Agenda of Rodney Local Board - Wednesday, 16 February 2022

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Classification of reserve land at 383 West Coast Road Ahuroa, to legally support the grant of a community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand

File No.: CP2022/00413

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To classify a currently unclassified local purpose reserve comprising two land parcels at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa to legally support the grant of a new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In 2008, the former Rodney District Council acquired land comprising two parcels at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa. The former council constructed a new fire station on one parcel of land and the wastewater improvements to service the fire station and a future public toilet, on the other.

3. The former council did not put a formal occupancy agreement in place with the Ahuroa Volunteer Fire Force Incorporated who occupied and operated the fire station at that time.

4. The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 established Fire and Emergency New Zealand, from 1 July 2017, as the new entity for the former rural volunteer fire services.

5. Fire and Emergency New Zealand has formally applied to council for a new community lease for the land, buildings and wastewater improvements at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa for the purposes of a fire station and first responder services.

6. On checking the status of the underlying land, staff discovered that the two parcels of land occupied by the fire station and its associated improvements at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa were subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 and unclassified. The land must be formally classified to legally support the grant of a new community lease.

7. All statutory processes required in relation to the proposed classification have now been satisfied.

8. This report recommends that the Rodney Local Board exercise its delegated authority under Section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify the land parcels as detailed in the table below:

Legal description	Current land status	Recommended classification	Considerations
Section 1 Survey Office Plan 404804	Unclassified local purpose (fire station) reserve	Local purpose (fire station) reserve	This classification legally supports the grant of a new lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand
Section 2 Survey Office Plan 404804	Unclassified local purpose (public rest area) reserve	Local purpose (community facilities) reserve	This classification legally supports the grant of a new lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the location of any public toilet in the future

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) resolve, pursuant to Section 16(2A)(a) of the Reserves Act 1977, to classify land at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa legally described as Section 1 Survey Office Plan 404804 as local purpose (fire station) reserve and Section 2 Survey Office Plan 404804 as local purpose (community facilities) reserve (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

9. This report considers the land issues impacting on leasing matters with respect to Fire and Emergency New Zealand and its formal occupation of land at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa.

10. A new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand for the land, building and associated infrastructure at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa is listed as item number 2121 on the 2020/2021 community leasing work programme.

11. Rodney Local Board is the allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing and licensing matters.

12. Local boards hold delegated authority under Section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify all council-owned reserves.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Location, history of land title and mechanism for classification

13. West Coast Road Ahuroa is located off Kaipara Coast Highway, inland from and east of Araparera. The land at 383 West Coast Road intersects with Komokoriki Hill Road, Ahuroa (Attachment B to the agenda report).

14. In 2008, the former Rodney District acquired the subject land at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa from private landowners under the Public Works Act 1981. The land is legally described as Section 1 Survey Office Plan 404804 and Section 2 Survey Office Plan 404804, respectively. Both land parcels are held in fee simple by Auckland Council and subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

15. Sections 1 and 2 SO 404804 are held in records of title 441719 and 441720 respectively. Section 1 was acquired for a local purpose (fire station) reserve and Section 2 was acquired for a local purpose (public rest area) reserve – Gazette Notice 2008, page 3310.

16. The former council constructed the fire station on Section 1 Survey Office Plan 404804 and wastewater infrastructure on Section 2 Survey Office Plan 404804 to service the fire station and a future public toilet. To date, a public toilet has not been constructed on Section 2 SO 404804 and neither are there any plans to construct one, in the foreseeable future.

17. In accordance with section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977, the local authority shall by resolution classify the reserves according to their principal or primary purpose. Local boards hold delegated authority under Section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act to classify all council-owned reserves.

18. Leasing staff has been working with council’s legal team and statutory specialists to determine the correct and workable classification for each of the land parcels in terms of their primary purpose and future-proofing.

19. While there is no provision under the Reserves Act requiring council to publicly notify its intention to classify any reserve in terms of Section 16(2A) of that Act, engagement with iwi is still necessary in terms of Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987. Engagement is detailed in paragraph 31.

20. A land survey is not necessary as council intends to classify each of the parcels in their entirety as local purpose (fire station) reserve and (community facilities) reserve, respectively.

Alignment of classification with proposed grant of new a community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand and any future public toilet

21. Classification of the two parcels of land at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa in accordance with staff recommendations will legally support the proposed grant of a new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand. Additionally, the location of any new public toilet in the future.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan sets out two core goals:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

23. This is an administrative report and the decision from the local board does not have any direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal continues an existing activity and does not introduce new sources of emissions.

24. The subject land area is not located directly within a flood plain of a 1-in-100 years rainstorm event by river or surface flooding (Attachment C to the agenda report shows the location in relation to flood plains and flood prone areas).

25. The site is not subject to other potential climate change impacts and hazards such as coastal inundation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. Staff sought feedback from relevant council teams about the proposed classification. Their feedback is detailed in the table below:

Team	Feedback
Service and Asset Planning Specialist, Service Investment and Programming	“I have checked these two parcels and as they are out of scope of the Rodney Local Board Local Parks Management Plan project, we have no issues and you may proceed”.
Parks Specialist, Parks Sports and Recreation	“No concerns from my perspective”.

27. The proposed classification of land has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the advice in this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The recommendations in this report support the Rodney Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes:

a) Infrastructure and development meet the needs of growing communities (outcome three).

b) Our communities are resilient and have access to what they need (outcome four).

29. During September 2020, leasing staff prepared a memorandum for the local board to inform and seek feedback from it on progressing with the statutory requirements relating to the land classification. On 15 September 2020, the local board provided staff with informal positive feedback to progress the matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are outlined in council’s key strategic planning documents; the Auckland Plan, the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, and local board plans.

31. At the North-West Mana Whenua Forum held via Skype on 4 March 2021, staff presented to mana whenua representatives in attendance about the proposed classification. During the presentation, mana whenua representatives did not voice any concerns with the proposal. The table below details iwi groups represented at the forum:

Iwi groups
Te Ākitai Waiohua	Te Uri o Hau
Ngaati Whanaunga	Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki
Te Patkirikiri

32. In October 2021, by way of direct email, leasing staff contacted all iwi groups identified as having an interest in land in the Rodney Local Board geographical area seeking feedback on the proposed classification. Leasing staff received a response from the key representative for Ngāti Maru “Ngāti Maru will not undertake involvement, however, will support those iwi who have strong interests in the area.” Leasing staff did not receive any further feedback on the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. There is no direct cost to council associated with this proposed classification of land at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. Under the Reserves Act, if the reserve is not classified according to the activities that are to be undertaken on the reserve, council cannot legally grant a new community lease.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. Subject to the Rodney Local Board resolving to classify Section 1 Survey Office Plan 404804 and Section 2 Survey Office Pan 404804, council’s land advisory staff will finalise the necessary statutory administrative requirements.

36. Additionally, council staff will report to the Rodney Local Board about a proposed new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	GIS aerial view showing two land parcels at 383 West Coast Road Ahuroa legally described as Sections 1 and 2 Survey Office Plan 404804	13
b ⇩	GIS aerial view showing location of land at 383 West Coast Road Ahuroa in relation to Araparera	15
c ⇩	GIS aerial view from Auckland Council's Hazard Viewer showing land at 383 West Coast Road Ahuroa in relation to flood plains and flood prone areas	17

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karen Walby - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Grant a new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand for land, building and associated improvements at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa

File No.: CP2022/00417

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to grant a new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand for land, building and associated improvements at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa, for the purposes of a fire station.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The former council did not put a formal occupancy agreement in place with the Ahuroa Volunteer Fire Force Incorporated who occupied and operated the fire station at that time.

4. The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 established Fire and Emergency New Zealand, from 1 July 2017, as the new entity for the former rural volunteer fire services.

5. In late 2017, council’s legal team implemented a one-year licence between Auckland Council and the New Zealand Fire Service Commission. Both parties agreed that council, as licensor, would grant to Fire and Emergency New Zealand a licence. The licence commenced 1 July and expired 30 June 2018. The licence has been holding over on a month-to-month basis.

6. Council’s legal team has been working alongside Fire and Emergency New Zealand and both parties have now agreed on the form of a new lease agreement. To make provision for any future construction of a public toilet, the community lease agreement contains a specific early termination clause relating to a portion of the land parcel on which the wastewater improvements are located.

7. The Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 informs council staff recommendations in terms of tenure. In most circumstances where a council-owned building is to be leased to a group, council staff recommend one term of five years with one right of renewal for five years.

8. In this instance council staff has recommended one term of 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years. This is because Fire and Emergency New Zealand will be responsible for all maintenance requirements and outgoings. Additionally, this recommended term aligns with the Rodney Local Board’s recent grant of three other new community leases to Fire and Emergency New Zealand for the former rural volunteer fire services in its geographical area.

9. The ‘required use’ under the lease agreement will be for first responder services and associated activities. In this instance, the consequential community benefit is obvious. As such, Fire and Emergency New Zealand is not required to have a community outcomes plan appended as a schedule to its lease agreement.

10. This report recommends that the Rodney Local Board grant Fire and Emergency New Zealand a new community lease for land, building and associated improvements at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa, for the purposes of a fire station.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) grant, pursuant to section 61 of the Reserves Act 1977, a new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand for the council-owned land, building and associated improvements on 12,200 square metres (more or less) of land legally described as Section 1 Survey Office Plan 404804 and Section 2 Survey Office Plan 404804 at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa (Attachment A to the agenda report) subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years commencing 1 March 2022

ii) rent - $1.00 per annum if demanded

iii) maintenance – Fire and Emergency New Zealand will maintain the land and buildings and pay outgoings

iv) early termination clause – a specific amendment to allow for early termination by council of 4,450 square metres (more or less) of the land parcel legally described as Section 2 Survey Office Plan 404804, giving twelve (12) months’ written notice

b) note that Fire and Emergency New Zealand is not required to have a community outcomes plan appended as a schedule to its lease agreement.

c) note that all other terms and conditions will be in accordance with Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 and the Reserves Act 1977.

Horopaki

Context

11. This report considers the leasing matters with respect to Fire and Emergency New Zealand and its formal occupation of land at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa.

12. A new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand for the land, building and associated infrastructure at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa is listed as item number 2121 on the approved 2020/2021 community leasing work programme.

13. Rodney Local Board is the allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing and licensing matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Location, land, buildings and associated improvements

14. West Coast Road, Ahuroa is located off Kaipara Coast Highway, inland from and east of Araparera. The land at 383 West Coast Road intersects with Komokoriki Hill Road, Ahuroa.

15. In 2008, the former Rodney District Council acquired, under the Public Works Act 1981, the land at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa from private landowners. The land is legally described as Section 1 Survey Office Plan 404804 and Section 2 Survey Office Plan 404804, respectively. Both land parcels are held in fee simple by Auckland Council and subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

16. Sections 1 and 2 SO 404804 are held in records of title 441719 and 441720 respectively. Section 1 was acquired for a local purpose (fire station) reserve and Section 2 was acquired for a local purpose (public rest area) reserve – Gazette Notice 2008, page 3310. The land is classified appropriately to legally support the activities undertaken on the site.

17. The former council constructed the fire station on Section 1 Survey Office Plan 404804 and wastewater infrastructure on Section 2 Survey Office Plan 404804 to service the fire station and a future public toilet. To date, a public toilet has not been constructed on Section 2 SO 404804 and neither are there any plans to construct one, in the foreseeable future. Provision of land is made for any future construction of a public toilet by way of the inclusion of a specific early termination clause in the lease agreement relating to a portion of this land parcel.

Legal mechanism and timeline for process to grant a new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand

18. In June 2012, Cabinet agreed to set up the Fire Review Panel to provide advice on how New Zealand could improve its fire service. The review took place between August and December 2012. The Fire Review Panel made recommendations to Cabinet and in September 2013 Cabinet agreed to take next steps based on those recommendations. As a result, in 2015 the Department of Internal Affairs and the New Zealand Fire Service Commission worked together on the Fire Services Review.

19. On 13 November 2015, the Minister of Internal Affairs announced that as a result of the Fire Services Review the government would bring urban and rural fire services together into one unified fire services organisation. This was achieved through the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 which received Royal Assent on 11 May 2017. The Act established Fire and Emergency New Zealand as the new entity for the former rural volunteer fire services on 1 July 2017.

20. The Act repealed the Forests and Rural Fires Act 1977. This transferred the functions, duties and powers of council as a rural fire authority to Fire and Emergency New Zealand on 1 July 2017.

21. As a result, council had six weeks to prepare for the transition of its functions, duties and powers as a fire authority to Fire and Emergency New Zealand. During this period it was decided to issue Fire and Emergency New Zealand with interim licences (of 12 months from 1 July 2017) of the former rural volunteer fire services buildings to ensure continuity of services.

22. Such interim licences then obliged council and Fire and Emergency New Zealand to agree long-term solutions, subject of course to obtaining any required internal approvals, including that from local boards. It is this process which is currently being undertaken. Council’s legal team has been working with Fire and Emergency New Zealand on a standard lease agreement.

23. The Ahuroa site is the fourth of five former rural volunteer fire service sites within the Rodney Local Board area. The fifth and final site and next steps are detailed in the table below:

Site address and background

Next steps

341 Motutara Road, Muriwai

The improvements were constructed by the former Rodney District Council.

Fire and Emergency New Zealand has requested council to transfer the assets/improvements on the site on the grounds that Rodney District Council owned and managed the assets in its capacity as a rural fire authority, not in its capacity as a local authority.

As the existing lease agreement is still current (expiring 31 March 2023), council’s legal team is arranging for an assignment of the lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

Council’s leasing staff is currently progressing the relevant processes involved and will workshop the matter with the local board in the new year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan sets out two core goals:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

25. This is an administrative report and the decision from the local board does not have any direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal continues an existing activity and does not introduce new sources of emissions.

26. The lease area is not located directly within a flood plain of a 1-in-100 years rainstorm event by river or surface flooding (Attachment B to the agenda report shows the location in relation to flood plains and flood prone areas).

27. The site is not subject to other potential climate change impacts and hazards such as coastal inundation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Staff sought feedback from relevant council teams about the proposed new community’ lease. Their feedback is detailed in the table below:

Team	Feedback
Service and Asset Planning Specialist, Service Investment and Programming.	“I have checked these two parcels and as they are out of scope of the Rodney Local Board Local Parks Management Plan project, we have no issues and you may proceed.”
Parks Specialist, Parks Sports and Recreation	“No concerns from my perspective.”

29. The proposed new community lease has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the advice in this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. The recommendations in this report support the Rodney Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes:

a) infrastructure and development meet the needs of growing communities (outcome three).

b) our communities are resilient and have access to what they need (outcome four).

31. During September 2020, leasing staff prepared a memorandum for the local board to inform and seek feedback from it on progressing with the statutory requirements relating to the proposed new lease. On 15 September 2020, the local board provided staff with informal positive feedback to progress the matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are outlined in council’s key strategic planning documents; the Auckland Plan, the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, and local board plans.

33. At the North-West Mana Whenua Forum held via Zoom on 4 March 2021, staff presented to mana whenua representatives in attendance about and sought feedback on the proposed new community lease. During the presentation, mana whenua representatives did not voice any concerns with the proposal. The table below details iwi representation at the forum:

Name of iwi
Te Ākitai Waiohua	Te Uri o Hau
Ngaati Whanaunga	Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki
Te Patukirikiri

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. There is no direct cost to council associated with the proposed new community lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa. The lessee will be responsible for all maintenance and outgoings.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. Should the Rodney Local Board resolve not to grant a lease to Fire and Emergency New Zealand, this decision will mean that there is no formal documentation to correctly record the occupancy resulting from the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 establishing the new entity for the former rural volunteer fire services.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. Subject to the Rodney Local Board resolving to grant Fire and Emergency New Zealand a new community lease, council’s legal team will prepare the relevant documentation for signing by Fire and Emergency New Zealand and subsequent execution by council.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	GIS aerial view showing lease area and improvements on land at 383 West Coast Road, Ahuroa	25
b ⇩	GIS aerial view from Auckland Council's Hazard Viewer showing lease area in relation to flood plains and flood prone areas	27

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karen Walby - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Two new private road names and the extension of an existing public road at 45 Burns Lane, Huapai

File No.: CP2022/00177

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Rodney Local Board to name two new private roads, being commonly owned access lots, created by way of a subdivision development at 45 Burns Lane, Huapai.

2. Approval is also sought to name a new section of public road in Huapai as ‘Balthazar Road’, being an extension of the existing road with the same name.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Auckland Council road naming guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the applicant shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

4. Jo Zhou of Elim Properties Limited has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

5. The proposed names for the new private roads at 45 Burns Lane are:

The proposed nam

Road Reference	Applicant Preferred name
Road Extension	Balthazar Road
Commonly Owned Access Lot 1	Montrachet Lane
Commonly Owned Access Lot 2	Corton Lane
Pool of Alternative Names:
These alternative names can be used for any the public/commonly owned access lots listed above.	Chablis Lane	Meursault Lane
	St Aubin Lane	Beaune Lane
	Charlemagne Lane	Macon Lane

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the following two names for two new private roads created by way of subdivision at 45 Burns Lane, Huapai, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974

i) Montrachet Lane (Commonly owned access lot 1)

ii) Corton Lane (Commonly owned access lot 2)

b) approve the name ‘Balthazar Road’ for the new section of public road that connects to the existing section of Balthazar Road, providing access to the new subdivision at the end of this road, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki

Context

7. Resource consent references BUN60354947 and SUB60354949 were issued in March 2021 for the construction of 45 new residential freehold units, two commonly owned access lots and one public road.

8. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachment A to the agenda report.

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

10. In this instance the commonly owned access lots require a name each because it serves more than five lots. This can be seen in Attachment A, where the commonly owned access lots and public road are highlighted.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature

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

13. Theme: Many existing roads in the area surrounding this development have names inspired by wine growing and producing, such as ‘Jeroboam Loop’, ‘Malbec Place’, Merlot Heights’, ‘Reserva Crescent’ and ‘Pinotage Place’. For this reason, Elim Properties Limited chose names to compliment this existing local theme, as detailed in the table below:

Road number	Proposed Name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Commonly Owned Access Lot 1	Montrachet Lane (Applicant Preferred)	Montrachet is an Appellation d'origine contrôlée (AOC) and Grand Cru vineyard for white wine made of Chardonnay in the Côte de Beaune subregion of Burgundy. It straddles the border between the two communes of Chassagne-Montrachet and Puligny-Montrachet and produces what many consider to be the greatest dry white wine in the world. It is surrounded by four other Grand Cru vineyards all having "Montrachet" as part of their names. Montrachet itself is generally considered superior to its four Grand Cru neighbours, and this is reflected in its higher price.
Commonly Owned Access Lot 2	Corton Lane (Applicant Preferred)	Corton is an AOC and Grand Cru vineyard for red and white wine in Côte de Beaune subregion of Burgundy. It is located on a hill shared between the three villages of Aloxe-Corton, Pernand-Vergelesses and Ladoix in the Côte de Beaune, Burgundy.

14. Elim Properties Limited has also provided a pool of names that can be use as alternatives at 45 Burns Lane:

Pool of alternatives	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Chablis Lane	The Chablis region is the northernmost wine district of the Burgundy region in France. The cool climate of this region produces wines with more acidity and flavors less fruity than Chardonnay wines grown in warmer climates. The Chablis Appellation d'origine contrôlée is required to use Chardonnay grapes solely.
Meursault Lane	Mersault is a commune in the Côte-d'Or department and region of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté in eastern France. Meursault produces mainly white wines from Chardonnay grapes.
St Aubin Lane	A close neighbour of Montrachet, lying between Chassagne and Puligny, Saint-Aubin is a wine-growing village in the southern part of the Côte de Beaune, the heartland of the great white Bourgogne wines.
Beaune Lane	Beaune is a walled town at the center of the Burgundy winemaking region in France. Surrounded by the Côte d'Or vineyards, the cobbled town is renowned for an annual wine auction held at the Hôtel-Dieu (Hospices de Beaune).
Charlemagne Lane	Corton-Charlemagne is an Appellation d'origine contrôlée and Grand Cru vineyard for white wine in Côte de Beaune subregion of Burgundy. It is located in the communes of Aloxe-Corton, Pernand-Vergelesses and Ladoix-Serrigny with Chardonnay being the only permitted grape variety.
Macon Lane	Macon is a city in east-central France. The city gave its name to the nearby vineyards and wine 'appellation'. Mâcon is the generic regional appellation for red, white and rosé wines from across the Mâconnais sub-region of southern Burgundy.

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

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

17. Road Type: ‘Lane’ is an acceptable road type for the new private roads, suiting the form and layout of the commonly owned access lots.

18. Consultation: Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe māori impact statement section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

23. On 1 December mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the resource consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

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

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

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust)

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

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

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

· Ngāti Paoa (Ngāti Paoa Trust Board)

· Ngāti Paoa (Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust)

· Ngāti Maru (Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust)

· Ngāti Manuhiri (Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Trust)

· Ngātiwai (Ngātiwai Trust Board).

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

25. This site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua and no Te Reo Māori names are proposed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for council.

27. Elim Properties Limited has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	45 Burns Lane Huapai - Site Location Plans	35

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Angove – Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Road name for one new private road at 444 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Coatesville

File No.: CP2022/00185

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a name for one new private road within the subdivision being undertaken by P. Penman at 444 Coatesville–Riverhead Highway, Coatesville.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council road naming guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of council for proposed road names. These guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development the applicant shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road names for the local board’s approval. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region.

3. P. Penman has proposed the following names for the consideration of the local board:

Preferred Name

Alternatives

Kaituhi Lane

Puketuhi Lane

Moaruku Lane

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the name ‘Kaituhi Lane’ for the new private road in the subdivision being undertaken by P. Penman at 444 Coatesville–Riverhead Highway, Coatesville in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki

Context

5. The five-lot subdivision, (council ref BUN60336976), now completed, was approved on 26 June 2019.

6. Site and location plans of the subdivision can be found in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

7. In accordance with the standards, all public roads and all private roads serving more than five lots require a name in order to ensure safe, logical, and efficient street numbering. In this instance the private road only serves five lots, but the applicant has requested that it be named.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

9. The guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes with the use of Maori names being actively encouraged:

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

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature

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

10. Theme: P. Penman has chosen names that they consider appropriate for the locality. In this regard the names and their relevance are detailed as below.

Proposed Names	Meanings
Kaituhi Lane (applicant’s preference)	Kaituhi - (writer, scribe, author) is an oblique reference to the Penman family name, being the owners of the property prior to subdivision, and continuing as owners of three of the five lots after subdivision. However, and more importantly, it will be an enduring reference to all creators of the written word, celebrating the contributions made to Aotearoa’s history and culture by those who first systematised Te Reo Maori (both Pakeha and Maori), and the countless writers who have recorded our stories and knowledge over the years since
Puketui Lane (alternative)	Puketui - An ancestral placename, recorded as a settlement on the site of the current Riverhead forest lookout circa 1900 (ref Coatesville Residents and Ratepayers Association: Coatesville History). This lookout, were it not surrounded by mature pine trees, would look down directly on the subdivision, which is located adjacent to the Rangitopuni Stream, directly opposite the Riverhead Forest.
Moaruku Lane (alternative)	Moaruku - This name is a suggestion from Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust, with the following motivation: “In our archives we have reference to Moa being caught in the Rangitōpuni Stream Catchment. This area is still referred to its traditional name as ‘Moaruku’ referring to the catching of Moa after they dive under the water. There is evidence that one of the last nests of moa eggs was discovered in this area in the 1700’s.

11. Assessment: The proposed name options have been assessed by the council’s subdivision specialist team to ensure that they meet both the guidelines and the standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity. It is therefore for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

12. Confirmation: Land Information New Zealand has confirmed that the proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

13. Road Type: The road type ‘Lane’ is an acceptable road type for the new road.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

19. On 13 July 2021 mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant through the resource consent unit’s central facilitation process as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with a general interest in the area were contacted.

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa Trust Board

· Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Wai.

20. By the close of the consultation period one response had been received from Manuhuri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust who supported the name ‘Moaruku Lane’.

21. The level of feedback received from mana whenua is often dependent on the scale of the development and its level of significance.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for council.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	444 Coatesville Riverhead Highway Scheme Plan	43
b ⇩	Coatesville- Riverhead Highway Locality Map	45

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Angove – Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Road name for one new private road at 902 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead

File No.: CP2022/00199

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a name for one new private road within the subdivision being undertaken by Ashdown Orchards Limited, at 902 Coatesville–Riverhead Highway, Riverhead.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council road naming guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development the applicant shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road names for the local board’s approval. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region.

3. Ashdown Orchards Limited has proposed the following names for the consideration of the local board:

Preferred Name

Alternatives

Ashdown Park Lane

Claret Ash Lane

Rangitopuni Stream Lane

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the new road name ‘Ashdown Park Lane’ for the new private road in the subdivision being undertaken by Ashdown Orchards Limited at 902 Coatesville–Riverhead Highway, Riverhead in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki

Context

5. The six-lot subdivision, (council ref SUB60339490), was approved on 17 October 2019.

6. Site and location plans of the subdivision can be found in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

7. In accordance with the standards, all public roads and all private roads serving more than five lots require a name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes with the use of Maori names being actively encouraged:

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

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature

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

10. Theme: Ashdown Orchards Limited has chosen names that they consider appropriate for the locality. In this regard the names and their relevance are detailed as below:

Proposed Names	Meanings
Ashdown Park Lane (Applicant’s preference)	Refer to Attachment C (Ashdown Park – History) for road name meaning
Claret Ash Lane (Alternative)	Refer to Attachment C (Ashdown Park – History) for road name meaning
Rangitopuni Stream Lane (Alternative)	Refer to Attachment C (Ashdown Park – History) for road name meaning

12. Confirmation: Land Information New Zealand has confirmed that the proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

13. Road Type: The road type ‘Lane’ is an acceptable road type for the new road.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. On 30 November 2021 mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant through the resource consent unit’s central facilitation process as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with a general interest in the area were contacted:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa Trust Board

· Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Wai.

20. By the close of the consultation period two responses had been received, the first from Te Kawerau ā Maki on 30 November 2021, who opposed the use of the name ‘Rangitopuni’ without their prior involvement or consent and the second on 2 Dec. 2021 from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei who agreed with the statement from Te Kawerau ā Maki. No further correspondence was received.

21. The site is not identified as of significance to mana whenua however the opposition to the use of ‘Rangitopuni’ would mitigate against the use of that particular name and that name is not recommended at this location.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for council.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	902 Coatesville - Riverhead Highway Scheme plan	51
b ⇩	902 Coatesville - Riverhead Highway Locality Plan	53
c ⇩	Ashdown Park - History	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bruce Angove – Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2021/17678

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

All road performance

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

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

Rural road performance

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

· set a new safe and appropriate speed limit, or

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

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

Community Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

· media release and on-going media engagement

· 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 AT.govt.nz/haveyoursay

· via a survey

· via a mapping tool

· at public hearings held on 25 November 2021.

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

· the consultation length was extended from five to seven weeks

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Rodney Local Board - AT - Proposed Speed Limit Changes - Tranche 2A	67
b ⇩	Summary report of consultation feedback on speed limit changes	69

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts – Acting General Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00425

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 Rodney 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^{^[2]}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^{^[3]}.

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 to align 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 embedded 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^{^[4]} and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series^{^[5]}.

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^{^[6]} 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 in 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 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategist

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Resource Management System Reform

File No.: CP2022/00441

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

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

7. Cabinet adopted the following objectives for reform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graphical user interface, diagram, PowerPoint

Description automatically generated

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

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

Formal engagement with Auckland Council on resource management system reform

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Summary of discussion document

Purpose

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

· national planning framework

· regional spatial strategies

· NBA plans

· RSS and NBA joint committees

· consenting

· compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· monitoring and system oversight

· role of local government in the future system

· national Māori entity

· joint committee composition

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

· funding in the future system.

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

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

National Planning Framework (NPF)

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

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

Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs)

21. RSSs will identify areas that are:

· suitable for development

· need to be protected

· require infrastructure

· vulnerable to climate change effects and natural hazards.

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

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

Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSS and NBA joint committees

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

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

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

Consenting

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement

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

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

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

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

· prohibiting the use of insurance for prosecution and infringement fines

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

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

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

Monitoring and system oversight

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

37. The proposed approach to monitoring will include:

· a suite of tools in the NBA to direct monitoring

· consistent and regular local-level environmental monitoring and reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of local government in the future system

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

In RSS and NBA plan development

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

RSS and NBA plan implementation

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

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

Compliance, monitoring, enforcement and oversight

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

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

Timeframe for development of feedback on the discussion document

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

National Māori entity

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

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

Joint committee composition

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Funding in the future system

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Council submission points on the Discussion Document	147

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacob van der Poel - Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00272

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 456 Have Your Say feedback and 93 research survey respondents from the Local Board area.

5. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney 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 456 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 93 research survey respondents (RS) from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal:

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

· for Proposal Two there was majority support for one general rule, and mixed views on the maximum stay, departure time and no-return period rules among HYS respondents

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

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

General rule feedback (Proposals 1 and 2)

Proposal

Local board feedback

Auckland-wide feedback

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

26 per cent HYS support

89 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

72 per cent HYS support

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

80 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

44 per cent support

· 23 per cent preferred 1 night

73 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

34 per cent support

· 18 per cent preferred 10am

· 20 per cent preferred 8am

57 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

37 per cent support

· 32 per cent preferred 4 weeks

53 per cent RS support

40 per cent support

· 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks

55 per cent RS support

Site-specific feedback (Proposals 3 and 4)

Proposal

Local board feedback (n=86)^{^[7]}

Auckland-wide feedback

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

· Helensville Civic Centre Grounds: 8 support, 6 oppose

· Huapai Service Centre/Kumeu Library: 6 support, 6 oppose

· Leigh Library and Grounds: 25 support, 7 oppose

· Pakiri Hall Grounds: 14 support, 7 oppose

· Ti Point Walkway: 25 support, 6 oppose

· Waimauku War Memorial Hall: 7 support, 5 oppose

· Warkworth Town Hall Grounds: 26 support, 8 oppose

Majority support for prohibition at 11 areas^{^[8]}

Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas

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

· Carpark at 8 Church Hill: 8 support, 22 oppose

· Parry Kauri Park: 10 support, 22 oppose

· Port Albert Wharf Reserve carpark: 4 support, 13 oppose

· Whisper Cover (adjacent carpark on road reserve): 15 support, 27 oppose

· Wellsford Community Centre Grounds: 2 support, 11 oppose

· 118 Rodney Street: 2 support, 11 oppose

Majority support for restrictions at one area^{^[9]}

Majority opposition for restrictions at 21 areas

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

· the proposed rules are not restrictive enough of freedom camping

· freedom camping causes problems for Auckland and Aucklanders

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

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The following risks have been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

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

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend Stormwater Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/01116

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.^{^[10]} 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.

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

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

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

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

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

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

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

The Bylaw is part of a wider regulatory framework

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

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

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

The council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· updating Bylaw wording, format, and definitions.

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

Diagram, timeline

Description automatically generated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

20. Three 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.	67 per cent support	60 per cent support
2: Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals	33 per cent support	47 per cent support
3: Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points	67 per cent support	64 per cent support
4: Restricting or excluding activities for parts of the stormwater network	100 per cent support	48 per cent support
5: Updating the bylaw wording, format, and definitions	67 per cent support	73 per cent support

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Under the agreed principles and processes for local board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest. It is also considered to be of no impact on local governance for local boards.^{^[11]}

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Rodney Local Board public feedback (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dean Yee – Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00530

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:

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney 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, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 5B, 6, 7A, 7B, 11B and 14B, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 13B and 14D, and majority opposition for Proposals 2A, 5A and 11A. Opinions about the remaining proposals were mixed, with no clear majority of respondents in support or opposition.

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

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board feedback		Auckland-wide feedback
Topic	Support	Opposition	Support	Opposition
P1: Banners	67 per cent	33 per cent	73 per cent	22 per cent
P2A: Election signs (9-week display)	33 per cent	67 per cent	53 per cent	36 per cent
P2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks or reserves, or at an Open Space Zone)	100 per cent	0 per cent	63 per cent	35 per cent
P2C: Election signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	21 per cent
P3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	80 per cent	20 per cent	54 per cent	34 per cent
P3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	80 per cent	20 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	75 per cent	25 per cent	66 per cent	14 per cent
P5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)	0 per cent	67 per cent	65 per cent	20 per cent
P5B: Portable signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P6: Posters	100 per cent	0 per cent	76 per cent	16 per cent
P7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	100 per cent	0 per cent	56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs	0 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs	0 per cent	50 per cent	40 per cent	43 per cent
P10: Verandah signs	0 per cent	0 per cent	54 per cent	18 per cent
P11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	0 per cent	100 per cent	60 per cent	24 per cent
P11B: Wall-mounted signs	67 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	24 per cent
P12: Window signs	0 per cent	0 per cent	69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones	0 per cent	0 per cent	48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones	50 per cent	50 per cent	59 per cent	21 per cent
P13C: Commercial sexual services	0 per cent	0 per cent	73 per cent	20 per cent
P14A: General (safety and traffic)	50 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)	50 per cent	50 per cent	58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals	0 per cent	0 per cent	52 per cent	24 per cent
P16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings	0 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	7 per cent

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

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

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

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 five years and committee has resolved to investigate redistributing sign rules between the Bylaw and the Auckland Unitary Plan as part of the Plan’s next review (REG/2020/66) at which time illumination and sustainability issues could be examined.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

· balancing Māori rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to exercise their tikanga and rangatiratanga across their whenua with the council’s and Auckland Transport’s obligations to ensure public safety^{^[12]}

· 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 (six 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

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00933

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney 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.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

· obligations for owners of industrial cooling water tower systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

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

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

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

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

· removing legacy council bylaws which have expired

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

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

Process to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

Diagram

Description automatically generated

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. Two people from the local board area provided feedback in support of all three proposals. This is similar with the Auckland-wide feedback.

Support of proposal in the local board area

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

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The following risk has been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Public feedback from people in the Rodney Local board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00667

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 Rodney 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 to the agenda report)

b) Previously unofficial Māori place name adopted with the addition of macrons (205) (Attachment B to the agenda report)

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

d) Previously unofficial non-Māori place name to be adopted as is (690) (Attachment D to the agenda report).

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 ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment A Rodney Local Board - Previously unofficial Māori place name to be adopted	189
b ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment B Rodney Local Board - Previously unofficial Māori place name adopted with the addition of macrons	193
c ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment C Rodney Local Board - Previously unofficial Māori place name where more information or clarification is sought regarding whether the name has been captured correctly	195
d ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment D Rodney Local Board - Previously unofficial non-Māori place name to be adopted	199

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00673

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· recruitment commencing for the two compliance warden roles (ID 1760).

· stage one of the comprehensive renewal of the Mahurangi Community Centre was completed in early December 2021 (ID 20549).

· play equipment was installed at Cabeleigh Drive Pond Reserve, Helensville (ID 26692).

· the second stage of the Riverhead streetscape improvements was finished (ID 26260).

· a new manager was appointed at the Helensville Art Centre. She began her role during lockdown. To encourage wider arts engagement and to cater to those unsure about venturing out under the new COVID-19 framework, an online catalogue of artworks was created to view and purchase along with free contactless delivery for the Helensville area (ID 448).

· the legal review of Volume 1 of the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan was completed as have workshops with subject matter experts and mana whenua on the content of Volume 2. Amendments are being made to the draft plan following these reviews. The Rodney Local Board approved further classification of reserve land on 1 December 2021 (RD/2021/366) (ID 1554).

· the Restore Rodney East Facilitator was employed on 1 November 2021 (ID 587).

· the Restore Rodney East Community Restoration Strategy was completed, and members of the Restore Rodney East Convening Group presented it to the Rodney Local Board on 17 November 2021 (ID 3127).

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

· the comprehensive renewal of the Helensville Community Centre, 49 Commercial Road (ID 18057) (2021/2022 budget: $355,008) is now expected to start in April 2022 due to delays caused by the addition of the seismic strengthening design. A cost estimate received indicates a potentially significant budget shortfall for the proposed physical works. The seismic structural design peer review is being finalised. The next steps are to lodge the building consent, arrange a site inspection and for tenderers to confirm the scope of the works

· the remediation of the roof components and reporting on potential structural development options for the Warkworth Library (ID 30772) (2021/2022 budget: $100,000) has been delayed due to resourcing issues with one of the specialist subconsultants providing information for the other consultants to complete their input into the assessment report which is now expected to be received by the end of February 2022

· the contract to rebuild the toilet block at William Fraser Reserve (ID 24249) (2021/2022 budget: $432,700) has been awarded. It is now expected to be completed in late July 2022. It has been delayed due to production delays for the off-site construction of the prefabricated Permaloo toilet block.

6. This report proposes reallocating $110,000 of this financial year’s locally driven initiatives operational budget to other activities within the work programme. The proposed reallocations are from activities that are expected to have a budget underspend this year to projects that can use additional funding to help progress towards project completion or outcomes aligned with the Rodney Local Board Plan 2020.

7. The financial performance report for the quarter is attached as Attachment B to the agenda report 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 Rodney Local Board:

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

b) approve the reallocation of funding from the following initiative towards tree maintenance work at Green Road (project ID 3147), which is a transfer of funding within the Locally Driven Initiatives operational work programme:

i) Project ID 1760 – Customer and Community Services – Compliance Programme – reallocation of $50,000

ii) Project 1460 – Customer and Community Services – Volunteer recognition Rodney – reallocation of $10,000

c) approve the reallocation of funding from the following initiatives to develop a concept plan for wheel play provision (project ID 3150), which is a transfer of funding within the Locally Driven Initiatives operational work programme:

i) Project ID 453 – Customer and Community Services – Support and Activation – Rodney Halls – reallocation of $18,000

d) approve the reallocation of funding from the following initiatives to the Rodney Healthy Harbours Riparian Restoration Fund (project ID 617), which is a transfer of funding within the Locally Driven Initiatives operational work programme:

i) Project ID 612 – Infrastructure and Environmental Services – Forestry Ambassador Programme – reallocation of $15,000

ii) Project ID 453 – Customer and Community Services – Support and Activation – Rodney Halls – reallocation of $9,000

iii) $8,000 from the local board’s film revenue

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

Horopaki

Context

8. The Rodney Local Board has an approved 2021/2022 work programme (Attachment A to the agenda report) for the following council departments:

· Customer and Community Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

9. The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet Rodney Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 where practicable, with further updates to be provided in quarter three.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

14. 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

15. Graphs three and four below show the activity status – or stage of the activity – for the activities in the work programme. Graph three shows this breakdown by department. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes.

Graph 3: Work programme performance by activity status and department

Graph 4: Status of activities within the work programme

Key activity updates from quarter two

16. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· recruitment commencing for the two compliance warden roles (ID 1760).

· stage one of the comprehensive renewal of the Mahurangi Community Centre was completed in early December 2021 (ID 20549).

· play equipment was installed at Cabeleigh Drive Pond Reserve, Helensville (ID 26692).

· the second stage of the Riverhead streetscape improvements was finished (ID 26260).

· the Restore Rodney East Facilitator was employed on 1 November 2021 (ID 587).

· the Restore Rodney East Community Restoration Strategy was completed, and members of the Restore Rodney East Convening Group presented it to the Rodney Local Board on 17 November 2021 (ID 3127).

Activities with significant issues

17. The following activities are reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

Activities on hold

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

· renewing the seawall along the Point Wells Reserve foreshore falls within the Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme. The project is paused to liaise with the Shoreline Adaptation Planning team. A site visit with this team and the consultant is planned for early quarter three in financial year 2021/2022 (ID 2739) ($50,000 ABS capex)

· investigating and renewing coastal assets around Whangateau Harbour and the Omaha Estuary falls within the Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme. The project is paused to liaise with the Shoreline Adaptation Planning team. A site visit with this team and the consultant is planned for early quarter three in financial year 2021/2022 (ID 2747) ($50,000 ABS capex)

· developing a new neighbourhood park at Dida Park Drive in Huapai is on hold (ID 30136) ($20,000 ABS capex)

· renewing the playspace, pathways, carpark and drainage at Harry James Reserve is on hold. Concept design work will commence in January 2022 (ID 23663) ($0 ABS capex).

· renewing the carpark, driveway and walkway at Point Wells Recreation Reserve is ready for physical work but is being proposed in a bundled project next financial year for the carpark renewals in Rodney (ID 24230) ($0 ABS capex)

· remediating the carpark at 14 Baxter Street, Warkworth is on hold pending a decision by the Governing Body on whether to proceed with disposing of the property (ID 29318) ($50,000 ABS capex).

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

19. These community leasing activities are deferred from the current work programme into future years:

· Coatesville Recreation Reserve, Coatesville - New lease and licence to occupy to Waitemata Branch Pony Club Incorporated (ID 1061) - At its workshop of 10 November 2021, staff presented the local board with a memorandum seeking feedback on deferring the project until after the adoption of the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan. The local board provided informal positive feedback to defer this activity

· Glasgow Park, Waimauku - New lease and licence to occupy to Waimauku Pony Club Incorporated (ID 1067) - At its workshop of 10 November 2021, staff presented the local board with a memorandum seeking feedback on deferring the project until after the adoption of the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan. The local board provided informal positive feedback to defer this activity

· Harry James/Taupaki Reserve, Taupaki - New lease and licence to occupy to Kumeu District/Red Hills Pony Club Incorporated (ID 1062) - At its workshop of 10 November 2021, staff presented the local board with a memorandum seeking feedback on deferring the project until after the adoption of the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan. The local board provided informal positive feedback to defer this activity

· Warkworth Showgrounds Reserve, Warkworth - New lease to Warkworth Pony Club Incorporated (ID 1059) - At its workshop of 10 November 2021, staff presented the local board with a memorandum seeking feedback on deferring the project until after the adoption of the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan. The local board provided informal positive feedback to defer this activity

· Warkworth Showgrounds Reserve, Warkworth - New lease to Warkworth Rodeo Club Incorporated (ID 1070) - At its workshop of 10 November 2021, staff presented the local board with a memorandum seeking feedback on deferring the project until after the adoption of the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan. The local board provided informal positive feedback to defer this activity.

Cancelled activities

20. These activities are cancelled:

· renewing the timber on the Port Albert wharf (ID 2740) ($50,000 ABS capex) was transferred to under the regional timber wharfs project.

Breakdown of underspend

21. Staff from some council departments have already advised that there are several activities where an underspend of allocated locally driven initiatives operational budget is expected this financial year.

22. The following table provides a breakdown of the underspend against each initiative, and the unallocated funds available from film revenue.

Table 1: Work programme underspend and unallocated revenue

ID	Activity name	Reason for underspend	Value of underspend
612	Forestry Ambassador Programme	The planned workshop with stakeholders was cancelled due to community concerns regarding COVID-19. Due to this $15,000 of the budget is available for reallocation.	$15,000
453	Support and Activation - Rodney Halls	Due to the COVID-19 restrictions, the activator at Wellsford District Community Centre had to reduce their hours due to restrictions on hirers using the centre. As well, the allocated programming funding was not used.	$27,000
1760	Compliance wardens	This is a new activity and is a trial for an initial six months followed by another six months if it is going well. There were delays in the recruitment process for the compliance wardens. The delay has meant that the length of the contract won’t fully use all the funds that were allocated in the current financial year. The local board may wish to carry forward or reallocate the underspend.	$50,000
N/A	Local board film income	The Rodney Local Board received film income of $8,000 during the 2021/2022 financial year. This income is received during the year and is therefore not allocated when the local board approves its work programme at the start of the year.	$8,000
		TOTAL	$100,000

23. The local board may wish to reallocate the $100,000 of underspend that has been indicated by staff to other activities that the local board wishes to progress and that align with the Rodney Local Board Plan 2020.

24. Potential projects that the local board could redirect budget towards should have support from operational staff. Staff need to be confident that the additional funds can be used and spent before the end of the financial year and that resources and time is available to ensure this. This usually means that existing projects, rather than new projects, will be the best candidates to take additional funds.

25. Several options are outlined below that the local board may wish to consider reallocating funding to, for projects that can be completed this financial year.

ID	Activity name	Reason additional funds can be used	Additional budget that could be allocated
3147	Green Road tree maintenance	There is a lot of tree maintenance work required at Green Road to prepare it for opening the site to the public. Additional funding can further progress this work.	Approximately $200,000
3150	Develop concept plan for wheel play provision (to complete project)	This activity is near completion and requires some additional funding to finish it.	$18,000
617	Rodney Healthy Harbours Riparian Restoration Fund	The local board allocated $200,000 to this activity in the current 2021/2022 financial year work programme. There was a good response from the community when funding applications were invited. All the eligible applications add up to $316,279 of funding. So, this presents an opportunity if the local board would like to allocate more funding towards improving water quality via this activity.	More than $100,000

26. While the above table outlines the amount of funding these projects could potentially use, given that $110,000 is the amount of funding that is indicated to be underspent and can be reallocated, the following reallocations are recommended to provide a balance among the projects, including the types of outcomes the activities seek to achieve:

· reallocate funding from the following initiatives towards tree maintenance work at Green Road (project ID 3147):

o Project ID 1760 – Customer and Community Services – Compliance Programme – reallocation of $50,000

o Project 1460 – Customer and Community Services – Volunteer recognition Rodney – reallocation of $10,000

· reallocate funding from the following initiative to complete the development of a concept plan for wheel play provision (project ID 3150):

o Project ID 453 – Customer and Community Services – Support and Activation – Rodney Halls – reallocation of $18,000

· reallocate funding from the following initiatives to the Rodney Healthy Harbours Riparian Restoration Fund (project ID 617):

o Project ID 612 – Infrastructure and Environmental Services – Forestry Ambassador Programme – reallocation of $15,000

o Project ID 453 – Customer and Community Services – Support and Activation – Rodney Halls – reallocation of $9,000

o $8,000 from the local board’s film revenue

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

28. 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.

29. The local board has approved a number of projects in its current year work programme that contribute to climate change mitigation, including:

· Rodney Healthy Harbours Riparian Restoration Fund, which provides landowners with financial assistance to protect and restore the riparian margins of Rodney waterways through planting and stock exclusion initiatives. Community groups can also apply for funding to protect and restore public areas such as esplanades and reserves.

· Restore East Rodney Coordinator, which funds a role to support landscape-scale environmental restoration and conservation activities by the community in eastern Rodney.

· Restore West Rodney Coordinator, which supports community-led initiatives for a Predator Free Kaipara. The coordinator encourages and supports landowners to undertake pest animal control in blocks of native bush.

· Helensville construction and demolition waste minimisation programme, which supports local builders and developers to achieve waste diversion from construction and demolition projects. In year one, this funding will provide bins for the Helensville Community Recycling Centre to establish a waste collection service, allowing the recycling centre to reuse, recycle and upcycle the recovered materials. Funding will also support education for builders and developers to help them overcome barriers to waste diversion.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. 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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. Rodney's libraries continue to incorporate Te Reo Māori and Te Ao Māori across programmes and events, including a language learning component in children and youth programmes, and staff using greetings when welcoming customers. The Skinny Jump programme has been beneficial to whānau Māori across the region, enabling access to affordable broadband at home, including rural areas with poor internet access.

33. A number of initiatives in the work programme involve engagement and collaboration with iwi, including the renewal of the play space and minor assets and Sandspit Reserve, renewal of minor assets at Omeru Scenic reserve, the revitalisation of Warkworth and Helensville town centres, and initiatives supporting strong and resilient communities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. This report is provided to enable the Rodney Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2021/2022 work programme.

35. A total of $100,000 is recommended for reallocation at this time as a few locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational projects are expected to be underspent.

36. Reallocation of funding is regarded as a prudent step for the local board to optimise the use of its locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational budget for the 2021/2022 financial year.

37. It is recommended that the local board reallocate this funding at the earliest opportunity to allow operational staff to deliver the activities that have received this funding.

38. Should the local board choose not to support the reallocation of the funding from the initiatives identified above, the funding would be offered up as savings to Auckland Council

Financial Performance

39. Auckland 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

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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

43. 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 ⇨	Rodney Local Board - 1 October – 31 December Work Programme Update (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Rodney Local Board Operating Performance Financial Summary - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Justin Kary – Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - 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] Three waters refers to drinking water, wastewater, and storm water.

[3] National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management policy 3.5

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

[7] Refer Submitter Numbers 5, 34, 103, 122, 201, 267, 281, 282, 287, 302, 306, 313, 345, 359, 431, 437, 438, 439, 440, 449, 452, 521, 527, 556, 560, 580, 595, 599, 602, 621, 624, 627, 630, 632, 653, 656, 660, 694, 752, 755, 778, 784, 805, 823, 862, 917, 918, 925, 927, 937, 969, 979, 996, 1048, 1051, 1060, 1074, 1078, 1081, 1083, 1091, 1146, 1147, 1160, 1164, 1167, 1215, 1224, 1274, 1277, 1279, 1286, 1325, 1330, 1346, 1352, 1375, 1381, 1384, 1405, 1408, 1437, 1442, 1456, 1459 and 1469 in Attachment B.

[8] 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.

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

[10] This included 61 individuals and 18 organisations.

[11] 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).

[12] 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.

Chairperson	Phelan Pirrie
Deputy Chairperson	Beth Houlbrooke
Members	Brent Bailey
	Steve Garner
	Danielle Hancock
	Tim Holdgate
	Louise Johnston
	Vicki Kenny
	Colin Smith

Local Board Member	Organisation	Position
Brent Bailey	Central Shooters Inc Auckland Shooting Club Royal NZ Yacht Squadron	President Member Member
Steven Garner	Warkworth Tennis and Squash Club Sandspit Yacht Club Warkworth Gamefish Club	President Member Member
Louise Johnston	Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society	Treasurer
Vicki Kenny	International Working Holidays Ltd Nannies Abroad Ltd	Director/Owner/CEO Director/Owner/CEO
Danielle Hancock	Kaukapakapa Residents and Ratepayers Association Pest Free Kaukapakapa New Zealand Biosecurity Services Limited	Member Pest Free Coordinator Operations Manager
Tim Holdgate	Landowners Contractors Protection Association Agricultural & Pastoral Society - Warkworth	Vice Chairman Committee member
Beth Houlbrooke	Kawau Island Boat Club Springboard Advisory Board Matakana Coast Trail Trust	Member Member Contractor
Phelan Pirrie	Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade Grow West Ltd North West Country Incorporated	Officer in Charge Director Manager
Colin Smith

Author	Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager