Agenda of Waiheke Local Board - Wednesday, 23 February 2022

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Councillor's Update - February 2022	9

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Chair's Update - February 2022	17

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/01241

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

Horopaki

Context

5. Central government have publicly notified council and other interests of an application for the proposed Hākaimangō-Matiatia Marine Reserve at the northwestern end of Waiheke Island, lodged by Friends of the Hauraki Gulf Incorporated. Further information on the application can be found at https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2022-consultations/proposed-hakaimango-matiatia-northwest-waiheke-marine-reserve/ .

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

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

8. In 2020 central government released a Government Response Strategy to Sea Change

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o tangata whenua views

o alignment with endorsed local board policies and plans

o specialist supporting advice

o level of wider community involvement and support.

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

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

Additional documents

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

· Regulatory Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services (Environmental Services)

· Customer and Community Services.

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategist - Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - General Manager - Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason – General Manager - Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager – Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

Wharetana Bay Reserve - Inland Boundary Demarcation

File No.: CP2022/01360

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the proposal for demarcating the inland boundary of Wharetana Bay Reserve.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Staff have been progressing a planting plan for Wharetana Bay Reserve (Attachment A to this agenda report) since 2018 to address concerns about perceived privatisation and dominance of the reserve resulting from an adjoining development.

3. A planting plan was agreed by local residents, iwi and the Waiheke Local Board in May 2019. The local board allocated $20,000 LDI CAPEX budget to implement the plan (Resolution Number WHK/2021/112).

4. Formal support needed to obtain a resource consent without notification and to minimise delivery costs within the already tight budget hasn’t been achieved and additional budget would have been needed for this.

5. As a result, in August 2020 at the Waiheke Local Board business meeting, staff recommended that the planting plan not proceed. The Waiheke Local Board deferred a decision to a later date and requested staff to investigate other options which provide boundary demarcation of the reserve, the installation of additional signage to clearly identify public land, or do nothing.

6. Staff have investigated the options and recommended the construction of a boundary fence with posts concreted into half wine barrels sitting on the ground and connected by ropes (Option 1 – Attachment B).

7. Staff advised the owners of the adjoining property at 88 Vintage Lane of their intention to formally report this proposal to the Waiheke Local Board’s February 2022 business meeting. In response, the adjoining property owners have reinstated the original boundary fence which is very similar to the staff proposal.

8. The owner has also agreed to enter into a formal agreement with Council to maintain the fence in its reinstated condition. Staff consider that the reinstated fence, with an appropriate legally binding retention condition achieves the desired boundary demarcation and that there is no need to pursue the proposed Council fence further.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) confirm it will not proceed to construct a fence on the inland boundary of Wharetana Bay Reserve as the adjoining landowner at 88 Vintage Lane has reinstated the previous boundary fence which addresses the need for a fence, subject to formal agreement being provided by the adjoining owner to maintain the fence as per the photos included in Attachment C of this agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

9. A site plan showing the area within Wharetana Bay Reserve this report is referring is shown in Attachment A to this agenda report. An original fence built as part of the adjoining development was removed/not maintained and was unclear to visitors whether the reserve was public or a part of the adjoining property’s front lawn.

10. This led to concerns about perceived privatisation and dominance of the reserve resulting from this adjoining development resulting in development of a various reports including development of planting plans.

11. These planting plans were developed in an effort to address perceived issues of dominance of the Wharetana Bay Reserve by the adjoining development and to enable users of the reserve and the adjoining property to each go about their business, screened by a planted barrier.

12. In May 2019, the Waiheke Local Board approved a planting plan post wide community consultation which showed strong support for the proposal. The plan consisted of planting in raised earth bunds to avoid disturbing the ground surface as the land is a scheduled archaeological site. The board allocated LDI CAPEX funding of $20,000 to implement the plan.

13. As the planting plan constitutes earthworks within the coastal protection yard, it required resource consent. Some changes to the species identified in the planting plan were also needed, in particular cabbage trees were replaced by manuka which has shallower roots which wouldn’t penetrate below the proposed raised earth bunds into the natural ground level of the archaeological site.

14. Whilst advice from specialist planners was that a resource consent application could be lodged on a non-notified basis, this would require mana whenua and affected party approval which has not been obtained. The resultant public notification process could not be achieved within budget and has therefore not proceeded.

15. Of the available $20,000 LDI CAPEX budget, approximately $4,500 was spent on preliminary consent processes and to design and install signage on the foreshore. This was to clarify for visitors that the reserve is public land.

16. The signs aimed to address one of the key issues identified by some locals that it was unclear to visitors whether the reserve was public or part of the adjoining property’s front lawn.

17. In the absence of certainty about all these matters, staff assessed that the available budget would be inadequate to deliver the project. In August 2020, with no agreement, lack of support and additional budget needed on the planting plan the Waiheke Local Board deferred this decision to a later date and requested staff to investigate other options which include:

a) Appropriately demarcating the boundary to make it clear where the public land is.

b) Installing additional signage to provide clarity on where public land is.

c) Doing nothing.

18. Staff investigated options and presented Option 1: a fence consisting of bollards concreted into half wine barrels and connected by ropes to the Waiheke Local Board during the workshops held September 2021. A concept of Option 1 is attached with this report (Attachment B)

19. During this workshop the Waiheke Local Board provided informal support for Option 1 and requested staff to present this option through a business report meeting for formal decision making.

20. Since then, staff have advised the adjoining property owner at 88 Vintage Lane that they will be recommending Option 1 to the Waiheke Local Board’s February 2022 business meeting.

21. As a result the adjoining owners have advised that they have reinstated an earlier fence with ropes passing through existing bollards onsite (see Attachment C of this agenda report). The existing posts have been painted and 40mm rope has been threaded along the entire length.

22. Staff consider that this reinstatement addresses the intent of Option 1 and therefore recommend Option 2, Do nothing.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. Prior to the planting plan being approved by the Waiheke Local Board, its predecessor board had resolved to build a fence on the boundary to address the issues the planting plan had sought to resolve.

24. Given the site’s archaeological status, a fence would need to be built above ground. The limited access to the site also needs to be addressed to enable a fence to be constructed within budget.

25. Option 1: Half Wine Barrels with Ropes comprises of installing a low rope and post fence, with posts concreted into half wine barrels sitting on the ground and address the sensitivities around this archaeological site by sitting the fence above the ground and can be built within budget.

26. Option 1 with its rustic wine barrels and ropes is considered to be in keeping with the environment and mimics the original fence built as part of the adjoining development.

27. However, the adjoining property has reinstated the original fence and now achieved the intended demarcation without any cost implication to the council.

28. While reinstatement of fence would demarcate the boundary, it won’t address the dominance and overlooking issues that the planting plan fundamentally sought to resolve.

Table 1: Options assessment

Options	Criteria		Finance/Budget		Comments
Options	Risk	Implementation	CAPEX (preliminary estimate only)	OPEX (preliminary estimate only)	Comments
Option 1 – Half Wine Barrels with Ropes	Affected party approval not needed but asset needs to be maintained	For construction there is no public legal vehicle access to the reserve, cooperation in both vehicle access for construction and maintenance over adjoining property is needed.	$14,000	$300 per year	This option is not recommended as demarcation has been achieved under Option 2
Option 2 – Do nothing	Not council asset and could be removed by the adjoining property again without notification	Seek formal agreement from the owners of 88 Vintage Lane that the boundary fence be maintained by them at their cost in the condition it was reinstated in, in February 2022, and in accordance with the photos supplied	Nil	Nil	Recommended option as demarcation has been achieved with no cost to council

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. 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.

30. The likely climate change impact on the preferred Option 2 is its proximity to the foreshore and therefore being susceptible to sea level rise.

31. As planning for sea level change, forced retreat of the esplanade reserve and any demarcation in place with private boundary will be required in line with climate change adaptation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. Addressing the longstanding issues resulting from a development being consented directly on the boundary of the Wharetana Bay Reserve is a project identified for progression under the Waiheke Governance Pilot.

33. Although considerable effort has been made to resolve these matters, this hasn’t been achieved to date.

34. The recommended Option 2 which is Do Nothing as the resident has reinstated demarcation with the public is considered to best address these issues in the circumstances and enable closure.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. The Waiheke Local Board which is the decision-maker over this local reserve has approved and funded from their LDI CAPEX funding. The board supported the plan as a means of addressing the demarcation issues identified in this report provided local support was also achieved.

36. The project aligns with the following Waiheke Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes and objectives:

Outcome

Objective

Outcome 6: Vibrant places for people

Improve the open space network on the island.

Improve our community’s wellbeing by providing quality arts and recreational facilities.

Support our communities to lead active and healthy lifestyles

37. In the context of other matters, the Waiheke Local Board is seeking to progress, allocating additional budget to this project, with no certainty that even that would enable progress, is considered to be a low priority.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader obligations to Māori.

39. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework and the Waitemata Local Board Plan 2020.

40. The Ngāti Pāoa Iwi Trust withdrew its earlier support for the planting plan in 2020 as the proposed earth bunds would cover the surface of part of this scheduled archaeological site.

41. With Option 2 no works will be required on the reserve that would lead to ground disturbance or minimize the ground cover.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. Of the allocated $20,000 LDI CAPEX budget, approximately $4,500 was spent on preliminary consent processes and to design and install signage on the foreshore

43. The remaining $15,500 from the $20,000 budget allocated from this budget is available for construction.

44. However, Option 2 will not need any budget to be spent and $15,500 can be declared as savings or be used by the Waiheke Local Board for other LDI projects.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

45. The project is considered to resolve historical boundary demarcation and perceived privatisation issues of public space as best as possible in the circumstances, and importantly to create closure. Not proceeding is expected to result in concerns and calls to address these issues continuing.

46. Two sings are already installed on the foreshore to clarify for visitors that the reserve is public land. Additional signage if needed can also be added at a later point of time.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47. If approval is not obtained for Option 2, it is unlikely this matter will be revisited in the foreseeable future.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan and extent	33
b ⇩	Concept for options	35
c ⇩	Reinstatement by adjoining property	37

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Joseph Milan – Senior Programme Manager – Community Facilities

Authorisers

Shane Hogg – Area Operations Manager – Community Facilities

Oliver Kunzendorff – Head of Area Operations – Community Facilities

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager – Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

Auckland Transport Report - February 2022

File No.: CP2022/00499

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to the Waiheke Local Board on transport related matters in their area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

This report covers:

2. A general summary of operational projects and activities of interest to the Waiheke Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport February 2022 update report.

Horopaki

Context

3. Auckland Transport is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. We report monthly to local boards, as set out in our Local Board Engagement Plan. This reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within the governance of Auckland on behalf of their local communities.

4. This report updates the Waiheke Local Board on Auckland Transport (AT) projects and operations in the local board area.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

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

6. The current amount of funding proposed in the Regional Land Transport Plan is $400,000 per annum.

7. The unspent budget of $71,493.50 from 2020/2021 can be carried forward for the board to allocate as they see fit providing a total fund available for 2021/2022 of $471,493.50. Auckland Transport will work with the local board to discuss and advise on the best use of the budget.

Community Safety Fund (CSF)

8. The CSF is a capital budget established by Auckland Transport for use by local boards to fund local road safety initiatives. The purpose of this fund is to allow elected members to address long-standing local road safety issues that are not regional priorities and are therefore not being addressed by the Auckland Transport programme.

9. CSF funding for the design and construction for the Causeway project has been confirmed for 2021/2022, and further updates on this project will be provided to the local board in due course.

10. The table below has a general summary of projects and activities of interest to the local board with their status. Please note that:

· All timings are indicative and are subject to change.

· The Waiheke Operations Manager will update the local board in the event of any amendments or changes to the summaries provided for below.

Activity	Update
EV chargers	AT is working on establishing a formal process to approve the installation of kerbside EV infrastructure to support applications from Vector (on behalf of Electric Island) for new stations in Orapiu and Onetangi. Letters to nearby residents and businesses have been distributed advising of proposed locations at 26 Anzac Rd, Orapiu, and 1 Third Ave, Onetangi. There is one dedicated parking space planned at Orapiu, and three dedicated parking spaces on Third Avenue in Onetangi. These parking spaces will be for electric vehicle use only where electric vehicles can charge and are permitted to stay for up to 4 hours (240 minutes). Waiheke has the highest number of electric vehicles per capita in New Zealand, and these dedicated parking spaces will support the high and growing number of electric vehicles on Waiheke, supporting efforts to lower emissions across the island.
Road Maintenance	Programmed works February works includes routine cyclic maintenance of signs, drains and potholes. Grading 1. Man O War Bay Rd. 2. Cowes Bay Rd. 3. Wallingford Rd, Orapiu 4. Awaawaroa Rd. Preseal repairs 1. Onetangi Rd, Onetangi 2. Beach Pde, Onetangi
Matiatia carparks	Owhanake Carpark Installation of 2 Day parking limit signage planned for 17th & 18th February. Parking limits are being implemented to provide short term parking availability and increase available commuter parking. There is no cost for parking in this carpark. An extended area of No Stopping At All Times on the eastern boundary is designed to prohibit vehicles from parking as they currently do to ensure there is sufficient area for vehicles to manoeuvre safely. Matiatia lower carpark AT is commencing plans to draw up a resolution proposing to swop the current Small Passenger Service Vehicle (SPSV) stand with the adjacent P15 vehicle waiting area. SPSVs tend to be unbooked taxis or shuttles waiting for a fare coming off the ferry. The proposed SPSV stand will provide more visibility for people looking for a taxi or shuttle. There is no time limit for these vehicles waiting on the dedicated SPSV stand, drivers however are required to remain with their vehicles. The adjacent P15 allocation allows for a vehicle to remain unattended for 15 minutes. (There are P30 parking spaces nearby if the vehicle needs or wishes to remain unattended for longer). Separation of $3 and $6 Matiatia carparks To provide a safer pedestrian environment in the lower carpark, it is proposed to install bollards between the lower ($3) and upper ($6) carparks. Vehicles will no longer be able to cross over between the two carparks. This work is planned for installation once the contractor has confirmed availability.
Parking	The Strand, Onetangi AT is investigating implementing a 4-hour time limit for vehicles parking on the seaward side along a section of The Strand between Third Ave and Second Ave, Onetangi. Vehicles are currently able to park along here for extended periods provided they are not parked on or encroaching into the road over the dotted yellow lines.
Wharves	Matiatia Wharf (main) Preparations are underway for the second stage of AT’s wharf renewal project at Matiatia. A current start date of April is dependent on a critical path item currently being fabricated overseas, and still requiring testing. An update will be provided as soon as the proposed start day is confirmed. All items (pontoons, gangways, and hydraulics platforms) are being fabricated off-site, and work on the new wharf will only commence once these items are ready to be shipped to the site. Initial works will consist of dismantling and removing the existing infrastructure, and all ferry services will temporarily relocate to the old wharf while the renewal work is carried out. Once onsite, works are expected to take between 6-8 weeks. Some items are being sourced from overseas with timeframes having to be adjusted to accommodate inbound shipping schedules. Phase one – the southern berth (Pier 1) · Pontoon replacement · New hydraulic platform · New fixed landing platform · New upper and lower gangways Phase two – to replace the northern berth (Pier 2). Expected to take place within 12-18 months.
Metro Services	Ferry Services COVID restrictions continued to impact on patronage during January. Whilst the region did start the month in Traffic Light setting Orange, the whole of the country moved to Red on the evening of Sunday 23 January. This resulted in patronage dropping off from c.75% of 2019 level to approximately 45% of 2019 levels once the country moved to Red.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

12. Auckland Transport’s core role is in providing attractive alternatives to private vehicle travel, reducing the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the contracted public transport network.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

13. The impact of the information in this report is confined to Auckland Transport and does not impact on other parts of the Council group. Any engagement with other parts of the Council group will be carried out on an individual project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

14. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no local, sub-regional or regional impacts.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

16. There are no financial implications of receiving this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

17. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no risks. Auckland Transport has risk management strategies in place for all their projects.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

18. Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the local board at a future business meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Richard La Ville – Operations Manager – Waiheke and Gulf Islands Airfields – Auckland Transport

Authorisers

John Strawbridge – Group Manager Parking Services and Compliance – Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager – Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/01689

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To inform local boards about an opportunity to provide input to a project being undertaken by Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa New Zealand Geographic Board to record large numbers of unofficial place names as official.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa New Zealand Geographic Board are undertaking a project to record unofficial place names as official.

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

4. Where there is no other recorded name for a place, and where Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa considers it unlikely that the public would object, a fast-track process is enabled under legislation.

5. Of the 1,421 names proposed to be made official, 690 are non-Māori in origin, and 731 are te reo Māori.

6. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa are consulting with councils and relevant mana whenua to ensure names are adopted correctly and remove place names from the fast-track process if there are any objections. The fast-track process does not require public consultation.

7. Within Auckland Council, local boards are best placed to provide local views. Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa are also consulting directly with mana whenua to ensure their views are represented.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) receive the report, including attachments which detail the unofficial place names in the local board area which are proposed to be made official

b) provide feedback on any place names that, in their view, should not proceed under the fast-track process.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

The fast-track process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name to be adopted as is	53
b ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name adopted with the addition of macrons	55
c ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name where more information or clarification is sought regarding whether the name has been captured correctly	57
d ⇩	Previously unofficial non-Māori place name to be adopted as is	59

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy – Local Board Services

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager - Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager – Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00463

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the Auckland Water Strategy framework before it is recommended for adoption by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Water Strategy sets a vision for Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s waters and provides strategic direction for investment and action across the Auckland Council group.

3. The vision of the Water Strategy is: te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced.

4. Local boards have previously provided feedback on the 2019 public discussion document (Our Water Future - Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei), and this was considered in the development of the Auckland Water Strategy. Local board feedback is now being sought on the draft Auckland Water Strategy framework.

5. The core content for the Auckland Water Strategy framework was endorsed at the Environment and Climate Change Committee on the 2nd of December 2021 (ECC/2021/44). The content is now being drafted into a final document and will be brought to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for consideration and adoption in March 2022.

6. Staff workshopped the framework with the Environment and Climate Change Committee and local board chairpersons throughout September-November 2021. The chairpersons received explanatory memos and supporting material ahead of workshops. Feedback during those workshops shaped the core content adopted at committee in December 2021.

7. Refer to Attachment A to the agenda report for the core content of the Auckland Water Strategy framework.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Waiheke 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^{^[1]}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^{^[2]}.

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^{^[3]} and the Climate Change Risk in Auckland technical report series^{^[4]}.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. There is broad agreement across the council group that better integration in water-related matters is needed, and that improvements in investment and decision-making processes are possible.

53. Staff have worked across the council group to develop the Water Strategy’s core content through working groups, workshops, and review of material.

54. The strategic shifts and actions in the Water Strategy represent significant change in the way that the council group approaches water-related challenges and opportunities in Auckland. In time, the way that staff work and the tools they have available will change. Greater and more coordinated oversight of resources that are used to deliver water outcomes is essential.

55. The Water Strategy embeds concepts like mauri and water-sensitive design into council’s approach going forward. These actions require careful, considered partnership with mana whenua to create new frameworks that will guide decision-making. Coordinated education and upskilling programmes for staff will be needed to enable successful implementation.

56. Of note is the action to implement a council group knowledge governance framework for water. This will mean review and redesign of processes governing the production of knowledge; how council mobilises knowledge for different users and uses; and how council promotes the use of knowledge.

57. The framework will help facilitate a culture change across the council group, encouraging the sharing of knowledge across departments and organisations, and better connecting teams in the ownership of knowledge and insights.

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

Local impacts and local board views

58. Local boards have a strong interest and role in improving water outcomes across Auckland and currently fund many local projects focused on restoration of local waterways.

59. Staff workshopped the Water Strategy framework, including each strategic shift and associated aims and actions, with the Environment and Climate Change Committee and local board chairpersons September to November 2021. The chairpersons received explanatory memos and supporting material ahead of workshops. Feedback during those workshops shaped the core content adopted at committee in December 2021.

60. Previous local board feedback informed development of the Water Strategy. Staff held workshops with all local boards in late 2018 on the Our Water Future – Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei discussion document and sought their feedback through formal business meetings. Local board resolutions were provided to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018 (ENV/2018/168) when the discussion document was approved for public consultation.

61. During public engagement, local boards hosted many of the Have Your Say consultation events and helped to ensure local views were fed into the feedback. This feedback has been an input to the development of the strategy. There was broad support for the vision, values, issues, processes and principles presented in the discussion document. The Environment and Climate Change Committee adopted the framework as the basis for developing the Auckland water strategy.

62. Key themes from local board engagement are presented below. Staff have designed the strategic shifts and actions to address these key themes – these are noted in italics:

i) A desire to improve engagement with local communities and deliver targeted education programmes – Empowering Aucklanders strategic shift.

ii) Recognising water is a limited resource, that access to water is a human right and supply must be allocated fairly – Water Security and Sustainable Allocation and Equitable Access strategic shifts.

A need to improve the diminishing water quality of local water bodies including urban streams, gulfs and harbours – Restoring and Enhancing water ecosystems strategic shift.

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

iv) A need for proactive monitoring and enforcement, supported by a robust and transparent evidence base – Pooling Knowledge strategic shift.

63. Feedback on several water-related topics that were not part of the discussion document’s scope was also received from local boards. This included water infrastructure, the importance of future proofing our assets, incorporating sustainable options such as greywater reuse and roof collection, and the management of contaminant run-off and stormwater discharges.

64. Staff considered these important issues and they have been incorporated into the strategy – see Regenerative Water Infrastructure strategic shift.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

65. Every iwi and hapū has associations with particular waterbodies^{^[5]} that are reflected in their whakapapa, waiata, and whaikōrero tuku iho (stories of the past). Protecting the health and mauri of our freshwater ecosystems is fundamental to providing for the food, materials, customary practices, te reo Māori, and overall well-being of iwi and hapū.

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

· Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Guidance to the Water Strategy 2019

· submissions to the Our Water Future Public Discussion Document 2019

· Te Pou Taiao engagement throughout 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Risk

Assessment

Mitigation/Control measures

Insufficient or inconsistent implementation of the strategy

Medium risk

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

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

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

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

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

High risk

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Water Strategy Core Content	77

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategist - Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - General Manager - Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason – General Manager - Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager – Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00274

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, staff have summarised the feedback.

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

· prohibiting or restricting freedom camping in certain areas of Auckland

· providing for freedom camping to be temporarily prohibited or restricted in a specific area

· providing for temporary changes to restrictions that apply in a specific area.

4. Council received feedback from 1,617 individuals and organisations to the Have Your Say consultation and from 1,914 individuals to a research survey. This included 69 Have Your Say feedback and 61 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 Waiheke 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 69 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 61 research survey respondents (RS) from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal:

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

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

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

General rule feedback (Proposals 1 and 2)

Proposal	Local board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Include general rules in areas we manage where freedom camping is not otherwise prohibited or restricted	72 per cent HYS support 83 per cent RS support	55 per cent HYS support 90 per cent RS support
2: Set four general rules, which would require freedom campers staying in these areas to:
2.1: Use a certified self-contained vehicle	72 per cent HYS support · 10 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 74 per cent RS support	68 per cent HYS support · 13 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 76 per cent RS support
2.2: Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area	43 per cent support · 31 per cent preferred 1 night 62 per cent RS support	39 per cent support · 32 per cent preferred 1 night 70 per cent RS support
2.3: Depart by 9am on the third day	41 per cent support · 36 per cent preferred 10am · 18 per cent preferred 8am 46 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	42 per cent support · 15 per cent preferred 4 weeks 60 per cent RS support	40 per cent support · 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks 55 per cent RS support

Proposal

Local board feedback

Auckland-wide feedback

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

72 per cent HYS support

83 per cent RS support

55 per cent HYS support

90 per cent RS support

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

2.1: Use a certified self-contained vehicle

72 per cent HYS support

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

74 per cent RS support

68 per cent HYS support

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

76 per cent RS support

2.2: Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area

43 per cent support

· 31 per cent preferred 1 night

62 per cent RS support

39 per cent support

· 32 per cent preferred 1 night

70 per cent RS support

2.3: Depart by 9am on the third day

41 per cent support

· 36 per cent preferred 10am

· 18 per cent preferred 8am

46 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

42 per cent support

· 15 per cent preferred 4 weeks

60 per cent RS support

40 per cent support

· 28 per cent preferred 4 weeks

55 per cent RS support

Site-specific feedback (Proposals 3 and 4)

Proposal

Local board feedback (n=31)^{^[6]}

Auckland-wide feedback

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

· Kennedy Point Wharf: 23 support, 6 oppose

· Onetangi Cemetery: 27 support, 1 oppose

· Onetangi Sports Park (Rangihoua): 15 support, 12 oppose

· Waiheke Island Artworks: 27 support, 2 oppose.

Majority support for prohibition at 11 areas^{^[7]}

Majority opposition for prohibition at 34 areas

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

· Note: there are no proposed restricted areas in the Waiheke Local Board area

· One person commented on restricted areas outside your local board area.^{^[8]}

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

Majority opposition for restrictions at 21 areas

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

· the proposed rules are not restrictive enough of freedom camping

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

· council should invest more in camper facilities.

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The following risks have been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

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

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00594

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

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

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

· obligations for owners of industrial cooling water tower systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

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

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

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

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

· removing legacy council bylaws which have expired

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

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

Process to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

Diagram

Description automatically generated

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. Three people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal:

· for proposal one, two and three, there was majority support from the local board area similar with the Auckland-wide feedback.

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
Proposal 1: Remove the lighting rules as these are now regulated through the Auckland Unitary Plan	67 per cent support 33 per cent ‘other’	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	67 per cent support 33 per cent oppose	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	67 per cent support 33 per cent ‘other’	86 per cent support 7 per cent opposed 7 per cent ‘other’ 10 per cent ‘I don’t know’

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The following risk has been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report	123
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Waiheke Local Board area	139

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00722

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke 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. One person from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal, who supported Proposals 2B, 4, 6, 7A, 9, 11A and 11B, and opposed Proposals 3A, 7B, 8 and 12. Opinions were not provided about the remaining proposals.

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

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

23. 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).

24. 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

25. 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

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

27. 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.

28. 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

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

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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).

34. 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

35. 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^{^[10]}

· 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

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

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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	159
b ⇩	Copy of local feedback from the local board area	219

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst - Community and Social Policy

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst - Community and Social Policy

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager - Community and Social Policy

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager – Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

Resource Management System Reform

File No.: CP2022/01466

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

5. Due to the limited submission period, local board views were required to be provided by 14 February to be included in the body of council’s submission. Feedback was approved by the chair under the following delegation from the board’s 22 April 2020 business meeting, as the next local board meeting was not scheduled until the 23 February 2022.

Text

Description automatically generated

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) note feedback provided as per Attachment B, under delegated decision by the Chair, on the Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - materials for discussion document to inform the council’s draft submission.

Horopaki

Context

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

7. Cabinet adopted the following objectives for reform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graphical user interface, diagram, PowerPoint

Description automatically generated

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

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

Formal engagement with Auckland Council on resource management system reform

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Summary of discussion document

Purpose

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

· national planning framework

· regional spatial strategies

· NBA plans

· RSS and NBA joint committees

· consenting

· compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· monitoring and system oversight

· role of local government in the future system

· national Māori entity

· joint committee composition

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

· funding in the future system.

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

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

National Planning Framework (NPF)

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

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

Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs)

21. RSSs will identify areas that are:

· suitable for development

· need to be protected

· require infrastructure

· vulnerable to climate change effects and natural hazards.

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

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

Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSS and NBA joint committees

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

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

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

Consenting

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement

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

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

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

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

· prohibiting the use of insurance for prosecution and infringement fines

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

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

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

Monitoring and system oversight

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

37. The proposed approach to monitoring will include:

· a suite of tools in the NBA to direct monitoring

· consistent and regular local-level environmental monitoring and reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of local government in the future system

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

In RSS and NBA plan development

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

RSS and NBA plan implementation

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

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

Compliance, monitoring, enforcement and oversight

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

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

Timeframe for development of feedback on the discussion document

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

Further material

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

National Māori entity

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

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

Joint committee composition

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Funding in the future system

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Council submission points on the Discussion Document	249
b ⇩	Waiheke Local Board feedback - Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system	257

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Jacob van der Poel - Advisor Operations and Policy – Local Board Services
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager – Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

Waiheke Local Board feedback on Our Future Resource Management System materials for discussion

14 February 2022

Introduction

Last year the Waiheke Local Board provided feedback on the initial resource management reform proposals. The local board appreciate this interim update from the Minister of The Environment and the opportunity that has been provided to give further comment on issues.

The local board acknowledge feedback given by mana whenua and the resolve of the government to enable Māori to have a more effective role in governing natural and built environment systems recognising the relationships under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The local board endorses the general intent of the reforms to establish a national planning and regulatory system that is clearer and more consistent, and most importantly responds to the degeneration of the environment across New Zealand in a restorative and revitalising way.

The negative environmental impacts associated with the current planning approach are due in large part to the current system not acknowledging and respond to the substantive negative cumulative impacts made by multiple development activities which in themselves are assessed as minor or moderate in impact.

The local board supports the establishment of an outcomes-based system that is restorative and provides clear unequivocal direction on what development can and cannot occur in an area. Change is required from what is currently occurring to nurture nature and give certainty around housing supply along with the associated aspects that make a community a great place for people.

The governments Our Future Resource Management System materials for discussion paper raises many points.

The key issue for the Waiheke Local Board continues to be ensuring that localism prevails. Whilst there is benefit in national standards and resourcing, local involvement and accountability needs to be a central philosophy in any effective democracy.

Feedback

The Waiheke Local Board provides the following commentary of points that it sees as most salient.

Discussion document prompts with local focus

Waiheke Local Board comments

How can appropriate local issues be included in regional spatial strategies (RSSs)?

1. Support specific pathways be developed to actively facilitate local issues to be included in RSS.

i. The Natural and Built Environments Act will establish clear nationally required outcomes, in developing a RSS these outcomes will need to be progressed with actions and associated central government and local authority budget identified for activities.

ii. Assessment will need to be taken with regards to sub-regional and local matters of significance above and beyond the base level national outcomes that need to be included.

iii. Examples of significance could include aspects such as cultural importance to Māori, distinct built local character, regional or nationally impactful environments.

Would there be merit in enabling sub-regional Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) plans that would be incorporated into an NBA plan?

2. Support enabling sub-regional plans to be incorporated into NBA plans.

i. Local board experience within the amalgamated Auckland Council has demonstrated the need for variation across the region.

ii. Within the regional/national framework of agreed principles and outcomes there will be benefit at times for more nuanced and definitive plans to best respond to location based natural and built environment needs and opportunities.

iii. An example of current practice that has similar planning cascades is that the Waiheke Area Plan responds to issues of being an island with very distinct variables and informs a Gulf Islands Plan that sits within the Auckland Unitary Plan.

iv. Sub-regional planning needs to support consideration of mountains to sea watershed catchments and other ecologically interrelated pathways.

What should the role of local boards and their communities be to support local place-making and understanding of local issues in NBA plans?

3. Support local boards having a role in contributing to the development of NBA plans.

i. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 establishes Local Boards to enable democratic decision making by, and on behalf of, communities within the local board area.

ii. Each local board is required to create a Local Board Plan in consultation with its community.

iii. In addition to establishing directions for local activities, the community engagement around local board plans also assists local boards to identify and describe the interests and preferences of the people within the local board area.

iv. Local boards communicate established interests and preferences to the governing body, Council Controlled Organisations, central government and other entities as they advocate on behalf of their communities.

v. There is opportunity to leverage or integrate the Local Board insight and ongoing local engagement and communication to support creation, implementation and monitoring of NABs at a local level.

How could a RSS or NBA joint committee provide for local democratic input?

4. Support joint committees having substantive local democratic input and accountability.

i. Joint committees need to have local authority elected members in addition to appointed members.

ii. Joint committees require central government secretariate support

iii. Joint committees to have a jointly funded programme to facilitate and enable elected member and community engagement and communication.

How should joint committees be established?

5. Support joint committees including the appointment of local authority elected members.

i. Auckland Council as a unitary authority has remit, scale and experience to establish required joint committees within its Governing Body structure.

ii. There is ability to have appointed non-elected persons on a governing body joint committee.

What does an effective relationship between local authorities and joint committees look like?

6. Support effective relationships between local authorities and joint committees

i. Propose the likes of joint schedules be collectively developed to establish what effective is and how matters of disagreement can be resolved.

ii. Information about joint committee decisions and the monitoring and achievement of accountable objectives needs to be transparent.

iii. Decisions made by joint committees need to be recognised and subsequently resourced through both central and local government.

iv. Within joint committees the Auckland Council shared governance context needs to be acknowledged and supported.

v. There needs to be a purposeful role for the governing body given their regional perspectives and obligations along with continuing opportunity for local boards to give input to raise awareness and advocate from a local area perspective.

Should parties in a region be able to determine their committee composition?

7. Support opportunity for greatest local authority involvement in all aspects including determining joint committee composition.

i. Auckland Council as a unitary authority has remit, scale and experience to establish required joint committees within its Governing Body structure.

What should be the selection and appointments processes for joint committee members?

8. Support local authority appointments to joint committees.

i. Auckland Council and other local authorities working alongside of central government has the ability to establish a joint committee as a subcommittee of the authority.

ii. Mana whenua and central government should identify their own appointees to joint committee within subcommittee structure.

iii. Additional non-rate payer funding will be required to enable joint committees to achieve its objectives.

Further matters for consideration

In reviewing the content and questions put in the discussion paper the Waiheke Local Board is also prompted to develop questions that benefit further consideration by Auckland Council staff in their preparation of advice to the Planning Committee and by central government as matters progress.

1. How do we retain local in the face of such overwhelming scope?

2. What is the mechanism that the elected members at a local level get to influence decisions outside of matters that are only raised by staff?

3. How will the local board’s role in placemaking and the role of Local Board Plans be recognised going forward? Will there be a need to update The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

4. What will be the direct relationship between local boards and the proposed new bodies?

5. What is the opportunity to involve more local in larger multi-regional matters such as Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty growth being complimentary rather than competitive?

6. How do we plan and resource island communities with distinct considerations?

Waiheke Local Board

23 February 2022

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Waiheke Loal Board for quarter two 2021/2022

File No.: CP2022/00839

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· Climate Action Programme (ID 732): The Waiheke Climate Action Plan was adopted during this quarter following public consultation. The programme includes establishment of a dedicated resource (Climate Activator) to coordinate and drive implementation of the Waiheke Climate Action Plan, and investment to support collaboration and amplify low carbon community action

· Island Bay Track, 80 Korora Road, Oneroa (ID 19879): Works include the construction of new stairs, a short section of boardwalk and gravel path to reinstate a section of the Owhanake Matiatia Walkway that was damaged by a landslip. Construction is due to commence 14 February and is estimated to take between 3-6 weeks, weather dependent.

· Rangihoua / Onetangi Reserve - Golf Club - renew - driveway and culvert (ID 20720): Works include renewal of the damaged section of driveway and underlying stormwater culvert to increase stormwater capacity and reduce on site flooding. Alternative access has been finalised and construction is scheduled to commence February 2022.

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

· Swimming pool development fund (ID3103): This activity is on hold until the Feasibility Study for Swimming Pool project is completed.

· Onetangi Sports Park - install lighting & upgrade to sand carpet on field 3 (ID23915): Concept design is complete, and the design is being revised to align water consumption with bore capacity. Growth funding has been deferred into future years and therefore the project has been deferred.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

· Customer and Community Services;

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services;

· Plans and Places;

· Auckland Emergency Management;

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

COVID-19 restrictions

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

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

11. From 23 January 2022, Auckland moved back into traffic light red setting under the COVID-19 Protection Framework, which will impact council and community-delivered event planning and programming.

12. Noting much of the quarter two commentary was completed prior to the shift back to the traffic light red setting, impacts on individual activities are reported in the work programme update (Attachment A) where practicable, with further updates to be provided in quarter three.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

13. The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme performance by RAG status

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

14. The graph below shows the stage of the activities in each departments’ work programmes. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes.

Graph 3: Work programme performance by activity status and department

Chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

Key activity updates from quarter two

Local Board Plan Outcome 1: : Sustainable development and liveable places

15. Waiheke Area Plan (ID 1522): The draft plan has been finalised and direct consultation is underway with the last of the three iwi groups which have been involved in the process to date.

Local Board Plan Outcome 2: A sustainable economy

16. Waiheke Destination Management Plan (led by Auckland Unlimited): Due to COVID-19 the draft has been delayed. The board will receive an update shortly.

17. Business emergency resilience programme (ID 1601): The Auckland Emergency Management resources for the business information packs have been developed and printed, for distribution in 2022. Staff will look at options to workshop the packs with businesses once COVID restrictions are clearer.

18. Community resilience and local economic development (ID 481): In December a grant of $10,000 was allocated to Waiheke Island Tourism Inc to assist with reactivating the Waiheke economy post-COVID lockdown and to safely welcome visitors back to the island.

19. Waiheke Community Art Gallery (ID 562): During this quarter there were 15 programmes attracting 3,573 participants. Highlights included uploading the Gallery’s permanent collection and other moving images onto the Gallery’s Youtube account with the aim to increase the Gallery’s digital outreach. Other highlights included opening under RED in the Protection Framework on 4 December to a series of planned exhibitions that were able to take place in person, including the Walker & Hall Waiheke Art Award picnic and Award Ceremony. Also, Katy Soljak, My First Pash exhibit and Artist Sunday afternoon readings in the gallery. Work on the Art Map began with 43 artists included.

20. Artworks Theatre (ID 565): Artworks Theatre provided fur programmes with 10 sessions attracting 2,060 participants. Highlights included Artworks staff co-coordinating the Waiheke Online Advent Calendar, part of Te Ara Kirihimete/The Path of Christmas. A large selection of Artworks regular musicians, actors and dancers created videos which were shared during December. Highlight videos included a drag Kath and Kim performance, a puppet show using Te Reo Māori, an elf monologue by Sam Downes and original music by Jaz Caicheon. The Waiheke Online Advent Calendar was promoted through Mailchimp, Facebook, Gulf News and the Artworks website, and attracted over 2,000 viewers. The creative opportunity created links between performers, links between performers and Artworks as a venue and paid artists $100 each for their efforts during this difficult time for artists

Local Board Plan Outcome 3: Waiheke's environment is protected, restored and enhanced

21. Ecological Community Partnership Programme (ID678): A pause in volunteer activity caused by Alert level 4 and 3 has prevented community groups from accessing reserves for October and November with restricted activity in December. This has affected the running of the programme and it is hoped that this activity can catch up in the next quarter. Further work in reserves has been progressing however with paid staff carrying out maintenance operations to keep most weedy areas in check.

22. Ngahere (Urban Forest) - Growing phase (ID 811): Work is underway to develop a draft of the Ngahere Action Plan, a first draft will be presented to the local board in Q3.

23. Beach Ambassadors programme (ID 1691): Development of the funding agreement commenced during this quarter. Programmed delivery commenced in January.

24. Climate Action Programme (ID 732): The draft Climate Action Plan was put out for public consultation via the "Have your say" process in October. There were 22 responses using the online form and a further eight email submissions. 77 percent of respondents supported the Waiheke action plan target of carbon positive by 2040 and 81 per cent supported most goals. The final action plan was adopted at the board's business meeting on 15 December 2021. Procurement for the role of the Climate Activator will commence in January 2022

25. Conservation Advocate (ID 794) (Amber): The Conservation Advisor role has been advertised and the recruitment panel are currently assessing applications.

26. Waiheke Ecological Restoration contracts (ID 1167): This programme remains under-resourced due to difficulty finding and retaining local staff, however there has been good progress with stoat and animal pest control. Additional weed work on Rangihoua with a local supplier continues and has made significant inroads particularly into a large infestation of moth plant that was previously a significant seed source in the area

Local Board Plan Outcome 4: Thriving, strong and engaged communities

27. Community-led housing initiatives (ID 482): During this quarter the local board allocated a grant of $5,000 to Habitat for Humanity towards coordinator costs to continue the Waiheke Healthy Homes Programme in 2022. The board also allocated a grant of $5,000 to Waiheke Hope Centre to assist with arborist costs relating to the installation of a new wastewater system for emergency and transitional housing.

28. Waiheke Walking and Cycling Promotion (ID 775): Unfortunately, COVID-19 restrictions have continued to delay planned cycling activations. A revised Cycling Festival is being planned for March 2022.

29. Event Partnership Fund – Christmas event (ID 494): Due to COVID-19 impacts, this event was cancelled. However, there was support from the local board to re-purpose the funding to provide Christmas-themed activations or low impact activities to bring a form of Christmas cheer.

30. Community emergency resilience programme (ID1600): The Rakino community are reviewing their draft plan with support from AEM and Fire and Emergency New Zealand. AEM and FENZ will meet and discuss plan with community once draft is completed.

Local Board Plan Outcome 5: Māori Outcomes

31. Māori Responsiveness Waiheke (ID 485): During this quarter staff connected with local Māori organisations to understand priorities and scope possible projects. Staff will make recommendations for funding during Q3.

Local Board Plan Outcome 6: Vibrant places for people

32. Feasibility study for swimming pool (ID 3106) Amber: Progress on a memorandum of understanding between Waiheke Pool Society, Te Huruhi School and Ministry of Education continued to experience delays due to COVID-19 lockdown and the recent resignation of school principal. Staff are scheduled to meet with the Waiheke Pool Society in January 2022.

33. Rangihoua Onetangi Park Management Plan (ID 1557): The draft plan has been developed and final consultation with mana whenua is currently being undertaken. The draft plan will be reported to the local board development committee in Q3.

34. Waiheke Island strategic response fund (ID 3060): Staff are preparing the final draft of the Onetangi Beach services assessment, incorporating the local community consultation submissions, as well as the elected members' feedback to these findings. To allow for consultation with Auckland Transport, Healthy Waters and Community Facilities, staff have delayed the endorsement of the assessment to Q4.

35. Waiheke Equestrian Service Provision Assessment: The Equestrian Service provision assessment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and will be progressed in Q3.

36. Kayaks / Dinghies on beaches: The campaign for watercraft removal from beaches was delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions. This campaign will be recommencing in March with an initial pilot at Enclosure Bay.

37. Island Bay Track, 80 Korora Road, Oneroa (ID 19879): Construction due to commence 14 February and is estimated to take between 3-6 weeks, weather dependent. Works include the construction of new stairs, a short section of boardwalk and gravel path to reinstate a section of the Owhanake Matiatia Walkway that was damaged by a landslip.

38. Onetangi Sports Park - general renewal (ID 30690): Internal stakeholder consultation has established preferred options to include renewal of the changing rooms (painting, flooring, wall tiles and shower drainage), replacing shower heads and exploring relocatable container changing rooms. Staff will investigate the cost of relocatable styled changing room and consenting requirements and will proceed to physical works.

39. Rangihoua / Onetangi Reserve - Golf Club - renew - driveway and culvert (ID 20720): Renewal of the damaged section of driveway and underlying stormwater culvert to increase stormwater capacity and reduce on site flooding. Alternative access has been finalised and construction is scheduled to commence February 2022.

40. Open space toilets - develop and renew (ID 31032): A location at Oneroa Beach Reserve for a new toilet block has been confirmed and additional capacity at the local waste water treatment plant was purchased from Watercare. Engineers are currently undertaking detailed design. Consents to be lodged by January 2022. Construction is expected to be completed by end of financial year 2021/22.

41. Tracks and Pathway renewal (ID 24167): Investigation and design is underway for the following track renewals:

42. Trig Hill to Awaawaroa Bay, Church Bay from Matiatia to Church Bay Road, Park Road, Te Wharau Bay - commencing adjacent to toilet, Te Wharau Bay (Southern Bay access, Walter Frank Drive to Te Wharau Bay). Matiatia Owhanake (Matiatia Wharf to Owhanake Bay), Glenbrook Reserve (Okoka Road through Glenbrook Reserve to Glenbrook Road), Omiha Beach Reserve (beach, through the bush to Upland Road Rocky Bay), Matiatia to Owhanake side track, Wharetana Bay (Starts off at Rothschild Terrace to the bay), Church Bay side track to beach

A picture containing outdoor, grass, nature, dirt

Description automatically generated

43. Renewal of furniture, fixings, equipment and signage (ID 24122): The Community Facilities team have been busy over this quarter with a number of renewal projects. This includes installation of a new privacy screen for the beach shower at Surfdale Hall Reserve, new bike stands at Waiheke Backpackers, and new bins at Oneroa.

A picture containing text, tree

Description automatically generated

Bicycles parked outside a house

Description automatically generated with low confidence

A picture containing text, tree, outdoor

Description automatically generated

Local Board Plan Outcome 7: Resilient transport and Infrastructure

44. Waiheke Pathways Plan - prioritisation review (ID 680): Progress on the greenways prioritisation review and assessment in Q2 was significantly impacted by the travel restrictions to Waiheke due to COVID-19. Staff will resume critical site visits in Q3 and consult with Auckland Transport and Community Facilities in drafting the assessment report. Findings and priority recommendations will be presented to the local board for consideration in Q4.

45. Matiatia Gateway Masterplan (ID 1664): Non-transport outcomes will be advanced in partnership with Ngāti Pāoa and cannot proceed until Ngāti Pāoa mandate issues are resolved. This will enable the proposed governance relationship with the Waiheke Local Board to be confirmed.

Activities with significant issues

46. The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as having significant issues:

· Swimming pool development fund (ID3103) Red: This activity is on hold until the Feasibility Study for Swimming Pool project is completed.

· Onetangi Sports Park - install lighting & upgrade to sand carpet on field 3 (ID23915) Red: Concept design is complete, and the design is being revised to align water consumption with bore capacity. Growth funding has been deferred into future years and therefore the project has been deferred.

47. There are 22 projects identified by operating departments as being in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber). These are predominantly due to delays from COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

Activities on hold

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

· Church Bay track - purchase adjacent land and stabilise (ID19993): After the offer of an easement through private property was declined, Council sought a right of way agreement from the private landowner which is currently pending acceptance.

· Waiheke - Urban Forest (Ngahere) Strategy - Growing Phase (ID31048): Project on hold as waiting for development and endorsement of the action plan. The first draft of the action plan is due to be presented to the board in quarter three.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

· Climate Action Programme (ID732) - a three-year community-based climate action programme to guide design, prioritisation and implementation of mitigation actions as identified in the Climate Action Plan (adopted in December).

· Bike Hub (ID733) - funding to Cycle Action Waiheke to operate a bicycle repair, cycling education, and advocacy centre based in Alison Park.

· Environmental Fund (ID954) - fund supports ecological restoration and management outcomes, aligned with the local board's environmental priorities.

· The Marine Education Initiative (ID729) - to support experiential learning, citizen science and student-led action to restore and protect the marine environment.

· Urban Ngahere Growing stage (ID811) - the action plan identifies the need to plant new trees across the local board area to increase the tree canopy coverage on publicly owned land.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. When developing the work programmes, council group impacts and views are presented to the local board.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. The Matiatia planning project aims to prepare a strategic plan for Matiatia which reflects the aspirations of the Waiheke community and respects the interests and rights of mana whenua for the future use of that land. Ngāti Paoa has representation on the project working group and are working to identify their aspirations for the site.

55. During this quarter staff connected with local Māori organisations to understand priorities and scope possible projects for the Māori Responsiveness budget line.

56. The Waiheke Library continues to coordinate a variety of programmes which provide opportunities to engagement with local iwi and mana whenua and collaborate on initiatives.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Financial Performance

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. 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.

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

61. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waiheke Local Board - 1 October – 31 December Work Programme Update	271
b ⇩	Waiheke Local Board Operating Performance Financial Summary - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Janine Geddes - Senior Local Board Advisor -
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager – Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

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

[2] National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management policy 3.5

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

[6] Refer Submitter Numbers 17, 227, 291, 341, 352, 353, 355, 368, 401, 402, 420, 422, 432, 434, 443, 454, 487, 488, 496, 510, 592, 608, 635, 645, 647, 702, 716, 893, 899, 945 and 953 in Attachment B.

[7] 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.

[8] Refer Submitter Number 291 in Attachment B.

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

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

Chairperson	Cath Handley
Deputy Chairperson	Kylee Matthews
Members	Robin Tucker
	Bob Upchurch
	Paul Walden