Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board - Thursday, 17 February 2022

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 9 December 2021	9
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes attachments - 9 December 2021.	21

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

Amendments to Upper Harbour Local Board 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services - Community Facilities work programme – Meadowood House

File No.: CP2022/00753

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve amendments to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services - Community Facilities work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board approved the 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services work programme on 17 June 2021 (resolution UH/2021/71).

3. As projects progress through the design and delivery process, the specific work required and the cost of delivery can change, impacting the approved budget. As a result, variations may be required to the work programme to accommodate updated timeframes and final costs for some projects. 

4. In November 2021 due to higher than anticipated tender prices being received the local board approved an additional $115,000 to Meadowood House – Refurbish building (ID 24280) taking the approved budget to $435,000. (Resolution UH/2021/146)

5. Works on the building are nearing completion, however, during roof works it has come to light that the existing grey butynol membrane and substrate has worn more significantly than originally thought and staff advice is that it is replaced.

6. In order to replace the butynol roof and underlying substrate an additional $75,000 is required to be allocated to ID 24280 Meadowood House – Refurbish building in the work programme.

7. In order to accommodate this budget increase while still staying within the overall 3-year budget envelope, staff have identified three projects that require funding to be deferred or reduced from financial year 2021/2022 to financial year 2023/2024:

• ID23944 Rosedale Park - road renewal (Jack Hinton Drive to Paul Matthews Road) – deferral of $20,000.

• ID27868 Herald Island Domain – renew playspace – deferral of $15,000

• ID30456 Upper Harbour – renew play spaces 2021/2022+ – reduction of budget of $40,000

8. The proposed variations are within the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021- 2024 financial year budget envelopes and will not substantially impact the approved projects or the overall work programme.

9. Staff recommend that the Upper Harbour Local Board approve the variations to the 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services – Community Facilities work programme.

10. Subject to the local board’s decision, staff will update the work programme and progress updates will be provided to the local board as part of the quarterly reports.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the following ABS: Renewals Capex funding changes to the work programme:

1) ID23944 Rosedale Park - road renewal (Jack Hinton Drive to Paul Matthews Road - revised financial year 2021/2022 project budget $0, reallocate funding of $20,000 to financial year 2023/2024.

2) ID27868 Herald Island Domain – renew playspace – revised financial year 2021/2022 project budget $15,000, reallocate funding of $15,000 to financial year 2023/2024.

3) ID30456 Upper Harbour – renew play spaces 2021/2022+ – reduce available project budget across three years to $560,000. Financial year 2021/2022 budget is reduced to $0.

b) approve the reallocation of ABS: Renewals Capex funding within the work programme 2021-2024 for project:

1) ID 24280 Meadowood House – Refurbish building - revised total budget available to $510,000 increasing financial year 2021/2022 budget by $75,000.

Horopaki

Context

11. The Upper Harbour Local Board approved the Customer and Community Services work programme for financial year 2021/2022 on 17 June 2021. The local board also approved the financial years 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 work programmes in principle (resolution UH/2021/71).

12. The budget allocated for all projects in the work programme are best estimates and are subject to change and refinements. As a project progresses, the specific work required and the cost of delivery could either exceed the original estimated budget or the anticipated delivery cost could be less than the approved budget. As a result, variations may be required to the work programme to accommodate final project costs.

13. The original scope of works that were required for the refurbishment of Meadowood House included the following:

For the exterior of the building	Work needed inside the building
· Partial roof renewal	· Renewal of the toilets
· Replacement of the old skylight	· Kitchen replacement
· Replacement of the base boards around the building	· Lighting upgrade to LED to parts of the interior
· Underfloor insulation	· Full vinyl flooring replacement
· Refurbishment of the gate to the playground at the back of the building and full repaint	· Full repaint and new acoustic paneling in the main hall

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. During the partial roof renewal works it has come to light that the current grey butynol membrane and substrate has worn more significantly than originally thought. In the original scope it was deemed appropriate to just renew the gutters until gutter replacement was carried out, however, the following have been identified as being defective:

· butynol showing signs of wear and tear with minimal pitch and is in a state of disrepair

· blistering/bubbling, loose laps and split, poor detailing around up-stand skylights and pipe penetrations all contributing to potential water ingress to the property

· ply substrates showing signs of failure with sagging in sheets, butted ply joints lifting and nails pushing up on underside of membrane putting stress on membrane

· metal drip-edge is now loose and no longer fixed to the substrate also showing signs of extreme rust

· recommend roof replacement, correct pitch with new H3 plywood glued and screwed to manufacturers specification.


Butynol roof that needs replacing	Uneven surface

Rusting flashings and trimmings

15. The fall on the roof under the butynol has been checked by an architect and is sufficient as per building code with a minimum of 5 per cent. For this reason, a like-for-like replacement is recommended, as it will meet the building code and provide longevity to the roof.

16. The cost to remediate the above defects and to ensure the building remains watertight is $87,000. This is based on completing the works now while the contractor is mobilised on site and the scaffolding in place. If the works are done now while the weather is still more favourable there isn’t the need to shrink-wrap the building. The building will be able to be open while this section of roof is replaced.

17. The alternative to not allocating additional budget and completing the roof repairs now is for the contractor to demobilise and come back at a later date when additional budget can be secured.

18. The disadvantage of this is it will be more expensive as the contractor will need to set up scaffolding again; materials will be more expensive and there is risk of the butynol roof leaking during the upcoming winter.

19. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the local board increases the allocated budget for this project from $435,000 to $510,000 in FY2022 (an increase of $75,000) and complete the work by mid-March at the latest.

20. In order to accommodate the additional $75,000 required for this project, staff recommend variations to the 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services – Community Facilities work programme for financial year 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 as shown in Attachment A: Proposed amendments to 2021 -224 Community Facilities work programme. We are proposing three projects in the current programme are modified.

21. The renewal of Jack Hinton Road in Rosedale Park has $20,000 allocated this financial year, however, this is unlikely to be required as Watercare need to complete the work on the Northern Interceptor project before the scope can be finalised as they may be reinstating some of this road themselves.

22. Herald Island Playspace - $30,000 has been allocated to design this financial year. The design has not yet commenced, and this could be delayed a few months to commence in the new financial year starting 1 July 2022.

23. Upper Harbour – Renew playspace components has $40,000 in financial year 2021/2022 and $270,000 in financial year 2023 and $290,000 in financial year 2024. The scope of this project is still being worked through and total budget required is not yet known. The $40,000 is not required this financial year and if it is determined that it is required it can be added back into the project as part of future work programme workshops.

24. The proposed variations stay within the overall budget envelopes for each of the three years of the work programme and will not significantly impact the approved projects or the overall work programme.

25. Staff recommend that the Upper Harbour Local Board approves the proposed variations to the 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services – Community Facilities work programme.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

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

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

27. The proposed budget variations have no direct effect on climate change. Each project is considered individually to assess the impacts of climate change and the appropriate approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The types of impact considered includes:

· maximum upcycling and recycling of old material

· installation of energy efficiency measures

· building design to ensure the maximum lifetime and efficiency of the building is obtained

· lifecycle impacts of construction materials (embodied emissions)

· exposure of building location to climate change hazards (sea level rise, flooding (floodplains), drought, heat island effect)

· anticipated increase in carbon emissions from construction, including contractor emissions

· lifecycle impacts of construction materials.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. The decision sought for this report has no direct impact on other parts of the council group. The overall 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services work programme was developed through a collaborative approach by operational council departments, with each department represented in an integrated team.

29. Collaboration with staff will be ongoing throughout the life of the projects to ensure integration into the operational maintenance and asset management systems.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. Community facilities and open spaces provide important community services to the people of the local board area. They contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. These activities improve lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride among residents.

31. The activities in the work programme align with the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes.

Outcome	Objective
Outcome 1: Healthy and Active Communities	Upper Harbour has a range of fit-for-purpose multi-use sports, recreation and community facilities that serve a growing and diverse community.

32. The proposed variation was presented to the local board at a workshop on 10 February 2022 as per the major variation process. Board members expressed support for the variation

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader obligations to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and Local Board Plans.

34. Consideration is given to how the provision of services, facilities and open spaces can support the aspirations of Māori, promote community relationships, connect to the natural environment, and foster holistic wellbeing of whānau, hapū and iwi Māori.

35. The approved work programme includes activities that will have an impact on a service, facility, location of significance to Māori. In these situations, appropriate and meaningful engagement and consultation will be undertaken.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The proposed variations are within the local board’s budget envelopes for each year and will not significantly impact the approved projects or the overall work programme.

37. The proposed budget changes can be achieved by realignment of budget within the work programme as outlined in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Community Facilities work programme ABS: Renewals Capex 2021-2024 - variations required

Project	Approved budget	Deferral to FY24	Increase in FY22	Reduction in budget FY22	Revised budget total FY22-24
Rosedale Park - road renewal (Jack Hinton Drive to Paul Matthews Road)	$400,000	$20,000	-	-	$400,000
Herald Island Domain - renew playspace	$220,000	$15,000	-	-	$220,000
Upper Harbour - renew park play spaces 2021/2022+	$600,000	-	-	$40,000	$560,000
Meadowood House – Refurbish building	$435,000	$0	$75,000		$510,000

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a further negative impact on the delivery of the work programme if the COVID-19 alert level changes.

39. If the proposed variation to the Community Facilities work programme is not approved, the work required on this building will be delayed and will need to be incorporated into future work programmes.

40. If assets are not renewed in a timely way, they may deteriorate further and need to be closed or removed. Staff will continue to monitor the condition of the assets and consider action to be taken in the future.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. Subject to local board’s decision, the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services – Community Facilities work programme will be amended to reflect the decision.

42. If approved the roof replacement will commence immediately and will be completed by March 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed amendment to the 2021-2024 Customer and Community Services – Community Facilities work programme	83

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kris Bird - Manager Sports Parks Design & Programme

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00273

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide 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 45 Have Your Say feedback and 90 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 Upper Harbour 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 45 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 90 research survey respondents (RS) from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal:

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

· for Proposal Two there was majority support for all four general rules

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

General rule feedback (Proposals 1 and 2)

Proposal	Feedback from the local board area	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted	55 per cent HYS support 81 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	70 per cent HYS support · 20 per cent preferred no self-containment requirement for vehicles 76 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	50 per cent support · 10 per cent preferred 1 night 67 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	45 per cent support · 27 per cent preferred 10am · 18 per cent preferred no departure time rule 51 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	75 per cent support · 13 per cent preferred 4 weeks 52 per cent RS support	40 per cent support · 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks 55 per cent RS support

Proposal

Feedback from the local board area

Auckland-wide feedback

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

55 per cent HYS support

81 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

70 per cent HYS support

· 20 per cent preferred no self-containment requirement for vehicles

76 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

50 per cent support

· 10 per cent preferred 1 night

67 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

45 per cent support

· 27 per cent preferred 10am

· 18 per cent preferred no departure time rule

51 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

75 per cent support

· 13 per cent preferred 4 weeks

52 per cent RS support

40 per cent support

· 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks

55 per cent RS support

Site-specific feedback (Proposals 3 and 4)

Proposal

Feedback from the local board area (n=7)^{^[1]}

Auckland-wide feedback

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

· North Shore Memorial Park: 3 support, 3 oppose

· Jack Hinton Drive adjacent to Rosedale Park: 3 support, 3 oppose

· Seven people commented on prohibited areas outside your local board area¹

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

Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas

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

· Note: there are no restricted areas in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

· Seven people commented on restricted areas outside of your local board area¹

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

Majority opposition for restrictions at 21 areas

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

· many respondents are fundamentally opposed to freedom camping

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

· the proposed rules are not restrictive enough of freedom camping.

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The following risks have been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00631

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour 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 three people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal.

22. There was majority support for Proposals 1, 5B, 6, 8, 12, 13B, 14A and 16, split support (50 per cent) for Proposals 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3C, 9, 10, 11A, 13A, 14B, 14C, 14D and 15, and majority opposition for Proposals 5A and 7B. Opinions about the remaining proposals were mixed, with no clear majority of respondents in support or opposition.

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

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board feedback		Auckland-wide feedback
Topic	Support	Opposition	Support	Opposition
P1: Banners	100 per cent	0 per cent	73 per cent	22 per cent
P2A: Election signs (9-week display)	50 per cent	50 per cent	53 per cent	36 per cent
P2B: Election signs (directed at council-controlled parks or reserves, or at an Open Space Zone)	50 per cent	50 per cent	63 per cent	35 per cent
P2C: Election signs	50 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	21 per cent
P3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	50 per cent	0 per cent	54 per cent	34 per cent
P3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	0 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	27 per cent
P3C: Event signs	50 per cent	0 per cent	78 per cent	7 per cent
P4: Free-standing signs	33 per cent	33 per cent	66 per cent	14 per cent
P5A: Portable signs (City Centre Zone)	0 per cent	100 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)	33 per cent	33 per cent	56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs	33 per cent	67 per cent	62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs	50 per cent	50 per cent	40 per cent	43 per cent
P10: Verandah signs	50 per cent	50 per cent	54 per cent	18 per cent
P11A: Wall-mounted signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	50 per cent	0 per cent	60 per cent	24 per cent
P11B: Wall-mounted signs	0 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	24 per cent
P12: Window signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones	50 per cent	50 per cent	48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones	100 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	21 per cent
P13C: Commercial sexual services	0 per cent	0 per cent	73 per cent	20 per cent
P14A: General (safety and traffic)	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	13 per cent
P14B: General (tops of buildings)	50 per cent	50 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	0 per cent	58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals	50 per cent	0 per cent	52 per cent	24 per cent
P16: Enforcement powers and penalties, and savings	100 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	7 per cent

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

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

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

29. The proposal has a similar climate impact as the current bylaws, for example illuminated signs may have a minor impact on emissions. The Bylaw however is limited in its ability to regulate for sustainability purposes. The Bylaw must be reviewed in 5 years and committee has resolved to investigate redistributing sign rules between the Bylaw and the Auckland Unitary Plan as part of the Plan’s next review (resolution number REG/2020/66) at which time illumination and sustainability issues could be examined.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

· balancing Māori rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to exercise their tikanga and rangatiratanga across their whenua with the council’s and Auckland Transport’s obligations to ensure public safety^{^[4]}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The following risk has been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of all public feedback (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

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00561

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide 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 follows:

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

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

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 25 March 2022.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

· obligations for owners of industrial cooling water tower systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

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

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

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

· removing unnecessary rules about lighting as this has been 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 is at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

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

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board area 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, 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	107
b ⇩	Feedback from people in the Upper Harbour Local Board area	123

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend Stormwater Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/01117

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide 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.^{^[5]} All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Main proposals to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour 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. One organisation 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.	100 per cent support	60 per cent support
2: Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals	100 per cent support	47 per cent support
3: Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points	100 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	100 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.^{^[6]}

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 Stormwater Bylaw Panel Delibertations Report	133
b ⇩	Draft Stormwater Bylaw - Upper Harbour Submissions	259

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Dean Yee - Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00516

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide 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 Upper Harbour 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^{^[7]}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^{^[8]}.

Central Government Three Waters Reform

16. The Water Strategy has been developed during a period of significant uncertainty for the council group. Central government has recently indicated that participation in the proposed Three Waters Reforms will be mandated in the planned enabling legislation. The reforms would move management of three waters assets to a new inter-regional entity. Economic regulation is also planned.

17. While the final form of the proposed structures is not known, it is important to understand that the proposed reform would not affect all areas of delivery for the Water Strategy. Council would retain its:

· core role as environmental regulator

· core role as regulatory planning authority

· core treaty partnership role for local government

· core role to engage and be the voice for Auckland communities

· management of the council group’s own water consumption (towards consumption targets).

18. The Water Strategy provides strategic direction to the council group. Over the next few years, as the shape and impacts of proposed reform become clearer, the council would use the strategy in appropriate ways to provide direction to any processes that arise. This strategy would become council’s position on the aims and outcomes sought from any new entity.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. The purpose of this report is to provide local boards with an opportunity to feedback on the Auckland Water Strategy framework before it is finalised and recommended for adoption by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

The Water Strategy Framework

20. The Water Strategy framework sets a vision for the future (previously adopted in 2019), a foundational partnership and eight key strategic shifts to guide change. The vision of the Water Strategy is: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced.

21. The framework articulates Auckland’s context, challenges, aims, and required actions. The framework is designed to make implementation steps clear for council to track progress and so that communities and partners can hold council accountable to progress over time.

22. The framework consists of:

· vision

· treaty context

· challenges

· cross-cutting themes

· strategic shifts and associated aims and actions

· implementation.

23. The diagram below shows the Auckland Water Strategy Framework. Refer to Attachment A for the core content of the Auckland Water Strategy framework, including the aims and actions associated with each strategic shift.

Vision: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced

24. Auckland’s vision for the future is ‘te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s waters, is protected and enhanced’.

25. The Water Strategy vision describes Tāmaki Makaurau’s desired long-term future and will guide council decision-making over time towards that agreed goal. The vision outlines a future for Tāmaki Makaurau where the region’s waters are healthy, thriving, and treasured. This vision also describes a future where the deep connections between water, the environment and people are recognised and valued.

26. The mauri – the life sustaining capacity – of water is a fundamentally intuitive concept. It is something all Aucklanders can appreciate. There is a qualitative difference that is readily felt and sensed when walking alongside a healthy waterbody compared to a waterbody that has been channeled, polluted, or piped, for example.

27. The Our Water Future public discussion document received strong support for the vision. In the document, the vision was explained as:

· special to this place (Auckland)

· recognising the vital relationship between our water and our people

· recognising the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki within the region

· representing values that can unify us in our actions

· setting a long-term aspiration for the way we take care of our waters.

28. The council set a long-term aspiration for Auckland when it adopted this vision in 2019. An aspiration for a future in which:

a) Aucklanders are able to swim in, and harvest from, our rivers, estuaries and harbours.

b) Life in and sustained by water is thriving.

c) Everyone has access to enough water of the appropriate quality to meet their needs.

29. Adopting this vision recognised that addressing Auckland’s water issues and challenges over time requires a bold vision and new ways of working together with council’s treaty partners and communities. The vision signals a greater recognition of a Māori worldview, of environmental limits and interconnectedness of people and environment.

30. The vision is also consistent with council’s obligations and aspirations, as well as central government direction. For example,

· the purpose of local government is to take a sustainable development approach to the broad role of promoting the four well-beings

· the purpose of the Resource Management Act is sustainable management of natural and physical resources in ways that enables the four well-beings

· Te Mauri o te Wai aligns with te Mana o te Wai in the National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM), which provides for local expression

· the Auckland Plan directs council to ‘Apply a Māori worldview to treasure and protect our natural environment (taonga tuku iho)’

· mauri is embedded in the Auckland Unitary Plan

· the Our Water Future public discussion document introduced the vision of te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau and applying a Māori world view

· Te mauri o te wai is referenced in the council’s 2021 Infrastructure Strategy.

Over-arching challenges

31. The intent of the Water Strategy is that the council fulfils its obligations to identify and plan for future challenges across its broad range of functions that affect water outcomes. Tāmaki Makaurau faces several overarching challenges that inform the strategic direction set by the Water Strategy. These are:

· protecting and enhancing the health of waterbodies and their ecosystems

· delivering three-waters services at the right time, in the right place, at the right scale, as the city grows

· having enough water for people now and in the future

· reducing flood and coastal inundation risk over time

· affordability for Aucklanders

· improving how the council works with its treaty partners

· improving how the council organises itself.

32. Attachment A provides a more detailed description of each over-arching challenge.

Treaty Context

33. Māori have enduring rights and interests related to water as a taonga and as indigenous peoples. These rights are affirmed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and international law.

34. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its statutory Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland context. Like the council, mana whenua are long-term contributors to water outcomes.

35. This section within the framework acknowledges that the treaty provides the context for partnership between council and mana whenua for the protection, management, and enhancement of water.

Cross-cutting themes

36. In addition to over-arching challenges, there are cross-cutting themes that inform the council’s strategic approach in the Water Strategy. The cross-cutting themes must be accounted for as the actions in the strategy are delivered.

Climate Change

37. Water and climate change are intrinsically linked. The twin challenges of mitigation and adaptation have been integrated within the strategy.

Equity

38. The Auckland Plan 2050 describes sharing prosperity with all Aucklanders as a key challenge now and for the future. Auckland has equitable access to water supply and sanitation and performs well against international peers; however, there are areas for improvement that are captured in the strategy. Other equity issues such as flood protection and access to blue-green space for recreation are also considered within the strategy.

Strategic Shifts

39. The Water Strategy framework includes eight overarching strategic shifts. Each strategic shift is intended to represent long-term change in the council’s approach towards a stated aim. To achieve this, each strategic shift has associated actions with indicative implementation timings identified. Shifts are designed so that the council can add actions over time to the framework as progress is made.

40. The strategic shifts were arrived at by considering the changes that the council must make to respond to the challenges and cross-cutting themes above, as well as responding to the water sensitive cities benchmarking undertaken. Actions were developed and grouped according to council functions so that they might be more easily implemented by areas in the council group.

Table one: Water Strategy Strategic Shifts and Associated Aims
Strategic shift	Aim
Te Tiriti Partnership The council and mana whenua working together in agreed ways on agreed things.	The council and mana whenua iwi are partners in the protection, management, and enhancement of water.
Empowering Aucklanders Working with Aucklanders for better water outcomes.	Aucklanders are empowered to shape decisions about and are prepared for our changing water future.
Regenerative Water Infrastructure Auckland’s water infrastructure is regenerative, resilient, low carbon, and increases the mauri of water. It’s able to be seen and understood by Aucklanders.	Regenerative infrastructure systems enhance the life-sustaining capacity of water (mauri).
Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access Prioritising mauri when using water, to sustain the environment and people in the long term.	When the council allocates water from the natural environment, water use is sustainable, and considers the health and wellbeing of ecosystems and people.
Water Security Water abundance and security for growing population through efficient use and diverse sources.	Auckland captures, uses, and recycles water efficiently so that everyone has access to enough water of the appropriate quality to meet their needs.
Integrated Land use and Water Planning Integrating land use and water planning at a regional, catchment and site scale.	Water and its life-sustaining capacity is a central principle in land management and planning decisions.
Restoring and Enhancing Water Ecosystems Catchment-based approaches to the health of water ecosystems.	Auckland has thriving and sustainable natural water ecosystems that support life, food gathering and recreation.
Pooling Knowledge Shared understanding enabling better decisions for our water future.	Auckland has the knowledge about water needed to make good quality, timely, and strategic decisions about water.

Implementation

41. Successfully delivering on the vision and integrated aims of the Water Strategy will require a coordinated and sustained approach to delivery across the council group.

42. The Water Strategy sets out a range of actions to be implemented over time for the council group. The actions fall within two broad timeframes: near term (year one and years one – three) and medium term (years four – ten). Near term actions are prescriptive and specific. Medium term actions are more illustrative and require further development to implement successfully.

43. To implement the Water Strategy, the council will need:

· to take a consistent, sustained approach to putting te mauri o te wai at the centre of council group planning and investment decisions and action

· the skills and capacity to deliver on the water strategy, legislative requirements, and partnership relationships

· a strong culture of holistic planning, action, reporting and post-implementation review that feeds back into adaptive planning processes

· clarity of the roles and responsibilities across the council group, with all teams directed and accountable for their role and function

· to give mana whenua clear sight of the council’s work on water and enable participation/direction.

44. Changes required to give effect to the implementation of the strategy include:

· appoint Executive Lead Team Water Lead (complete)

· Water Strategy programme implementation coordinator

· coordinated workforce planning to fill gaps and changing needs

· update investment prioritisation criteria to reflect the Water Strategy

· council reporting on te mauri o te wai

· integrated Asset Investment and Asset Management Planning, with an independent audit process.

Central government context

45. The Water Strategy considers and responds to current and expected direction from central government to:

· deliver management of freshwater, land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way

· a strengthening of the partnership between the council and mana whenua in environmental management goal setting and decision-making frameworks

· the inclusion of Te Mana o Te Wai in the Auckland Unitary Plan

· a switch from an individual activity effects-based assessment (under the Resource Management Act 1991) to a more holistic limits-based approach, reflecting the need to better manage cumulative effects on water bodies

· an expectation of stronger enforcement of regulatory environmental obligations through policy effectiveness reporting (feedback loops between policy and actions) and improved compliance monitoring and enforcement reporting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. Water and climate change are intrinsically linked. Climate change is a cross cutting theme of the Water Strategy (along with equity). The twin challenges of mitigation and adaptation were integrated into the strategy’s core content as it was developed.

47. Climate change will have wide-ranging implications for the issues raised in the Water Strategy, including:

· influencing demand for water use

· affecting water availability of a given water source over time

· increasing flood and coastal inundation hazard risk to life and property.

48. Improving our mitigation of and resilience to these impacts via the approaches described in the Water Strategy aligns with council’s existing goals and work programmes for climate action.

49. The physical impacts of climate change will have implications both for water management (including Māori water rights) in Auckland, and for related issues such as energy supply, social welfare, food security, and Māori land.

50. Water infrastructure has significant embodied carbon emissions. The regenerative water infrastructure strategic shift sets the council on a path to zero or low emissions water infrastructure.

51. The projected impacts of climate change on Auckland’s aquatic environments, and the associated risks, are detailed in two key report series: the Auckland Region Climate Change Projections and Impacts^{^[9]} and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series^{^[10]}.

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.

iii) 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.

iv) A need to carefully manage urban development and take up opportunities to embed water-sensitive design - Integrated Land use and Water Planning strategic shift.

v) 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^{^[11]} that are reflected in their whakapapa, waiata, and whaikōrero tuku iho (stories of the past). Protecting the health and mauri of our freshwater ecosystems is fundamental to providing for the food, materials, customary practices, te reo Māori, and overall well-being of iwi and hapū.

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

· Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Guidance to the Water Strategy 2019

· submissions to the Our Water Future Public Discussion Document 2019

· Te Pou Taiao engagement throughout 2021

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

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

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

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

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

iv) Reciprocity (look after our environment and 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 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	279

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Toby Shephard - Strategist

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

Local board views on private plan change PC69 for 23-27 & 31 Brigham Creek Road and 13 & 15-19 Spedding Road, Whenuapai

File No.: CP2022/00045

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local board views on private plan change 69 (PC69) by Oyster Capital for 23-27 & 31 Brigham Creek Road and 13 & 15-19 Spedding Road, Whenuapai

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the plan change, if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3. Oyster Capital lodged a private plan change for 23-27 & 31 Brigham Creek Road and 13 & 15-19 Spedding Road, Whenuapai. PC69 seeks to rezone this land from Future Urban zone to Business – Light Industry zone and to introduce a new precinct over the land. The request also seeks to extend the Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 overlay over the private plan change area.

4. The purpose of PC69 is to enable the establishment of a business area with a primary light industrial land use function.

5. The submissions from the public mostly raise concerns regarding the traffic effects and the provision of transport infrastructure (including its funding and financing), the effect of industrial zoning, the management of reverse sensitivity effects, and the proposed stormwater management approach. Submissions also raised concerns with the wording and content of the precinct provisions and consistency of the private plan change with council’s strategic planning documents.

6. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on PC69. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide local board views on PC69 by Oyster Capital for 23-27 & 31 Brigham Creek Road and 13 & 15-19 Spedding Road, Whenuapai.

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on PC69.

c) delegate authority to the chairperson of Upper Harbour Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the private plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

7. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (ss15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

8. A private plan change request will be included in the Auckland Unitary Plan if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on private plan change requests – when an entity other than council proposes a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

9. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the hearing report. The hearing report will address issues raised in local board views and submissions by themes.

10. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the private plan change request.

11. This report provides an overview of the private plan change, and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

12. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board expresses its views on PC69. The planner must include any local board views verbatim in the evaluation of the private plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advicePlan change overview

13. The private plan change applies to 23-27 & 31 Brigham Creek Road and 13 & 15-19 Spedding Road, Whenuapai. The plan change area is currently zoned Future Urban and is subject to multiple controls, overlays and designations under the AUP, including a Significant Ecological Area overlay along the riparian margins of Totara Creek, two National Grid Corridor overlays along the western side of the plan change area, and the Aircraft Noise Overlay – Whenuapai Airbase that applies to the entire plan change area.

14. PC69 seeks to rezone this land from Future Urban to Business – Light Industry zone, as shown in Figure 1. The request includes the introduction of a new precinct and the extension of the Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 overlay, both of which cover the private plan change area.

15. The purpose of PC69 is to enable the establishment of a business area with a primary light industrial land use function. The purpose of the Spedding Block precinct is to facilitate the transition from semi-rural land uses to the development of a light industrial business area in an integrated and comprehensive manner.

16. The proposed land use of Business – Light Industry is in line with the Whenuapai Structure Plan, however the Structure Plan identifies this land as being within stage 2 of development (from 2028-32 onwards) as further infrastructure investment is required.

Figure 1: Proposed zoning map (Source: Oyster Capital Limited)

17. Oyster Capital has provided the following information to support PC69:

· Private plan change request, including the proposed zoning map

· Plan change and section 32 evaluation report (plan change report)

· Specialist reports:

o Integrated Transportation Assessment

o Traffic Modelling Report

o Preliminary Site Investigations

o Detailed Site Investigations

o Ecological Assessment

o Economic Assessment

o Engineering Report

o Geotechnical Assessment

o Heritage Assessment

o Landscape and Visual Assessment

o Stormwater Management Report

o Cultural Values Assessment from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

18. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=117

19. Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· technical reports supplied by the applicant;

· submissions; and

· views and preferences of the local board, if the local board passes a resolution.

Themes from submissions received

20. Key submission themes are listed below:

· Industrial zoning and its impacts

· Adverse traffic impacts

· Provision of infrastructure, including funding and financing

· Stormwater management approach

· Wording and content of the precinct provisions

· Management of reverse sensitivity effects

· Consistency with strategic planning documents

21. Submissions were made by 20 people:

Table 1: Submissions received on PC69

Submissions	Number of submissions
In support	10
In opposition	9
Neutral	1

22. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from council’s website via the following link:

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/pc-69-summary-of-decisions-requested.pdf

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

23. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

· to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

24. The first of council’s climate goals is relevant because it relates to climate adaption. That goal aligns with the legal principlefor RMA decision-makers to have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) RMA).

25. However, the RMA currently precludes the second goal: consideration of climate mitigation. Consequently, any local board views on climate mitigation will be disregarded by the plan change decision-makers.

26. RMA amendments coming into force will enable climate mitigation to be considered. These effects cannot be considered now, unless the private plan change proposes rules about particular greenhouse gas discharges. No rules of that kind are proposed.

Implications for local board views

27. Table 2 provides guidance as to what the local board may wish to consider in forming any view:

Table 2 Relevance of climate change to RMA decision-making

In scope for RMA decision-making

Out of scope for RMA decision-making

Climate adaption issues such as:

How should land be allocated to different activities when considering how climate change may affect our environment? How and where should physical resources be constructed?

For example:

· will sea-level rise cause inundation of land where development is proposed?

· is the land in an area susceptible to coastal instability or erosion?

· will Auckland be less- or better-prepared for flooding, stress on infrastructure, coastal and storm inundation?

· is ecosystem resilience improved through ecological restoration or reduced by the loss of indigenous habitats?

Climate mitigation issues such as:

· release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere

· increase in exhaust pipe emissions from private car use, use of coal fired or natural gas burners

Submitters’ views

28. There were no submissions that raised specific climate matters.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. Healthy Waters will review relevant submissions and provide expert input to the hearing report.

30. Auckland Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport have made submissions. The key matters raised are:

· No water or wastewater servicing reasons to decline the plan change

· Concerns relating to the funding and financing of transport infrastructure

· Concerns about the stormwater management approach

· The wording and content of the precinct provisions, particularly in relation to the level of detail specified in the precinct plans

· Consistency with strategic planning documents and relevant policy frameworks.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. The private plan change request is for 23-27 & 31 Brigham Creek Road and 13 & 15-19 Spedding Road, Whenuapai within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. This plan change relates to the Upper Harbour Local Board area only.

32. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

· local board documents, such as local board plan, local board agreement

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

33. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on PC69.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. If the local board chooses to provide its views on PC69 it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori People, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview). 3210 or 5.1% of residents in the local board area identify as Māori, in 2018 census results.

35. Oyster Capital advised council that it had sought feedback from iwi authorities with an interest in the area prior to PC69 being lodged with the council.

36. As part of the initial site investigations, the applicant advises that they have engaged with representatives from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau a Maki to discuss the proposal and attend a site walkover. Te Kawerau a Maki deferred to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, who in turn provided a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) in relation to the plan change area. The CVA expressed support for PC69.

37. The applicant advises that further opportunity for comment was provided to the representatives of the following iwi authorities with an interest in the area before the request was formally lodged with council:

· Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust

· Kaitiaki, Ngāti Pāoa Trust Board

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngāti Manuhiri, Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust

· Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.

38. No iwi authorities have made a submission on PC69.

39. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. PC69 does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

41. Costs associated with processing PC69 will be recovered from the applicant. Effects on infrastructure arising from PC69, including any financing and funding issues will be addressed in the hearing report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42. There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on PC69, if it doesn’t pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for the Upper Harbour Local Board to express its views and preferences

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

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

44. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a private plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s) (Local Government Act 2002, Sch 7, cls 36D). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. The planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

46. The planner will advise the local board of the decision on PC69 by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tian Liu - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00808

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on 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 Upper Harbour 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 should not proceed under the fast-track process.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

The fast-track process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment A Upper Harbour Local Board	325
b ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment B Upper Harbour Local Board	327
c ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment C Upper Harbour Local Board	329
d ⇩	NZ Geographic Attachment D Upper Harbour Local Board	331

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter two 2021/2022

File No.: CP2022/00179

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive financial and non-financial performance report for the second quarter of the 2020/2021 financial year (1 October to 31 December 2021).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides a retrospective overview of the financial and non-financial performance of Auckland Council against the 2021/2022 Upper Harbour Local Board Agreement for the period beginning 1 October to 31 December 2021 – quarter two (Q2).

3. The key activity updates from the 2021/2022 work programme (Attachment A) this period are:

· ‘Movies in Parks’ (ID 1503) was cancelled at the direction of the board due to COVID-19 concerns

· the Greenhithe Christmas Parade was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions and the North Shore Run Series has postponed their first two events but plan to go ahead with the rest of the series (‘Event Partnership Fund Upper Harbour’, ID 473)

· following strong interest from small businesses, the local board allocated additional budget to the ‘Local Small Business Mentors Programme’ (ID 1612) to support ten more businesses

· the Expression of Interest for community-led management of Albany Community Hub was completed with the local board resolving that Harbour Sport Trust are the preferred organisation to manage the Hub (‘Activation of Community Places’, ID 462)

· the concept design for a neighbourhood park and playspace was approved for ‘Observation Green - develop local park amenities’ (ID 29151), incorporating changes requested in response to community feedback

· ‘Scott Point - develop sustainable sports park Stage I’ (ID 16182) – lizard capture and relocation of native Epilobium plants was completed. Site preparation for earthworks carried out.

4. Overall, 100 activities within the agreed 2021/2022 work programme are on track, four activities have some identified risk or issue which is being managed. There are no activities identified as having a significant risk of delivery. Two activities have been cancelled in Q2.

5. The financial performance compared to year-to-date budget 2021/2022 is provided in Attachment B. This has been excluded from the public 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. The Attachment can be made publicly available after this date.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the quarterly performance report for the period corresponding to quarter two of the 2021/2022 financial year (1 October to 31 December 2021).

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

Horopaki

Context

6. The Upper Harbour Local Board agreed key initiatives, budgets and levels of service for the 2021/2022 financial year with the Governing Body on 17 June 2021 through the adoption of its local board agreement (UH/2021/74).

7. The annual local board agreement aims to meet the local board priorities as identified through the 2020 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan outcomes:

· Empowered, connected and resilient Upper Harbour communities

· An efficient and accessible travel network

· Healthy and active communities

· A resilient local economy

· Our unique natural environment is protected and enhanced.

8. Specific activities and projects to be delivered each year against the agreed budgets are outlined in work programmes which are developed annually alongside local board agreements.

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board has an approved 2021/2022 work programme which is delivered through the following operating departments:

· Customer and Community Services (UH/2021/71)

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services (UH/2021/68)

· Auckland Emergency Management (UH/2021/70)

· Auckland Unlimited (UH/2021/69).

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

11. Auckland faced COVID-19 restrictions (Alert Level 3) from the start of Q2 to 2 December 2021, when all of New Zealand moved to the COVID-19 Protection Framework, also known as the traffic light system. Auckland went into traffic light red, moving to traffic light orange on 30 December 2021.

12. Auckland Council regional and community facilities were closed in Alert Level 3. Restrictions eased slightly in Level 3, Step 2 and from mid-November 2021 libraries and the majority of arts and community centres were reopened.

13. Pools and leisure centres were able to reopen from 3 December 2021 when New Zealand moved to the COVID-19 Protection Framework.

14. Impacts on individual activities are reported in the work programme update (Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

15. Quarterly performance of each agreed work programme activity is reported with a status of green (on track), amber (in progress but some risk or issues which are being managed), grey (cancelled, deferred or merged), and red (behind delivery, significant risk). This is called the RAG (red/amber/green/gey) status.

16. Graph 2 provides the percentage of activities by RAG status in Q2 of 2021/2022: 94 per cent of activities were identified to be on track (green); four per cent of activities were identified to be in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber); and two per cent of activities were identified in Q2 as cancelled (grey).

17. There are no activities identified to be behind delivery or with significant risk in Q2.

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

18. To complete the snapshot, and in addition to a RAG status, information on activity status is also collected for each quarter to show the stage of the activity.

19. Activity status for Q2 of 2021/2022 is provided in graph 3 below. The number of activities differ by department as approved in the local board work programme.

20. The complete work programme with Q2 commentary from operating departments can be found in Attachment A.

Graph 3: Work programme by activity status and department

Key activity updates from Q2

21. A few highlights in Q2 are as follows:

· ‘Movies in Parks’ (ID 1503) was cancelled at the direction of the board due to COVID-19 concerns; the budget was re-allocated to activity ID 26277 ‘Upper Harbour Local Parks Maintenance for unscheduled maintenance or increased level of service’

· following strong interest from small businesses, the local board allocated additional budget to the ‘Local Small Business Mentors Programme’ (ID 1612) to support ten more businesses

· the scope of the service assessment for open space at Whenuapai was expanded to include land at Brigham Creek (‘Spedding/Trig roads park service assessment’, ID1698)

· work is progressing as anticipated on the ‘Scott Point - develop sustainable sports park Stage I’ (ID 16182), including a Sod Turning dawn service on 7 December 2021.

Activities on hold

22. No activities were placed on hold in Q2.

23. The following work programme activity have been identified by operating departments as on hold at the start of the financial year:

· Upper Harbour - implement actions from the Greenways Plan (ID 20709) - This project is on hold for FY2021/2022 and the investigation and design of the Wharf Reserve path extension will commence in FY2022/2023. This project also has an amber RAG status. Funding is subject to allocations being approved in future years.

Activities to watch

24. Event Partnership Fund Upper Harbour (ID 473): the Greenhithe Christmas Parade was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions. The event organiser made this decision before completing their funding agreement. Unspent funds may become available for reallocation to other projects by the local board. The organiser of the North Shore Run Series has postponed their first two events but plan to go ahead with the rest of the series.

25. Local civic events (ID 475): delivery of an opening event for Bluebird playspace was postponed again in Q2 due to covid restrictions.

26. Upper Harbour Indoor Court Detailed Business Case (ID 1724): the original scope of the project was not delivered in Q1 and Q2 as expected; this may delay overall delivery of the project. Reporting in Q3 should include completion of funding agreement and scoping and work should be underway.

Changes to the local board work programme

Cancelled activities

27. These activities are cancelled:

· ‘Movies in Parks’ (ID 1503)

· ‘Upper Harbour Local Board - fruit tree audit’ (ID 31037)

Activities with changes

28. The following work programmes activities have changes which were approved by the local board in Q2 either via a formal decision or the minor variation process (UH/2021/71).

ID/Ref	Work Programme Name	Activity Name	Summary of Change	Resolution number
26277	Customer and Community Services	Upper Harbour Local Parks Maintenance for unscheduled maintenance or increased level of service	1. 1. Addition of $12k from project ID31037 ‘Upper Harbour Local Board – fruit tree audit’ 2. 3. 2. allocation of up to $14,000 for plant removal at Sanders reserve (this funding was not needed and this will be reflected in Q3 reporting) 4. 5. 3. Addition of $27,050 of locally driven initiatives operational budget originally allocated to activity ID 1503 ‘Movies in Parks’	1. Minor variation 14/11/2021 2. UH/2021/163 3. UH/2021/164
462	Customer and Community Services	Connected and resilient communities: Albany	Allocation of $50,000 of carried forward locally driven initiatives operational budget to Harbour Sport Trust via a Community Centre Management Agreement to undertake wider community development in Albany from the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura	UH/2021/162
470	Customer and Community Services	Activation of Community Places Upper Harbour	Allocation of the contingency amount of $18,000 per annum (adjusted for inflation) of Asset-based Services operational budget to Harbour Sport Trust via a service agreement for activation and programming of the Albany Community Hub - Pokapū ā-Hapori o Ōkahukura for the period of the Community Centre Management Agreement	UH/2021/162
1612	Auckland Unlimited	Local Small Business Mentors Programme	Addition of $2,950 of locally driven initiatives operational budget originally allocated to activity ID 1503 ‘Movies in Parks’ to support 10 more businesses	UH/2021/164
1698	Customer and Community Services	Spedding/Trigg open space assessment	Scope change to include land recently acquired at Brigham Creek in the assessment	Minor variation 2/12/2021
24280	Customer and Community Services	Meadowood House - refurbish building	Approved the reallocation of $115,000 ABS: Local Renewals Capex funding within the work programme 2021-2024	UH/2021/146
20471	Customer and Community Services	Fernhill Escarpment - renew walkway and wayfinding signage	Approved the reallocation of $223,115 ABS: Local Renewals Capex funding within the work programme 2021-2024	UH/2021/146

Table 1: Work programme change approved by the local board

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

30. Work programmes were approved in June 2021 and delivery is underway. Should significant changes to any projects be required, climate change impacts will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements. Any changes to the timing of approved projects are unlikely to result in changes to emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the boards. As this is an information only report there are no further impacts identified.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32. This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for Q2 of 2021/2022 from 1 October to 31 December 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. The local board’s work programme contains a number of projects which delivered on Māori outcomes for July to September 2021. These include:

Māori responsiveness Upper Harbour (ID 467)

· Amber RAG status: Progress on this project has been delayed. Staff continue to follow up with Ngati Manuhiri regarding an update on the installation of a sculpture in Albany and for Ngati Manuhiri to provide a face-to-face update to the local board. Staff are scoping options for delivery of other activities outlined in the work programme to support connections between Maori and the wider community. An update will be provided to the local board in Q3.

Whakatipu i te reo Māori - we grow the Māori language Celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori - Upper Harbour (ID 1323)

· There was no Maori focused outreach or language related programming offered in Q2 due to covid related restrictions.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. This report is provided to enable the Upper Harbour Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2021/2022 work programmes. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial Performance

35. Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZ Stock Exchange (NZX).

36. 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.

37. These obligations restrict the release of half-year financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX. This is expected to be on 28 February 2022.

38. Due to these obligations, the financial performance for Q2 (Attachment B) is excluded from the public at the time of the agenda. Once obligations are lifted, the information can be provided to the public.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39. 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.

40. The approved Customer and Community Services capex work programme includes 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.

41. 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

42. The local board will receive the next performance report after the end of quarter three (1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme Q2 update 2021/22	341
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Financial Performance Q2 2021/22 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

17 February 2022

Variation to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 Work Programme

File No.: CP2022/01029

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a variation to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Sanders Reserve Ecological Restoration Management Plan was developed in 2012 by Te Ngahere and used by staff as an internal reference document to guide volunteer work at Sanders Reserve.

3. Following the board direction at its 9 December 2021 business meeting for the creation of a Sanders Reserve Planting Plan, in collaboration with the local board (UH/2021/163), an update of the ecological restoration management plan is now due to ensure alignment between both documents.

4. This work will cost $6,000 and in order to be carried out this financial year, a new activity will need to be added to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme.

5. The local board allocated $14,000 to carry out plant removal at Sanders reserve (UH/2021/163). This amount was not required to carry out that work and therefore is available to be reallocated.

6. Addition of new projects and variations of budget allocations are considered to have a substantial impact on approved projects and the overall work programme. These are considered a substantial variation that requires a formal decision by the local board (UH/2021/71).

7. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to formalise a variation to its 2021/2022 work programme.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the following variations to the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme:

i) add a new activity to the Customer and Community Services Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022:

A) Activity Name: ‘UH: Update the Sanders Reserve Ecological Restoration Management Plan’

B) Activity Description: the updated ecological restoration management plan will outline future planting areas and proposed planting types (place and activity) effectively informing future planting at Sanders Reserve

C) Timeline/Further decision points for local board: Q3 – Scope confirmed March/early April 2022; Q4 – Draft for feedback May/early June 2022; final report approved by August 2022.

ii) allocate $6,000 of locally driven initiatives operational budget from activity ID 26227 ‘Upper Harbour Local Parks Maintenance for unscheduled maintenance or increased level of service’, Customer and Community Services Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022, to the new activity ‘UH: Update the Sanders Reserve Ecological Restoration Management Plan’.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Sanders Reserve Ecological Restoration Management Plan was developed in 2012 by Te Ngahere and used by staff as an internal reference document to guide volunteer work at Sanders Reserve.

9. At its 9 December 2021 business meeting, the local board directed staff to create a planting plan for Sanders Reserve for approval by the Upper Harbour Local Board (UH/2021/263).

10. To give effect to the local board decision, work on a planting plan is currently underway and an update of the ecological restoration management plan is now due to ensure alignment between both documents.

11. The updated ecological restoration management plan will outline future planting areas and proposed planting types (place and activity) effectively informing future planting at Sanders Reserve.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The work to update the ecological restoration plan was not originally included in the Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme that was adopted in June 2021 (UH/2021/71).

13. A change to the work programme to add this activity is needed for the work to be carried out in the current financial year and provide governance oversight of its delivery.

14. The amount required for the work is $6,000. This amount can be covered from the budget allocated by the local board to plant removal at Sanders Reserve (UH/2021/163). The $14,000 allocated were not needed for plant removal and are available to be reallocated.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. Auckland Council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

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

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

16. The impacts of climate change are assessed on a project-by-project basis and the appropriate approach is considered for each project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the local boards.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18. The local board have indicated work in relation to Sanders Reserve plantings is a priority. This report allows the local board to formalise a variation to its work programme that allows further work to be carried out.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. The Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme includes activities that will have an impact on a service, facility, or location of significance to Māori. In these situations, appropriate and meaningful engagement and consultation is undertaken, including to meet our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi – Treaty of Waitangi.

20. Progress updates on delivery of Māori outcomes within specific activities are available through quarterly performance reports.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. The local board resolved to allocate $14,000 for plant removal at Sanders Reserve (UH/2021/163). This amount was later not necessary to cover the work and the full amount is yet to be allocated to work under activity ID 26227 ‘Upper Harbour Local Parks Maintenance for unscheduled maintenance or increased level of service’.

22. Should the local board agree to the recommendation to allocate $6,000 to review the Sanders Reserve Ecological Restoration Management Plan, $8,000 will remain available in activity ID 26227 for allocation.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. The re-allocated budget has to be committed by the end of the current financial year, 30 June 2022. The operating department has confirmed this will be achieved.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24. The Upper Harbour Local Board 2021/2022 work programme will be updated to reflect the board’s formal decisions and any variations will be reflected from the quarter three performance report onwards.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

[1] Refer Submitter Number 63, 168, 259, 508, 786, 1262 and 1420 in Attachment B.

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

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

[4] 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.

[5] This included 61 individuals and 18 organisations.

[6] 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).

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

[8] National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management policy 3.5

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

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Margaret Miles, QSM, JP
Members	Anna Atkinson
	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	Brian Neeson, JP

Authors	Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager