in October 2021, the Ōrākei Local Board now has $1,055,238 remaining to allocate in this political term.

Achilles Point and St Heliers Bay CCTV Proposal

Background

7. The board received ongoing complaints from the community regarding crime and antisocial behaviour in St. Heliers, particularly around Achilles Point, St. Heliers boat ramp and the playground area.

8. In order to address the safety issues in the area, the board included CCTV camera installation as an initiative in its Local Board Plan 2020. “Outcome 1 key initiative: support community groups and patrols to put in place measures (lighting, CCTV etc) to improve the safety of our public places.”

9. A working group including Auckland Transport, Police, St. Heliers Residents and Business Associations was formed. Police recommended working with Safer Cities who had previously worked on the Mission Bay CCTV network. Safer Cities advised that CCTV in particular would deter antisocial behaviour and is an effective addition to police deployments for achieving overall community safety.

10. The working group held regular safety meetings. Safer Cities drafted a plan for the location of the cameras, including Achilles Point, the carpark, boat ramp and the playground area.

11. In June 2020, St Heliers and Glendowie Residents Associations successfully secured funding from the Ōrākei Local Board towards an Achilles Point and St Heliers Beach Toilets Safety Project, as well as the costs of design for CCTV in this area.

12. In August 2020, Safer Cities completed the CCTV network design. A CPTED assessment for St Heliers at the end of 2020 recommended the implementation of the CCTV network design.

13. The wider CCTV network would deter antisocial behaviour on a general level in the area, including vehicle related behaviour in the road corridor and boat ramp area within the network. This would promote transport related safety.

Proposal

14. Some proposals have been developed by consultants Safer Cities with input from Community Facilities, NZ Police, Auckland Transport and community representatives. These have been broken into modules which are summarised below:

Module 1a – Achilles Point Small

- 2 Fixed Cameras

- 1 Pole

- Wireless Back to AT SaferCity Mission Bay Network

- Estimated Cost $11,934.48

Module 1b – Achilles Point Large

- 3 Fixed Cameras

- 1 Pan Tilt Zoom

- 2 Poles

- Wireless Back to AT SaferCity Mission Bay Network

- Necessary for Module 2 (St Heliers Boat Ramp)

- Module 1b can also include wireless connectivity to St. Heliers Boat Ramp

- Greater visibility than two cameras and connects with Module 2 (boat ramp).

- Estimated Cost $21,485.56

Module 2 – St Heliers Boat Ramp

- Add on to Module 1b

- 1 Pan-Tilt-Zoom

- 1 Pole

- Wireless connectivity back to Achilles Point and St Heliers Toilets

- The boat ramp cannot see the wireless pole in Mission Bay so requires either the Achilles Point – Large or St Heliers Bay Rd Toilets Modules.

- Estimated Cost $8,152.68

Module 3 – St Heliers Toilet

- Add on to Module 2 (boat ramp)

- 2 Fixed Cameras

- 1 Pole

- Wireless back to boat ramp

- Can connect directly back to AT SaferCity Network in Mission Bay as a standalone module (additional -$3000)

- Estimated Cost $8,311.98

CCTV Monitoring

15. These proposals were discussed with Auckland Transport in May 2020 and approval sought to have the cameras added to the AT network.

16. Auckland Transport agreed to allow Achilles Point CCTV cameras and wireless network infrastructure, including the additional St Heliers Boat/Playground cameras (if installed) to connect back to the AT SaferCity Mission Bay network and be recorded on AT’s new Video Management System.

17. AT and NZ Police would therefore have visibility of these cameras at Achilles Point and St Heliers Boat / Playground cameras in ATOC and Police Centres.

18. AT requires that the low-level design and network security is in compliance with Auckland Transport design specifications.

Options

19. These options were formulated to respond to the different pain points of the St Heliers area raised by the local board. Option 1 is a minimum option that addresses the main site of antisocial behaviour. Option 3 addresses a site of antisocial behaviour also highlighted by police, whereas option 2 encompasses all sites of antisocial behaviour that were highlighted by the police, the community and the local board.

Option 1

Option 2 (recommended)

Option 3

Module 1a – Achilles Point Small

Module 1b – Achilles Point Large

Module 2 – St Heliers Boat Ramp

Module 3 – St Heliers Toilet

Module 3 – St Heliers Toilet as a standalone module

$11,934.48

$37, 950.22

$11,311.98

20. Safer Cities recommends that the local board choose Option 2 - module 1b Achilles Point (large). Selecting this option would allow modules 2 and 3 to be installed either with current funding or at a later date, whichever the local board deems as appropriate.

21. Module 1b with Module 2 and 3 as add-ons, would allow for wider visibility and connectivity through the safety network by enabling the wireless connectivity to range from Achilles Point, the boat ramp and the toilets. Though Module 1a will connect with the AT Safer City Mission Bay Network, the range will be more limited and will not connect with the boat ramp and toilets as proposed by Module 1b.

22. Module 1b also has three cameras as opposed to two cameras offered in Module 1a. Three fixed cameras will provide greater visibility.

Auckland Transport would own the assets and be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the cameras.

Achilles Point and St Heliers Playground Ballpark Pricing Summary

Item		Total
Module 1a - Achilles Point - Small	Choose One	$ 11,934.48
Module 1b - Achilles Point – Large	Choose One	$ 21,485.56
Module 2 - St Heliers Boat Ramp	Optional Extra	$ 8,152.68
Module 3 - St Heliers Playground	Optional Extra*	$ 8,311.98
Maximum Total (Modules 1b, 2, 3,)		$ 37,950.22

Total		$ 37,950.22

*Note module 3 requires module 2, Alternatively Module 3 could connect straight back to Mission Bay for ~$1000 extra with Module 1 or ~$3000 extra as standalone.

23. Funding all the above projects will expend approximately $37,950 of the board’s LBTCF allocation. Note that these estimated costs are ballpark figures which were prepared in August 2020. Since then, there have been widespread supply chain issues caused by COVID-19 restrictions, which has driven an increase in the price of materials. In order to mitigate this risk and cover the potentially increased costs required for project implementation, it is recommended that if the local board wishes to support the three modules as above, a sum of $50,000 be allocated to the overall project.

24. The remaining amount can be allocated at future LBTCF prioritisation workshops. The local board has previously considered projects to make improvements to The Landing, Ngahue Reserve and Colin Maiden Park. These projects await further advice from Community Facilities.

Shore Road Crossing at Martyn Wilson Field

25. AT and the Ōrākei Local Board attended several meetings with schools in the Remuera area to discuss road safety programmes and initiatives. These series of meetings were known as the Remuera School Cluster and involved St Kentigern College, Baradene College and Victoria Avenue School.

26. St Kentigern’s expressed a need to provide a safer crossing point for pupils to move to the nearby Martyn Wilson Field for recreation and sporting opportunities in response to the proposed relocation of their Girls’ School to the Shore Road campus and the growing roll projected for their Boys’ School.

27. A crossing point here was explored by AT but did not achieve a high enough regional priority to be included in our work programme. Therefore, St Kentigern’s requested AT to investigate the site and provide it with a crossing design suitable for the location.

28. The location where the new zebra crossing has been installed previously had a pedestrian refuge island, which was not considered to provide sufficient safety for pedestrians crossing from Martyn Wilson Fields Reserve to the Saint Kentigern School campus. Therefore, there was a need to upgrade the refuge island to improve safety for the increasing number of students and the general public/local residents that would use it.

29. Other options including a signalised midblock crossing or a pedestrian overbridge or underpass were not considered appropriate for this location as they were considered too costly for the project and the pedestrian demand was not considered significant enough to justify a signalised crossing or an overbridge/underpass. A raised zebra crossing was considered the most suitable and safe solution and was therefore progressed by the school.

30. This new raised zebra crossing is expected to encourage slow vehicle speeds and provide a safe crossing for pedestrians, particularly students. This aligns with AT’s commitment to Vision Zero by providing survivable speeds and reducing the likelihood of death or serious injury, and therefore has been supported and approved by AT.

31. The project aligns within the framework of the Ōrākei Local Board Plan outcome of advocating for “transport infrastructure that is efficient and connected, enabling people to move around safely and effectively using a range of options” and expresses Orakei local board’s priorities for safety initiatives, upgrades and improvements around schools.

32. Due to the rise in construction costs, St Kentigern’s College has asked the local board to consider a contribution of $20,000 towards the project. If supported by the local board, there would still be a sufficient funds for the local board to deliver other transport improvements in 2022

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. Auckland Transport engages closely with council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and council’s priorities.

34. Auckland Transport’s core role is in providing attractive alternatives to private vehicle travel, reducing the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the contracted public transport network. These projects all support pedestrian, active modes or support public transport therefore contributing to climate change actions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. This report has been compiled with the advice of Community Facilities. Any further engagement required with other parts of the Council group will be carried out on an individual project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. The Ōrākei Local Board Plan 2020 outlines in Outcome 1 as a key initiative: “Support community groups and patrols to put in place measures (lighting, CCTV etc) to improve the safety of our public places.”

37. The Ōrākei Local Board Plan 2020 supports safety improvements around schools.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

39. If the local board resolves to allocate local board transport capital fund budget to deliver three modules as outlined, and to make a contribution to the Shore Road crossing, it will use $70,000 of the local board transport capital fund. This will still leave a considerable sum of money in the fund for the local board to fund other projects it may wish to support in the future. Although any remaining unallocated LBTCF budget will roll over into the next financial year, staff advise that the board allocate as much as possible in order to utilise the funds for the benefit of the community.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. Vandalism of cameras may be a potential risk that can be mitigated by placing them on high on poles. Additionally, vandalism of cameras has not appeared as an issue in Mission Bay.

41. Risks associated with suitability for the coastal environment and working in the road corridor will be mitigated by Auckland Transport’s experts responsible for what will be AT owned assets.

42. The rise in construction costs and materials may result in slightly higher costings for the CCTV network than what has been provided as ballpark figures in this report. This will be mitigated by an ample allocation of $50,000 to the project.

43. No risks have been identified in the local board making a contribution toward the raised pedestrian zebra crossing on Shore Road.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. Once the local board’s resolutions are agreed, AT will work with both Safer Cities and Auckland Council on delivery of the CCTV system.

45. If the contribution to the Shore Road crossing is confirmed, AT will manage the transfer of funds to St Kentigern College.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Map Shore Road_Saint Kentigern	61
b ⇩	Attachment B - Achilles Point CCTV & Wireless Network Design	63

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Lorna Stewart - Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00171

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4. Roads where safe speed limits were set on 30 June 2020 have experienced a 67 per cent reduction in fatalities, 19 per cent reduction in all injury crashes, and a minor reduction in serious injuries^{^[1]}. Total deaths and serious injuries (DSI) reduced on these roads by seven per cent, compared to an upward trend in road trauma seen on the rest of the road network.

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

All road performance

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

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

Rural road performance

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

· set a new safe and appropriate speed limit, or

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

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

Community Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

· media release and on-going media management

· published an article in Our Auckland

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

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

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

· 15 online webinars.

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

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

· via a survey

· via a mapping tool

· at public hearings held on 25 November.

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

· the consultation length was extended from 5 to 7 weeks

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - proposed speed limits by LB area	73
b ⇩	Attachment B Feedback Report - Local Board - Orakei	75

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Orakei Local Board comment on Auckland Council Submission on the Three Waters reform	157

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00632

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei 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 election signs, to:

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

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

o remove the ability to display election signs related to Entrust

· in relation to event signs:

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

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

o enabling signs for temporary sales

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

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

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

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

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

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

o changeable messages relate to transitions between static images

o LED signs must comply with the relevant luminance standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

22. There was majority support for Proposals 1, 3A, 3C, 4, 5A, 8, 12, 13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, 15 and 16, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 2A, 2B, 2C, 3B, 5B, 7B, 11B and 14C and majority opposition for Proposals 6, 7A, 9, 10, 11A, 13C and 14D.

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	67 per cent	33 per cent	73 per cent	22 per cent
P2A: Election signs (9-week display)	50 per cent	50 per cent	53 per cent	36 per cent
P2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks or reserves, or at an Open Space Zone)	50 per cent	50 per cent	63 per cent	35 per cent
P2C: Election signs	50 per cent	50 per cent	67 per cent	21 per cent
P3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	100 per cent	0 per cent	54 per cent	34 per cent
P3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	50 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	27 per cent
P3C: Event signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	78 per cent	7 per cent
P4: Free-standing signs	67 per cent	0 per cent	66 per cent	14 per cent
P5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)	100 per cent	0 per cent	65 per cent	20 per cent
P5B: Portable signs	50 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P6: Posters	0 per cent	100 per cent	76 per cent	16 per cent
P7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	0 per cent	100 per cent	56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs	50 per cent	50 per cent	62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs	0 per cent	100 per cent	40 per cent	43 per cent
P10: Verandah signs	0 per cent	100 per cent	54 per cent	18 per cent
P11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	25 per cent	75 per cent	60 per cent	24 per cent
P11B: Wall-mounted signs	50 per cent	50 per cent	59 per cent	24 per cent
P12: Window signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones	100 per cent	0 per cent	48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones	100 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	21 per cent
P13C: Commercial sexual services	0 per cent	100 per cent	73 per cent	20 per cent
P14A: General (safety and traffic)	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	13 per cent
P14B: General (tops of buildings)	100 per cent	0 per cent	79 per cent	18 per cent
P14C: General (illuminated signs)	50 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P14D: General (business that cease trading)	0 per cent	100 per cent	58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals	100 per cent	0 per cent	52 per cent	24 per cent
P16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings	100 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	7 per cent

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

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

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

29. The proposal has a similar climate impact as the current bylaws, for example illuminated signs may have a minor impact on emissions. The Bylaw however is limited in its ability to regulate for sustainability purposes. The Bylaw must be reviewed in 5 years and committee has resolved to investigate redistributing sign rules between the Bylaw and the Auckland Unitary Plan as part of the Plan’s next review (resolution number 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^{^[2]}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The following risk has been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of all public feedback (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Copy of local feedback from the local board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00268

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 183 Have Your Say feedback and 106 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 Ōrākei 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 183 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 106 research survey respondents (RS) from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal:

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

· for Proposal Two there was majority support for one general rule, and support for alternative maximum stay, departure time and no-return period rules

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

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

General rule feedback (Proposals 1 and 2)

Proposal	Local board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted	68 per cent HYS support 90 per cent RS support	55 per cent HYS support 90 per cent RS support
2: Set four general rules, which would require freedom campers staying in these areas to:
2.1: Use a certified self-contained vehicle	84 per cent HYS support · 8 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 74 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	16 per cent support · 62 per cent preferred 1 night 62 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	29 per cent support · 3 per cent preferred 10am · 47 per cent preferred 8am 47 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	25 per cent support · 55 per cent preferred 4 weeks 61 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

68 per cent HYS support

90 per cent RS support

55 per cent HYS support

90 per cent RS support

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

2.1: Use a certified self-contained vehicle

84 per cent HYS support

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

74 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

16 per cent support

· 62 per cent preferred 1 night

62 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

29 per cent support

· 3 per cent preferred 10am

· 47 per cent preferred 8am

47 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

25 per cent support

· 55 per cent preferred 4 weeks

61 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=81)^{^[3]}

Auckland-wide feedback

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

· St Heliers Community Library and Hall: 60 support, 9 oppose

· Ten people commented on prohibited areas outside of your local board area.^{^[4]}

Majority support for prohibition at 11 areas^{^[5]}

Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas

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

· Carpark on Road Reserve by Anderson’s Beach Reserve: 23 support, 42 oppose

· Twelve people commented on restricted areas outside of your local board area.^{^[6]}

Majority support for restrictions at one area^{^[7]}

Majority opposition for restrictions at 21 areas

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

· many respondents are fundamentally opposed to freedom camping

· the proposed rules are not restrictive enough of freedom camping

· freedom camping causes problems for Auckland and Aucklanders.

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The following risks have been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of all public feedback to proposed new Freedom Camping Bylaw (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Public feedback from people in the Ōrākei Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Bayllee Vyle - Policy Advisor

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend Stormwater Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/01114

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4. Auckland Council received responses from 79 people and organisations.^{^[8]} All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Main proposals to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

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

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

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

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

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

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

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

The Bylaw is part of a wider regulatory framework

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

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

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

The council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· updating Bylaw wording, format, and definitions.

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

Diagram, timeline

Description automatically generated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area

20. Seven people from the local board area provided feedback summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. Support of proposal in the local board area

Proposal	Local Board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Controls on public stormwater network and private stormwater systems.	57 per cent support	60 per cent support
2: Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals	43 per cent support	47 per cent support
3: Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points	71 per cent support	64 per cent support
4: Restricting or excluding activities for parts of the stormwater network	29 per cent support	48 per cent support
5: Updating the bylaw wording, format, and definitions	71 per cent support	73 per cent support

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Under the agreed principles and processes for local board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest. It is also considered to be of no impact on local governance for local boards.^{^[9]}

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Attachment A Draft Bylaw Panel Deliberations Report (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Attachment B SWBA Orakei Submissions (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Dean Yee - Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00835

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. No public feedback was received from people in the Ōrākei Local Board area.

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 Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel and Governing Body to decide whether to adopt the proposal.

7. 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.

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 28 April 2022. The Governing Body will make a final decision in April 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei 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

9. 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.

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

11. 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

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

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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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

19. There were no submissions received from people in the local board area.

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	No feedback received	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	No feedback received	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	No feedback received	86 per cent support 7 per cent opposed 7 per cent ‘other’ 10 per cent ‘I don’t know’

20. 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.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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'.

28. 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.

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00647

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 Ōrākei 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^{^[10]}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^{^[11]}.

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^{^[12]} and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series^{^[13]}.

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^{^[14]} 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	201

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Toby Shephard - Strategist
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Ōrākei Local Board

17 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00860

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 Ōrākei 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 ⇩	Attachment A NZ Geographic Orakei Local Board	239
b ⇩	Attachment B NZ Geographic Orakei Local Board	241
c ⇩	Attachment C NZ Geographic Orakei Local Board	243
d ⇩	Attachment D NZ Geographic Orakei Local Board	245

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

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

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

[3] Refer Submitter Numbers 10, 19, 24, 30, 31, 66, 67, 82, 110, 131, 158, 272, 317, 321, 369, 372, 374, 376, 378, 379, 380, 382, 385, 387, 390, 392, 393, 396, 397, 403, 404, 411, 415, 418, 428, 441, 442, 446, 453, 482, 484, 513, 522, 538, 546, 563, 618, 622, 641, 673, 712, 799, 850, 896, 957, 973, 991, 1030, 1035, 1071, 1072, 1151, 1180, 1245, 1302, 1317, 1322, 1342, 1344, 1383, 1402, 1404, 1439, 1443, 1467, 1478, 1481, 1483, 1485, 1491 and 1516 in Attachment B.

[4] Refer Submitter Numbers 19, 110, 158, 321, 374, 379, 428, 799 and 896 in Attachment B.

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

[6] Refer Submitter Numbers 19, 82, 110, 158, 321, 379, 385, 415, 428, 799, 957 and 991in Attachment B.

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

[8] This included 61 individuals and 18 organisations.

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

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

[11] National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management policy 3.5

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

Chairperson	Mr Scott Milne, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Troy Elliott
Members	Troy Churton
	Colin Davis, JP
	Sarah Powrie
	Margaret Voyce
	David Wong, JP

Authors	Jade Grayson - Democracy Advisor for Orakei.
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Authors	Caroline Teh - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager