Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board - Thursday, 24 February 2022

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

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

Specifically, members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

The following are declared interests of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

Board Member	Organisation/Position
Mark Allen	· Community Waitākere – Executive Officer · Bethells Valley Fire – Senior Fire Fighter · Waitākere Licensing Trust – Trustee
Michelle Clayton	· Glen Eden Community House – Treasurer · Glen Eden Residents’ Association – Treasurer · Waitākere Community Organisation Grants Scheme (COGS) – Committee Member · The Personal Advocacy and Safeguarding Adults Trust – Trustee · Glen Eden Returned Services Association (RSA) – Member · Glen Eden Railway Trust – Member · Te Wahi Ora Charitable Trust - Trustee
Sandra Coney	· Cartwright Collective – Member · Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron · New Zealand Society of Genealogists – Member · New Zealand Military Defence Society – Member · Pest Free Piha – Partner is the Coordinator · Piha Tennis Club – Patron and Partner is the President · Piha Wetland Trust – Partner is a Trustee · Waitākere Ranges Pest Free Alliance – Partner is the Co-Chair of this group · Waitematā District Health Board – Elected Member & Chair of Hospital Advisory Committee
Greg Presland	· Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee · Combined Youth Services Trust – Trustee · Glen Eden Bid – Member · Titirangi Ratepayers and Residents Association – Member · Waitākere Ranges Protection Society - Member · Titirangi RSA - Member
Saffron Toms	· Titirangi Community House – Secretary · Huia-Cornwallis Residents and Ratepayers Association – Committee Member
Ken Turner	· Huia-Cornwallis Residents and Ratepayers Association – Committee Member

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council:

External community group or organisation	Lead	Alternate
Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group	Mark Allen	Saffron Toms
Ark in the Park	Mark Allen	Sandra Coney
Friends of Arataki and Waitākere Regional Parkland Incorporated	Michelle Clayton	Sandra Coney
Glen Eden Business Improvement District (Glen Eden Business Association)	Michelle Clayton	Greg Presland
Glen Eden Playhouse Theatre Trust	Ken Turner	Mark Allen
Te Uru Waitākere Contemporary Gallery	Mark Allen	Saffron Toms and Sandra Coney
The Rural Advisory Panel	Ken Turner	Saffron Toms

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 9 December 2021, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

24 February 2022

Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche Two - selection of sites for Māori naming

File No.: CP2022/00022

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite mana whenua to provide Māori names for 20 parks and two libraries as Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche Two.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In September 2019 the Waitākere Ranges Local Board resolved to invite mana whenua to name 20 parks and reserves as Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche One (WTK/2019/125).

3. On 24 June 2021 19 names were adopted with one site unnamed as it is owned by the Department of Conservation.

4. Te Kete Rukuruku staff are now seeking approval from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board to invite mana whenua to name an additional 20 parks and two libraries, as Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche Two.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) invite mana whenua to provide Māori names for 20 parks and two libraries as Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche Two, as follows.

Existing name	#	Street	Suburb
203 Shaw Rd		Shaw Rd	Titirangi
Annison Green	5	Annison Avenue	Glen Eden
Clarence Reserve		Chamari Close	Titirangi
Daffodil Scenic Reserve		Waerenga Place/Daffodil Rd	Titirangi
Glen Close Reserve		Glen Close	Glen Eden
Glen Eden Picnic Ground	29A	Glendale Road	Glen Eden
Levy Reserve		Levy Road	Glen Eden
Lopdell Plantation Reserve	597	South Titirangi Road	Titirangi
Maywood Reserve	28	Maywood Crescent	Glen Eden
Milan Reserve		Milan Drive	Glen Eden
Nicolas Reserve		West Coast Road	Oratia
Onedin Green	11	Onedin Place	Titirangi
Shah Park	26	Shah Place	Glen Eden
South Titirangi Rec Reserve	547	South Titirangi Road	Titirangi
Sunvue Park	94	Sunvue Road	Glen Eden
Westview Reserve	2	Janet Clews Place	Glen Eden
Withers Reserve	29	Withers Road	Glen Eden
Woodfern Reserve	10	Woodfern Crescent	Titirangi
Woodglen Road Reserve	81B	Woodglen Road	Glen Eden
Woodside Glen	81	Woodfern Crescent	Titirangi
Glen Eden Library	12/32	Glendale Road	Glen Eden
Titirangi Library	500	South Titirangi Road	Titirangi

b) endorse the Te Kete Rukuruku programme and process for Māori naming of parks and facilities, noting that it supports the visibility of te reo Māori and seeks to capture and tell the unique stories of Waitākere Ranges and Tāmaki Makaurau.

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

d) note that it is expected the Māori names will be adopted by the local board for use as dual names except for 203 Shaw Rosd which has no existing name so a sole Māori name will be adopted.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

Project Scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. The rationale and benefits of naming through Te Kete Rukuruku, as well as the process for identifying and adopting names and narratives, were originally agreed to by the Waitākere Ranges Local Board at its business meeting in September 2019. At that meeting, the local board resolved to invite mana whenua to name 20 parks and reserves as Te Kete Rukuruku Tranche One (WTK/2019/125). This was included in their 2019/2020 work programme and carried over into 2020/2021 for completion.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Name adoption

19. Tranche one was originally made up of 20 proposed sites. Nineteen names were formally adopted on 24 June 2021.

20. One name for the Henderson Valley Scenic Reserve was not adopted as the land is owned by the Crown and authorisation for naming rests with the Department of Conservation (DoC). DoC is considering adopting the Māori name suggested.

21. At a Waitākere Ranges Local Board workshop held on 5 August 2021 tranche two was discussed, including the inclusion of libraries for naming.

22. Waitākere Ranges Local Board has two libraries, Glen Eden Library and Titirangi Library. It is intended that these names remain but are brought into line with the new regional naming convention to incorporate Te Pātaka Kōrero as part of a dual name. An example of this is the name recently adopted by the Manurewa Local Board - Clendon Library / Te Pātaka Kōrero o Waimāhia.

23. Another workshop was held on 4 November 2021 where a short list of sites for naming was discussed by the local board, parks staff and TKR staff. A list of sites was identified for tranche two. This list was provided to mana whenua for comment.

24. Te Kawerau ā Maki is the only iwi who has confirmed interest in naming the tranche two sites in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area and have no concerns with the list of 20 sites as detailed in Attachment A.

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

26. Existing names may be removed at any time should the local board decide a sole name would be more appropriate.

27. All parks will go forward for dual naming at this time except for 203 Shaw Road as this site has no signage and no official or known name so a sole Māori name is recommended.

Bilingual signage exemplar park

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

29. In tranche one the local board was offered the opportunity to select a park, as an exemplar park, where all signage will be upgraded to be fully bilingual. The park selected was Ōkaurirahi / Ceramco Park and Ōkaurirahi / Kaurilands Domain. Although there are two English names it is one contiguous site so received one Māori name restoring the original name for this area.

30. A whakarewatanga (whaka-rewa-tanga) was planned for October 2021 to unveil the signage and celebrate the adoption of the names with the local community. Unfortunately, this had to be postponed due to COVID 19 restrictions. A new date will be discussed and agreed with mana whenua and the local board.

31. Another exemplar park may be selected for tranche two. An assessment of the tranche two sites will be completed along with any input from mana whenua and the local board. A shortlist of options will then be workshopped with the local board to receive direction on the final site selection.

32. If the local board has any preferences for parks to receive bilingual signage this should be advised to TKR staff who will ensure they form part of the shortlist for further assessment.

33. This bilingual signage is fully funded from Long-term Plan regional funding for Māori outcomes.

34. The new signage will include:

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

· bilingual wayfinding, information and bylaw signage

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

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

Communications approach

36. The council’s communications team will communicate the decision made by the board from tranche two, focusing on when the new names will be adopted, what the community is gaining and how Aucklanders can be proud of the initiative

37. Information for park stakeholders including hirers, leases, volunteers etc, will also be developed, informing them on the decisions upon adoption of the new names.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

a. the Auckland Plan outlining the council’s commitment to support te Reo to flourish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

48. Māori naming and bilingual signage in parks is aligned to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan 2020:

· Outcome two: We work closely with mataawaka and mana whenua partners

· Objective: Access to a range of projects and opportunities for collaboration with Māori.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

57. Waitākere Ranges Local Board has set aside funding from its Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budget for this programme. In 2020/2021 $25,000 was carried forward to complete naming for tranche one which was completed in June 2021. Savings of $17,750 was carried forward into 2021/2022 to allow more sites to be named as tranche two in 2021/2022 (Sharepoint ID 848).

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

59. One iwi, Te Kawerau ā Maki, has confirmed interest in naming sites in tranche two.

60. No additional funding is sought and it is expected that enough funding will remain to complete tranche three in 2022/2023 if the funds are able to be carried forward.

61. The local board has requested a small community event be held to unveil signage and celebrate the adoption of the names with the community at Ōkaurirahi / Ceramco Park with a larger event being held upon adoption of tranche two. Adequate funding is available to complete both these events.

62. Further discussion will take place between TKR staff and the local board to finalise details and dates for both tranche one and tranche two events.

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

64. Updated signage for the other 19 parks and two libraries will be delivered through existing Community Facilities renewals programmes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

· potential negative public reaction to the addition of Māori names

· costs of replacement signage.

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

67. Once the tranche two sites are resolved the TKR team will provide Te Kawerau ā Maki with the confirmed list for naming.

68. Te Kawerau ā Maki will research and provide appropriate names for presentation to the local board at a hui tuku ingoa. They have indicated that they should be able to finalise names for these 22 sites by the end of April 2022.

69. TKR will commence assessment of the tranche two sites to identify recommendations for a site to receive bilingual signage and bring that back to workshop with the local board.

70. Should the board have any preferences for specific sites that they would like considered to receive the new bilingual signage this should be advised to TKR staff as soon as possible.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Te Kete Rukuruku Waitākere Ranges Tranche Two List of Sites for Māori Naming	17

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dawn Bardsley - Te Kete Rukuruku Naming Lead

Authorisers

Anahera Higgins - Maori Outcomes Delivery Manager - Kia Ora Te Reo

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

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2020-2021: Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report. (Under Separate Cover)

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

24 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00191

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Waitākere Ranges 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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided an update against their work programme delivery (see Attachment A). 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). There are no activities with a red status. Most activities are in progress.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges 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

6. The Waitākere Ranges 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

· The West Worx.

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

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

Graph 3: Work programme performance by activity status and department

Key activity updates from quarter two

14. As this is a report for the second quarter of the delivery year, most activities are in progress.

Changes to the local board work programme

Cancelled activities

15. Some activities within budget lines were completely cancelled. These activities are cancelled:

· 1585: Movies in Parks. Due to uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 alert levels this event was cancelled. The $14,000 funding for this budget line may be reallocated to an alternative project.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

17. 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.

18. 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:

· 722: Climate Action Programme. A three-year community-based climate action programme to guide design, prioritisation, and implementation of mitigation actions.

1. Staff have begun the first stage of a stocktake of climate activities in the board area with inputs invited from Auckland Council and CCO staff in November 2021. Staff are also working to confirm a community partner to support community engagement and consultation and will work with the partner to design the community engagement strategy.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. 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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. The following projects contain a specific approach to progressing Māori responsiveness through the local board work programme. A number of other actions and activities are embedded in line items throughout the work programme.

· 504: Community Arts Programmes, Glen Eden, to develop and support art activities and initiatives (a Matariki Festival event) to be delivered in Glen Eden, that activate local spaces and engage the community as participants and audience.

Participants and the event organiser from Ahi Kaa have confirmed interest in celebrating Matariki locally again in 2022. The event brief is in its final stages of preparation, with final agreement required from all parties the contract will be administered. Planning for the event will begin in Q3.

· 517: Māori Responsiveness: Kaiwhakaawe (Māori broker) and Māori-led engagement, to support the Kaiwhakaawe to strengthen relationships with Māori, respond to key aspirations and deliver Māori outcomes. The Waitākere Ranges local board contributes funding to the Kaiwhakaawe role based at Hoani Waititi Marae, and to activities that build relationships across West Auckland Māori communities.

The impact of Covid-19 has notably influenced the mahi of the Kaiwhakaawe, with a focus on providing support to whanau affected by the Auckland lockdown. The Kura’s trip to Nelson for the national Kapa Haka festival had been cancelled.

· 523: Fund Hoani Waititi Marae Trust to operate and maintain Hoani Waititi Marae to be open and available for public use, commencing 1 July 2021 and terminating on 30 June 2026.

Hoani Waititi Marae has a lease renewal for next 33 years starting from 6 Feb 2021. The renewal has been approved by the local board as the allocated authority. Hoani Waititi Marae has agreed to a 5-year funding agreement which runs until 30 June 2026.

· 532: Māori Responsiveness: Mana whenua engagement, to support and fund regular operational hui with Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority to strengthen relationships with iwi, respond to key aspirations and deliver Māori outcomes. Support and fund involvement of mana whenua in community-led projects to deliver Māori outcomes in areas of priority for iwi. Support where needed iwi-led projects such as the development of a Marae at Te Henga.

A hui with Te Kawerau Iwi Tiaki Trust representatives was not organised in the Q2 period due to changes in staffing over this time and the extended lockdown period preventing any initial engagement between parties. This will be addressed in early Q3.

· 848: Te Kete Rukuruku, Māori naming (and associated story telling) of parks and places in partnership with mana whenua to value and promote Auckland’s Māori identity and use of te reo Māori. The outcome sought is a dual Māori/English name or a sole Māori name.

Whakarewatanga has been delayed due to COVID lockdown and will be rescheduled when possible. A report to resolve Tranche two names will be presented in Q3. Savings of $8,000 are estimated to be available and may be reallocated by the local board.

· 1257: (Libraries) Whakatipu i te reo Māori. We grow the Māori language Celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori. We champion and embed le reo Māori in everyday communication. We celebrate and promote te ao Māori through events and programmes including regionally coordinated and promoted programmes: Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Matariki, and Te Wiki o te Reo Māori. We seek opportunities to engage with local lwi and mana whenua to collaborate on initiatives.

Library staff continue to champion and embed te reo Māori in everyday communication through greetings, mihi and karakia. One senior staff member has recently completed a 10-week te reo Māori course, enabling greater use of the language in the library. Lifting the use and visibility of te reo Māori is also achieved through bilingual signage and social media posts. This will develop further as staff confidence with pronunciation and vocabulary increases.

· 28167: Sunvue Park, develop cultural park features – engage with locally based Māori youth to facilitate the design and installation of cultural features in Sunvue Park. 20/21 - investigation and design (working with students), 21/22 - 22/23 - physical works. Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP) project.

A concept design has been completed by rangitahi and will be presented to the local board for their consideration. Next steps are to seek formal approval for the concept design, and tender documents to be completed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. This report is provided to enable the Waitākere Ranges 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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 ⇩	Waitākere Ranges Local Board Q2 Work Programme update	29
b ⇩	Waitakere Ranges Local Board Financial Summary - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Raewyn Curran - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

24 February 2022

Auckland’s Water Strategy

File No.: CP2022/00917

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges 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 to align with council’s existing goals and work programmes for climate action.

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

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

51. The projected impacts of climate change on Auckland’s aquatic environments, and the associated risks, are detailed in two key report series: the Auckland Region Climate Change Projections and Impacts^{^[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 in 2021 including face-to-face hui.

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Risk

Assessment

Mitigation/Control measures

Insufficient or inconsistent implementation of the strategy

Medium risk

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

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

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

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

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

High risk

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategist

Authoriser

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2022 WRLB 2020 Local Board Plan Programme Update Final	75

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

24 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/01033

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges 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 names to be adopted as is	115
b ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name adopted with the addition of macrons	117
c ⇩	Previously unofficial Māori place name where more information or clarification is sought regarding whether the name has been captured correctly	119
d ⇩	Previously unofficial non-Māori place name to be adopted as is	121

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

24 February 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/00275

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 149 Have Your Say feedback and 62 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 Waitākere Ranges 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 149 Have your Say respondents (HYS) and 62 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	64 per cent HYS support 94 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	68 per cent HYS support · 13 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 80 per cent RS support	68 per cent HYS support · 13 per cent preferred certified self-contained vehicles ‘unless staying in a serviced area’ 76 per cent RS support
2.2: Stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area	33 per cent support · 37 per cent preferred 1 night 65 per cent RS support	39 per cent support · 32 per cent preferred 1 night 70 per cent RS support
2.3: Depart by 9am on the third day	34 per cent support · 26 per cent preferred 10am · 15 per cent preferred 8am 51 per cent RS support	28 per cent support · 24 per cent preferred 10am · 23 per cent preferred 8am 52 per cent RS support
2.4: Not return to the same road or off-road parking area within two weeks	49 per cent support · 24 per cent preferred 4 weeks 63 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

64 per cent HYS support

94 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

68 per cent HYS support

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

80 per cent RS support

68 per cent HYS support

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

76 per cent RS support

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

33 per cent support

· 37 per cent preferred 1 night

65 per cent RS support

39 per cent support

· 32 per cent preferred 1 night

70 per cent RS support

2.3: Depart by 9am on the third day

34 per cent support

· 26 per cent preferred 10am

· 15 per cent preferred 8am

51 per cent RS support

28 per cent support

· 24 per cent preferred 10am

· 23 per cent preferred 8am

52 per cent RS support

2.4: Not return to the same road or off-road parking area within two weeks

49 per cent support

· 24 per cent preferred 4 weeks

63 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=61)^{^[6]}	Auckland-wide feedback
3: Schedule 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping would be allowed	· Entrance of Goldie Bush Walkway: 45 support, 6 oppose · Lopdell Hall and House: 43 support, 6 oppose · Sandy’s Parade: 43 support, 8 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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board area · Three people 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
Other areas not in proposal	· 67 people sought prohibition at the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area and surrounds (Piha) · 39 people sought prohibition at Karekare Road Carpark, Karekare · 33 people sought prohibition at Anawhata Road, Anawhata · 16 people sought prohibition at Te Henga Bethells Road, Te Henga · 15 people sought prohibition at French Bay Carpark, Titirangi · 14 people sought prohibition at Bethells Road, Te Henga · between 1 and 10 people sought prohibition at an additional 43 sites in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area^{^[10]}.

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

· the proposed rules are not restrictive enough of freedom camping

· freedom camping causes problems for Auckland and Aucklanders

· many respondents are fundamentally opposed to freedom camping.

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

· provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. The following risks have been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

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

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

24 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Signs Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/00726

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges 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 2A, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C, 7A, 7B, 11B, 14A, 14B and 14C and opposed Proposal 14D. 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)	100 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	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	21 per cent
P3A: Event signs (temporary sales)	0 per cent	0 per cent	54 per cent	34 per cent
P3B: Event signs (election sign sites and not-for-profits)	100 per cent	0 per cent	59 per cent	27 per cent
P3C: Event signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	78 per cent	7 per cent
P4: Free-standing signs	0 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	0 per cent	0 per cent	76 per cent	16 per cent
P7A: Real estate signs (Heavy Industry Zones)	100 per cent	0 per cent	56 per cent	32 per cent
P7B: Real estate signs	100 per cent	0 per cent	62 per cent	24 per cent
P8: Stencil signs	0 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	13 per cent
P9: Vehicle signs	0 per cent	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)	0 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	0 per cent	69 per cent	28 per cent
P13A: Major Recreational Facility Zones	0 per cent	0 per cent	48 per cent	10 per cent
P13B: Open Space Zones	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)	100 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	13 per cent
P14B: General (tops of buildings)	100 per cent	0 per cent	79 per cent	18 per cent
P14C: General (illuminated signs)	100 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	8 per cent
P14D: General (business that cease trading)	0 per cent	100 per cent	58 per cent	37 per cent
P15: Controls and approvals	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^{^[11]}

· 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 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Copy of local feedback from the local board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

24 February 2022

Public feedback on proposal to amend Stormwater Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2022/01118

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4. Auckland Council received responses from 79 people and organisations.^{^[12]} All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Main proposals to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

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

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

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

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

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

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

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

The Bylaw is part of a wider regulatory framework

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

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

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

The council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· updating Bylaw wording, format, and definitions.

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

Diagram, timeline

Description automatically generated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area

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

Table 2. Support of proposal in the local board area

Proposal	Local Board feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Controls on public stormwater network and private stormwater systems.	100 per cent support	60 per cent support
2: Additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals	50 per cent support	47 per cent support
3: Approving modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points	25 per cent support	64 per cent support
4: Restricting or excluding activities for parts of the stormwater network	25 per cent support	48 per cent support
5: Updating the bylaw wording, format, and definitions	75 per cent support	73 per cent support

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Under the agreed principles and processes for local board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest. It is also considered to be of no impact on local governance for local boards.^{^[13]}

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

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

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dean Yee - Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

[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 4, 121, 211, 218, 223, 225, 233, 239, 256, 288, 299, 311, 330, 342, 356, 367, 408, 548, 576, 603, 611, 619, 649, 650, 847, 1003, 1007, 1008, 1015, 1037, 1039, 1108, 1122, 1142, 1171, 1211, 1221, 1226, 1239, 1253, 1254, 1256, 1281, 1284, 1290, 1292, 1298, 1300, 1304, 1312, 1350, 1361, 1372, 1378, 1379, 1388, 1395, 1401, 1425, 1444 and 1458 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 Numbers 223, 367 and 1171 in Attachment B.

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

[10] Refer to pages 114-117 in Attachment A.

[11] 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.

[12] This included 61 individuals and 18 organisations.

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

Chairperson	Saffron Toms
Deputy Chairperson	Greg Presland
Members	Mark Allen
	Michelle Clayton
	Sandra Coney, QSO
	Ken Turner

Author	Jenny Bramley - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager