I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Rodney Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Venue:

Wednesday 20 April 2022

3.00pm

via Microsoft Teams

 

Rodney Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Phelan Pirrie

 

Deputy Chairperson

Beth Houlbrooke

 

Members

Brent Bailey

 

 

Steve Garner

 

 

Danielle Hancock

 

 

Tim Holdgate

 

 

Louise Johnston

 

 

Vicki Kenny

 

 

Colin Smith

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Robyn Joynes

Democracy Advisor

 

13 April 2022

 

Contact Telephone: +64 212447174

Email: robyn.joynes@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

Local Board Member

Organisation

Position

Brent Bailey

Central Shooters Inc
Auckland Shooting Club
Royal NZ Yacht Squadron

President

Member

Member

Steven Garner

Warkworth Tennis and Squash Club
Sandspit Yacht Club
Warkworth Gamefish Club

President

Member

Member

Louise Johnston

Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society

Treasurer

Vicki Kenny

International Working Holidays Ltd
Nannies Abroad Ltd

Director/Owner/CEO

Director/Owner/CEO

Danielle Hancock

Kaukapakapa Residents and Ratepayers Association
Pest Free Kaukapakapa
New Zealand Biosecurity Services Limited

Member

 

Pest Free Coordinator

Operations Manager

Tim Holdgate

Landowners Contractors Protection Association
Agricultural & Pastoral Society - Warkworth

Vice Chairman

Committee member

Beth Houlbrooke

Kawau Boating Club

Springboard Advisory Board

Matakana Coast Trail Trust

Committee Member

Member

Contractor

Phelan Pirrie

Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade

Grow West Ltd

North West Country Incorporated

Officer in Charge

Director

Manager

Colin Smith

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                             5

2          Apologies                                                                                                           5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                   5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                             5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                     5

8.1    Deputation: Helensville Solar Farm proposal                   5

8.2    Deputation: Bowls Warkworth                                            6

8.3    Deputation: Netball Rodney Centre                                    6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                     6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                 6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                           7

12        Notice of Motion - Member C Smith: Rodney Local Board area ring-fenced rate for road sealing                                                  9

13        Rodney local parks classification programme                         17

14        Local board feedback on the draft 2021 Regional Parks Management Plan                                                                         47

15        Sandspit Carpark - options to provide an improved parking service                                                                                           57

16        Grant a new community lease to Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated for land it occupies at Riverhead War Memorial Park                                                                       87

17        Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate                                                             99

18        Local Board views on private plan change 70 for 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa                                   105

19        Auckland Transport - Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw 2022                                                                                              113

20        Submission on central government’s proposals to transform recycling in Aotearoa                                                                 119

21        Transport Emissions Reduction Plan                                      145

22        Rodney Local Board workshop records                                 165

23        Governance forward work calendar                                         171

24        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)           confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting held on Wednesday, 16 March 2022 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 Rodney Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

8.1       Deputation: Helensville Solar Farm proposal

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      Marco Scuderi has requested a deputation to discuss a proposed Solar Farm in Helensville.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Mr Scuderi for his presentation and attendance.

 

 

 

 

8.2       Deputation: Bowls Warkworth

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      Mike Newland from Bowls Warkworth has requested a deputation to provide an update on the relocation of the Warkworth Bowling Club.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Mr Newland from Bowls Warkworth for his update and attendance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.3       Deputation: Netball Rodney Centre

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      Netball Rodney have requested a deputation to update the local board on challenges the Netball Centre is facing regarding its facilities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Karyne Ross and Lynette Gubb from Netball Rodney for their presentation and attendance.

Attachments

a          Netball Rodney presentation.............................. 181

 

 

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 three minutes per speaker 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.”

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 a Notice of Motion has been received from Member C Smith for consideration under item 12.

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Notice of Motion - Member C Smith: Rodney Local Board area ring-fenced rate for road sealing

File No.: CP2022/04360

 

  

 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.      Member C Smith has given notice of a motion that he wishes to propose.

2.      The notice, signed by Member C Smith and Member T Holdgate as seconder, is appended as Attachment A to the agenda report.

3.      Supporting information is appended as Attachment B to the agenda report.

Motion

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note that the earlier intended provision of $121 million over ten years for road improvement in the Regional Land Transport Plan has been reduced to $40 million (with front-loading of $6 million for the first three years)

b)      note that ratepayers in rural areas make up around 50 per cent of Rodney ratepayers and currently pay around 50 per cent of the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate

c)      note that the current $150 Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate has been applied principally to benefit ratepayers in urban areas

d)      note that having an equivalent sum from rates revenue ring-fenced for spending on road sealing principally to benefit rural ratepayers will re-establish fairness across rural/urban community groups within the Rodney Local Board area and add around $4 million annually to the Regional Land Transport Plan allocation

e)      agree that partnership with local iwi in the process of selecting and prioritising rural roads for improvement with the rural transport targeted rate monies would be a positive signal of the Rodney Local Board’s recognition of Te Tiriti in Rodney and that reducing dust, improving drainage and sealing roads in rural Rodney will provide health and climate benefits and positively recognise the manaakitanga approach to kaitiakitanga of the Kaipara ki Mahurangi environment

f)       recommend that the Governing Body recognise:

i)          the rural/urban unfairness in collection and allocation of the current Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate

ii)         the availability of unspent funding from the Regional Fuel Tax

iii)        the poor quality of road service assets in Rodney relative to the other Local Board Areas

iv)        the number and length of unsealed roads in the area

v)         the health, safety and climate benefits of increasing road sealing in the Unsealed Road Improvement Programme

g)      approve an additional allocation of $150 per annum per Rodney Separately Used or Inhabited Part (SUIP) in the Regional Land Transport Plan commencing from the 2022/2023 annual budget, to be used to seal unsealed roads in rural Rodney as part of the Unsealed Road Improvement Programme, with projects and priorities to be determined in partnership between rural communities and iwi.   

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Member C Smith Notice of Motion

11

b

Rodney ring-fenced road seal submission

13

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Diagram, letter

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Rodney local parks classification programme

File No.: CP2022/03869

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To confirm park land to be held under the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on the classification and reclassification of land under the Reserves Act 1977.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Classification of reserves is an essential task in developing a local parks management plan for the Rodney Local Board area so that it complies with the Reserves Act 1977.

3.      As part of the classification programme and development of the local parks management plan, additional classification decisions are needed for some local parks in the Rodney Local Board area to address:

·        parcels excluded from earlier reports to the Rodney Local Board.

·        technical advice confirming that parcels thought to be classified under the Reserves Act 1977 still require a classification resolution from the local board.

·        the park values of parcels which the local board previously resolved to hold under the Local Government Act 2002 have been investigated further and changes to land status are recommended to align with primary values.

·        proposals for classification and reclassification of reserves that were publicly notified and require a final decision following the receipt of no submissions.

4.      Criteria have been used to assess the classification of each parcel, including consideration of the local park’s values, current and likely future uses of the local park, workshop feedback from the local board and engagement with mana whenua.

5.      The status and recommendations for parcels of land included in this report are as follows:

Land status

Recommended actions

Eight parcels held under the LGA

Retain five parcels at Weza Lane and one parcel at Makiri Road - McLeod Street Closed Landfill under the Local Government Act 2022 as identified in Attachment B.

Declare and classify two parcels at Sandspit Reserve - Rodney as recreation reserve under s.14(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 as identified in Attachment C.

Seven unclassified parcels held under the RA

Classification is required for seven parcels under s.16(1) and s.16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 as identified in Attachment D.

Proposals for classification and reclassification of reserves that were publicly notified

On 1 December 2021, the Rodney Local Board resolved to publicly notify the plan to declare and classify 10 parcels and to reclassify 75 parcels (resolution number: RD/2021/366).

A further resolution is required to confirm classification of the 10 parcels and reclassification of 74 parcels following the close of public submissions where no objections were received (see Attachments E and F).

6.      One of the 75 parcels at Glasgow Park previously recommended for reclassification was subsequently found to be unclassified, with an incorrect land area recorded. To enable the land status of this parcel to be correctly processed with Land Information New Zealand a new resolution is required to replace the local board’s December 2021 resolution.

7.      Sandspit Residents and Ratepayers Association have provided feedback about the land status of reserves at Sandspit. They prefer Kanuka Reserve to have a scenic 1b classification to better support community planting efforts and reinforce that the site is too steep for recreation activity. Staff have investigated the land status of this reserve and recommend retaining the existing recreation classification.

8.      Once approved, staff will seek the approval of the Minister of Conservation (delegated to the General Manager Community Facilities, Auckland Council) to publish the changes in the New Zealand Gazette.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      confirm the six parcels of land that will continue to be held under the Local Government Act 2002 as described in Attachment B of the agenda report (dated 20 April 2022)

b)      approve two parcels of land to be declared reserve and classified according to their primary purpose, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, as described in Attachment C of the agenda report (dated 20 April 2022)

c)      approve the classification of seven parcels of reserve land, pursuant to sections 16(1) and 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977, as described in Attachment D of the agenda report (dated 20 April 2022)

d)      approve the classification of 10 parcels of land according to their primary purpose, pursuant to section 14(2) of the Reserves Act 1977, as described in Attachment E of the agenda report (dated 20 April 2022)

e)      approve the reclassification of 74 parcels of reserve land, pursuant to section 24(2)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, as described in Attachment F of the agenda report (dated 20 April 2022)

f)       revoke the resolution regarding the classification of Part Lot 3 DP 150212 (Glasgow Park), being part of resolution e) RD/2021/366.

 

Horopaki

Context

Background information

9.      Rodney Local Board has delegated decision-making responsibility for all local parks in the local board area.

10.    On 21 June 2018, the Rodney Local Board resolved to prepare an omnibus open space management plan (local parks management plan) for all local parks in the Rodney Local Board area (resolution number: RD/2018/83).

11.    The local parks management plan will be a statutory reserve management plan prepared in accordance with section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA). It will include all reserve land held under the RA; park land held under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and replace existing reserve management plans for reserve land.

12.    Between June 2019 and December 2021, staff completed a comprehensive land status investigation for all local parks in Rodney. This was an essential preliminary task in developing the draft local parks management plan as it is a statutory requirement under the RA. Section 16 of the RA requires all land held as reserve under the RA be classified appropriately.

13.    This was reported to the local board in three stages as shown in the timeline.

*One parcel was found to be correctly classified and didn’t require action
**One parcel was found to be unclassified so couldn’t be reclassified

 

14.    The classification recommendations in this report are prompted by:

·        parcels excluded from earlier reports to the Rodney Local Board

·        technical advice that some parks require a different classification to better reflect park values and current and future use

·        further reserves that were identified as unclassified

·        the need to make final decisions on notified classifications and reclassifications.

15.    Considerations associated with the decision to retain land under the LGA or declare and classify reserves under the RA include:

·        current and likely future use

·        continuity with adjoining land parcels

·        benefits and constraints of legislation.

16.    Staff have considered the benefits and disadvantages of the RA or LGA in managing and enabling the use, protection and development of each local park, and developed a set of criteria to guide assessment of each land parcel.

17.    These criteria, incorporating guidance from the Reserves Act 1977 Guide[1], are as follows:

·    consideration of the local park’s values

·    current and likely future use of the local park

·    consultation with subject matter experts

·    workshop feedback from the local board

·    consultation with mana whenua.

18.    Attachment A provides an overview of the different options for land held under the LGA and land held under the RA.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Classification options depend on the legislation under which land is held

19.    The local board has the option to hold parks under the LGA or the RA.

20.    For park land currently held under the LGA the following options have been considered:

•	continue to retain the land under the LGA, or
•	declare land currently held under the LGA to be reserve under section 14 of the RA and classify appropriately.
LGA
OPTIONS
 

 

 

 


21.    •	classify according to the land’s primary purpose, or
•	reclassify to align to the land’s primary purpose, or
•	revoke the reserve status and hold the land under the LGA, or
•	continue to hold the land as unclassified reserve under the RA.
•	
•	
For land held under the RA, the following options have been considered:

 RA
OPTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

22.    The option to continue to hold the land as unclassified reserve under the RA has been discounted as it would mean that the local parks management plan would not comply with the RA or meet the statutory obligation under the Act to classify land before notifying a draft plan.

23.    In the context of this investigation, we have not identified any parcels of local park that warrant revocation of reserve status to pursue management of the local park under the LGA.

24.    In considering whether to proceed with the options for each land parcel, staff have considered the following criteria:

·        Why does the council own the land and how was it acquired?

·        What is the current and likely future purpose of the land?

·        What potential does the land have for protection, enhancement and development?

·        Is there likely to be a need to retain flexibility for future use of the park?

·        What is the status of adjacent parcels of land within the same park?

25.    Informed by the criteria above, the following sections outline classification proposals for land held under the LGA or the RA.

Proposed actions for land currently held under the LGA

Proposal to retain six parcels of land under the LGA

26.    In applying the criteria above, five parcels of land at Weza Lane, Kumeu have been identified as best suited to remain under the LGA (Attachment B). Two of these parcels were originally taken under the Public Works Act 1981 for soil conservation and river control purposes. This proposed action is consistent with this current land use and the land status of nearby parcels, while retaining flexibility as to how the land can be used or managed in the future.

27.    The parcel of land off Makiri Road, Helensville is a closed landfill. The proposed action to hold this parcel under the LGA is consistent with land status of other parcels at the Makiri Road site and retains flexibility as to how the land can be used or managed in the future.

28.    No further action is required by the local board for land that is to remain under the LGA.

Proposal to declare and classify two parcels of land held under the LGA

29.    Staff recommend that two parcels of land at Sandspit Reserve near Warkworth, currently held under the LGA, should be declared as reserve and classified for recreation purposes under section 14(1) of the RA to align with their primary purpose (Attachment C).

30.    These parcels do not require public notification because they are zoned open space in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The proposed action to classify them as recreation reserve aligns with their existing land use. Sandspit Residents and Ratepayers Association has confirmed that the local community regards these parcels as reserve land.

Proposed actions for land currently held under the RA

Classification of seven parcels of land currently held under the RA

31.    Classification involves determining the reserve’s primary purpose or values, then assigning a classification to the reserve (or part of a reserve), as defined in sections 17 to 23 of the RA. Consideration is also given to potential future values, activities and uses.

32.    Staff have identified seven parcels of unclassified reserve land that require classification under section 16(1) and 16(2A) of the RA (see Attachment D).

33.    Five of the seven classification decisions are for parcels located at Glasgow Park and are required to correct a previous incorrect decision (as detailed in paragraphs 38 to 42). These proposals do not require public notification under the RA because they are zoned open space in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Confirming classification and reclassification of land held under the RA following public notification

34.    At its business meeting on 1 December 2021 (resolution number: RD/2021/366), the Rodney Local Board approved public notification of its intention to classify 10 parcels of land according to their primary purpose, pursuant to section 14(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 as described in Attachment E and to reclassify 75 parcels of reserve land pursuant to section 24(2)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, as described in Attachment F.

35.    These were publicly notified on 23 December 2021 in the North Harbour News, Nor-West News and Rodney Times in accordance with the requirements outlined in section 119(1)(b) of the RA. The submission period closed on 10 February 2022 and no objections were received.

36.    The local board may choose to approve the proposed classification and reclassification actions as they were publicly notified or to change those proposals. As there have been no objections, staff recommend that the local board approves classifying and reclassifying the parcels as described in Attachments E and F.

37.    As outlined in paragraphs 38 to 42, one of the 75 parcels at Glasgow Park previously recommended for reclassification was subsequently found to be unclassified, with an incorrect land area recorded. Attachment E now includes 74 rather than 75 reclassifications and Attachment D picks up the necessary classifications for parcels at Glasgow Park.

Correcting previous classification decision at Glasgow Park

38.    Part Lot 3 DP 150212 at Glasgow Park was previously recommended for reclassification in December 2021 but has been subsequently found to be unclassified, with an incorrect land area recorded (see area 1 in Attachment G).

39.    To correctly classify this parcel, the local board needs to revoke part of an earlier resolution to classify Part Lot 3 DP 150212 as local purpose (community use) under resolution e) RD/2021/366 and pass a new resolution.

40.    Following further investigation into the history of the site, staff found that five Glasgow Park parcels had been previously surveyed (see area 2 in Attachment G). These new parcels had then been classified as recreation and local purpose (kindergarten) reserves by Rodney District Council in 2003. However, none of these resolutions had been subsequently processed with Land Information New Zealand, so the land remained unclassified, with no property titles created.

41.    The recommendation in this report is to classify part of Lot 3 DP 150212 (or Section 3 SO Plan 315586) as recreation reserve and to classify part of Lot 3 DP 150212 (or Section 4 SO Plan 315586) as local purpose (community use) reserve. These parcels reflect previously surveyed areas (refer to Area 3 in Attachment G) and current and anticipated future use of the reserve. 

42.    Staff have considered whether to retain the local purpose (kindergarten) classification from 2003 (refer to area 2). An alternative local purpose category of community use is recommended to provide the most flexibility for future use, and also allow for current use (see area 3).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43.    The classification decisions in this report are largely administrative and are unlikely to cause any direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

44.    However, the future management and development of park land, which is determined by its purpose, could have a potential positive or negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The degree and nature of the impact is dependent on the specific management and development of each park. Two examples of potential impacts are:

·        a potential offsetting of emissions by classifying land as scenic reserve. The purpose of a scenic reserve is largely to protect and restore the natural environment; ecological restoration of a site could result in an increase in carbon sequestration.

·        a potential increase in emissions through increased traffic, following the development of a community facility; the development of facilities could be enabled through the classification of local purpose (community use) or recreation reserves.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45.    The land classification proposals have been discussed widely with staff from various council units including Parks, Sport, and Recreation, Infrastructure and Environmental Services (biodiversity specialists) and Community Facilities (Leasing and Land Advisory). All are supportive of the recommendations.

46.    Staff contributed to the review of land status at Kanuka Reserve (Sandspit) as detailed in paragraphs 48 to 53.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Reviewing land status of Kanuka Reserve in response to community feedback

47.    The local board resolved to classify Kanuka Reserve (Lot 1 DP 40473) as recreation reserve in December 2021 (resolution number: RD/2021/366). However, the Sandspit Residents and Ratepayers Association have provided feedback that a scenic 1b classification would better support community planting efforts at Kanuka Reserve (Sandspit) and reinforce that the site is too steep for recreation activity.

48.    Staff have investigated the land status of this reserve and do not recommend reclassifying the whole reserve as the environmental values of the reserve can be supported by maintaining the existing recreation classification.

49.    Staff from the council’s Community Facilities department do not support classifying the entire reserve as scenic because this would make it more difficult to address encroachments in the reserve in the future.

50.    Under section 19 of the RA, open portions of scenic reserves must support the primary purpose of the reserve and enable public access. Under section 55 of the RA, driveways in scenic reserves must also support this intended purpose. A scenic classification for this site would make establishing easements for encroachments more difficult in the future.

51.    Staff from the council’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services department confirm that while the reserve falls within a Biodiversity Focus Area[2] (with forest remnants), they do not support scenic classification for the whole reserve unless there are plans to plant the entire area.

52.    While the community may establish plans for further planting in the future, it would be pragmatic to address encroachments in the open space portion of the reserve first.

53.    An alternative option of surveying the scenic area has been considered but is not supported by mana whenua (refer to paragraphs 59 and 60 for a summary of this feedback). Community Facilities department staff also note the cost impact of surveying.

54.    To further ensure the special scenic qualities of this reserve can be protected and enhanced, it is recommended that the draft local parks management plan captures the steep nature of the site as a management issue and that a management intention is developed to support community planting efforts at the reserve. A management focus area can also be created for to spatially identify the area being restored in the reserve.

Local board views

55.    A workshop was held with the local board on 15 February 2022 to discuss land status investigations underway for the Sandspit reserves. The local board provided feedback that there is a need to protect open space values and support community planting initiatives in the Sandspit area. The proposed recommendations align with this feedback.

56.    On 24 March 2022, a workshop was held with local board members to invite further feedback on the classification recommendations including the ones relating to parks in the Kumeū, Waimauku and Helensville areas. At this workshop local board members expressed support for the classification recommendations proposed in this report and a preference to retain the existing recreation classification at Kanuka Reserve.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

57.    On 10 March 2022, a hui with mana whenua was held to discuss the proposed Rodney local park land classification programme.

58.    All mana whenua with an interest in Rodney were invited to the hui including Ngā Maunga Whakahii O Kaipara Development Trust, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Uri o Hau, Te Patukirikiri, Ngātiwai, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoā Trust Board, Ngāti Paoā Iwi Trust, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaterā.

59.    Representatives from Ngaati Whanaunga and Ngāti Paoā Trust Board attended the hui and expressed support for the classification proposals. Staff discussed with mana whenua the review of land status at Kanuka Reserve that was underway (refer to paragraphs 47 to 54).

60.    Mana whenua are supportive of protecting and enhancing the special features of parks through classification; however, they do not support surveying off the parcel at Kanuka Reserve into a smaller property title, preferring to retain the existing configuration.

61.    In response to both Sandspit Residents and Ratepayers Association and mana whenua feedback, paragraph 54 explains how the special features of Kanuka Reserve can be further protected and enhanced via management intentions in the draft local parks management plan.

62.    On 21 March, a follow-up email was sent to mana whenua who were unable to attend the hui, providing the full list of parcels proposed for decision and inviting further feedback on any of the proposals. Should any further feedback be received, staff will bring this to the local board’s business meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

63.    This report has no financial implications for the local board. The costs for surveying, public notices and gazette notices for the classifications will be covered through existing departmental budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

64.    The following table outlines relevant risks and mitigations associated with the proposed actions for land held under the LGA and RA contained in this report.

Risk

Risk level

Mitigation

IF land is held under the LGA

THEN there may be a perception that the land is at risk of sale or disposal

 

 

Low

There are restrictions on disposal of parks under section 138 of the LGA and the requirement to undertake consultation, including prior to granting leases for more than six months.

IF land is classified under the RA

THEN this constrains what the land can be used for

 

 

Low

Each individual parcel proposed to be held under the RA has been assessed based on the criteria in paragraph 26 and the Reserves Act Guide (refer to footnote 1). Recommendations reflect current and likely future use of each individual parcel and do not cause/infer additional restrictions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65.    If the recommended classification actions are approved, the next steps are to:

·    arrange surveying and gazette notices for approved classifications. Approval of gazette notices has been delegated from the Minister of Conservation to the General Manager Community Facilities

·    reflect updates to the classifications in the draft Rodney Local Parks Management Plan

·    ensure all classifications are correctly recorded on Auckland Council’s databases.

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Possible actions LGA 2002 versus RA 1977

27

b

Parcels to retain under Local Government Act 2002

29

c

Parcels to declare and classify without public notification

31

d

Parcels to classify without public notification

33

e

Parcels to declare and classify following public notification

35

f

Parcels to reclassify following public notification

37

g

Glasgow Park classification recommendations

45

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kiri Le Heron - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Authorisers

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

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Diagram

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

A picture containing graphical user interface

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Chart

Description automatically generated

Diagram, schematic

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Table

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

A picture containing table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Diagram, schematic

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with low confidence


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Local board feedback on the draft 2021 Regional Parks Management Plan

File No.: CP2022/03920

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To enable local boards to provide formal written feedback to the draft Regional Parks Management Plan hearings panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee approved the draft Regional Parks Management Plan for public consultation on 2 December 2021. Through the 12-week public consultation period from 10 December 2021 to 4 March 2022 4684 submissions were received from individuals, organisations and mana whenua.

3.      A summary of the submissions received is in Attachment A to the agenda report and submitters identified by local board area are in Attachment D to the agenda report. Local boards can use Attachment D to find local board specific submissions on the review’s hearings page[3].

4.      The draft Regional Parks Management Plan provides a policy framework to manage the use, protection and development of 28 regional parks. Mutukaroa / Hamlins Hill Regional Park, a portion of the Hūnua Ranges Regional Park called the Hūnua Falls Special Management Zone and the Botanic Gardens have been excluded from the draft plan.

5.      The draft Regional Parks Management Plan presents the vision, values, management framework, general policies, and specific information and management intentions for each park. It provides a management response to key areas of focus, including:

·   increased involvement of mana whenua in accordance with te Tiriti partnership principle

·   adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change on regional parks

·   focus on biodiversity protection

·   adding value to visitor experiences

·   acknowledging that collaboration with others is increasingly important to achieve the aspirations of this draft plan.

6.      In preparing the draft Regional Parks Management Plan, staff considered the suggestions and input from mana whenua, local boards, community and organisations as required under the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002 and reviewed legislative requirements and current council policy.

7.      Of the 4684 written submissions received within the submission period, more than 3830 submissions were generated from a campaign website (www.handsoff.nz) through which 3646 people sent an identical submission. Commentators on mainstream and social media claimed the draft Regional Parks Management Plan hid an intention to transfer control of regional parks without proper consultation to either the Hauraki Gulf Forum or to iwi authorities. This raised concern for many people and prompted them to submit via the campaign website.

8.      The proposal in the draft Regional Parks Management Plan to investigate joining relevant parks to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park does not lead to transfer of control to the Hauraki Gulf Forum, even under the legislative changes being proposed by the Forum. No transfer of control away from the council is proposed in the draft Regional Parks Management plan.

9.      Some other groupings of identical submission points were submitted by motor campervan users, the Waitākere community and the Pakiri community.

10.    Across all submissions a large variety of comments were received, between them commenting on all chapters of the draft Regional Parks Management Plan, with varying levels of support and criticism.

11.    The draft Regional Parks Management Plan foreshadows future inclusion of local park reserves at Ngaroto lakes (Slipper, Spectacle, and Tomorata) into Te Arai Regional Park as they are adjacent to the recently added southern portion of this regional park. This is subject to transfer decisions from Rodney Local Board and the Parks, Arts and Community Events Committee.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      resolve formal feedback on the draft 2021 Regional Park Management Plan to provide to the hearings panel

b)      nominate a local board member/s to speak to the hearings panel on the comments in resolution a) on 9 May 2022

OR:

c)      resolve not to speak to the hearings panel.

Horopaki

Context

12.    The Parks, Arts and Community Events (PACE) Committee has decision-making responsibility over the regional parks as identified in Schedule 1 to the Allocation of Decision-Making Responsibility Table in the Long-term Plan.

13.    Under the Reserves Act 1977 and Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, the 2010 Regional Parks Management Plan was due for review.

14.    In August 2020 the PACE committee notified an intention to prepare a new plan (PAC/2020/36). The council sought suggestions from the community (in September and October 2020) as required under the Reserves Act 1977. A summary of the suggestions was provided to elected members including local board members in December 2020.

15.    Following the agreed principles for local board involvement in regional policies, all local boards were invited to input their suggestions for the review (January-March 2021). Local boards are invited now to review submissions on the draft Regional Parks Management Plan (draft plan) and provide feedback to the hearings panel. Interested local boards held workshops earlier in April 2022 prior to this business meeting.

16.    Engagement with 16 mana whenua and the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum occurred throughout the preparation of the draft plan, to meet Reserves Act 1977 requirements to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to align to the council’s commitments to improving Māori outcomes.

17.    The draft plan is intended to serve as the reserve management plan for the regional parkland that is held under the Reserves Act 1977 (noting the exclusions outlined in paragraph 22).

18.    Under section 41(3) of the Reserves Act 1977, the plan must adequately incorporate and ensure the use and management of the reserve is aligned to the purposes for which it is classified and ensure compliance with the principles set out under the relevant classification in the Reserves Act 1977.

19.    It also fulfils the requirement for a management plan for the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park under section19 of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. The council must give effect to the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 and its objectives when preparing the plan for the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

20.    Regional parkland that is not held under the Reserves Act 1977 is held under the Local Government Act 2002, for which this is a discretionary plan.

21.    The Regulatory Committee appointed hearings panel members at its meeting on 14 December 2021. The hearings panel members are: Councillor Linda Cooper (chair), Councillor Christine Fletcher, Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox, Independent David Hill, Independent James Whetu.

22.    Once finalised the draft plan will replace the 2010 plan. The timeline and process from here is provided later in this report. The intention is to finalise the plan for adoption in this political term.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The draft plan covers 28 regional parks with some exclusions

23.    The draft plan provides a policy framework to manage the use, protection and development of 28 regional parks. The PACE Committee resolved to exclude the Auckland Botanic Gardens (Resolution number PAC/2020/36) and the Mutukaroa / Hamlins Hill Regional Park and Hūnua Falls area of the Hūnua Ranges Regional Park (Resolution number PAC/2021/69) from this omnibus plan for these reasons.

·   The Botanic Gardens is a different type of regional park and will have its own management plan.

·   A management trust established to govern the Crown-owned portion of Mutukaroa / Hamlins Hill is not currently active, and is subject to Treaty settlements, so it was not possible to develop a plan chapter at this point.

·   A significant part of the Hūnua Falls area is subject to completed and pending Treaty settlements which transfer land from the Crown to iwi but retain the council as the administering body. The council must jointly prepare part of this land with its iwi owner, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. A larger part of Crown-owned land in the same vicinity is subject to similar Treaty settlement legislation with four future iwi owners (Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Paoa, Ngaati Whanaunga and Ngāi Koheriki) once all four settlements are completed. These areas and the arrival area to the falls have been excluded from the draft plan.

Consideration of suggestions

24.    Local boards provided 245 suggestion points, which were considered in drafting the plan (see Attachments B and C to the agenda report).

25.    From the first round of public consultation during September and October 2020, 789 submitters including 53 organisations and a petition from 3681 petitioners provided suggestions and comments to be considered in the council’s review.

26.    Full consideration was given to the thousands of individual suggestion points in preparing the draft plan. Particular interest came from submissions relating to track closures in the Waitākere Ranges, dogs, conflicts between vehicle users and others on Muriwai beach, requests for more recreational activities, and a petition seeking the end to the killing of farmed animals for animal rights reasons.

Outline

27.    The draft plan structure is as follows.

·   Book One: context, vision, values, a management framework and general policies.

·   Book Two: a chapter for each of 28 regional parks, including park vision and description, mana whenua associations, recreational provision, challenges and opportunities, management intentions and key stakeholders.

·   Maps to illustrate the parks.

·   Appendices: Most of the appendices provide supporting factual information. Appendix 4 presents track development principles and criteria for development of new tracks.

28.    The full draft plan runs to 508 pages with 60 maps. Due to its size, it is not appended to this report. The draft plan may be downloaded in full or in part at https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/regional-parks-management-plan 

Key points

29.    Through this draft plan the regional parks will remain under Auckland Council control as the treasured taonga of Tāmaki Makaurau. Concerns were raised by commentators in mainstream and social media during the consultation period in January-February 2022 suggesting the draft plan proposed to transfer some regional parks to the Hauraki Gulf Forum. These concerns are misplaced. The proposal in the draft plan to investigate joining relevant parks to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park does not lead to transfer of control to the Hauraki Gulf Forum, even under the legislative changes being proposed by the Forum. No transfer of control away from the council is proposed in the draft plan.

30.    The plan safeguards the natural, undeveloped feel of the regional parks that people have consistently told us they value and enjoy. Aucklanders will retain free access to opportunities to explore and enjoy our unique and stunning coastline, forests and farmland.

31.    However, the draft plan notes that the context of park management is changing. Mana whenua have expressed that they want to be involved in park management at all levels. The need to protect biodiversity is more important than ever in the face of climate change and population growth pressures. We need to reorient our activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on parks as in other aspects of council’s business. At the same time Aucklanders want to enjoy these special places in ever greater numbers, and the council faces increasing pressures to do more with limited resources.

Proposals in the draft plan

32.    The draft plan responds to the changing context by:

·   seeking to follow the partnership principle under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, setting a course to work with mana whenua at management, project and operational levels

·   mitigating and preparing for climate change by:

o keeping 35,000ha of forest healthy

o aiming to reduce visitor vehicle emissions

o revegetating 200ha of retired farmland

o referencing council’s shoreline adaptation plans and council’s biodiversity work to face increased drought, fire risk, and hotter temperatures

o providing more shade and shelter for visitors and animals

·   seeking to protect the unique precious biodiversity in our regional parks by:

o following the direction set by our scientists on regional priorities

o implementing pest control programmes

o continuing to protect kauri from kauri dieback disease

o supporting the significant contributions made by conservation volunteers

·   continuing to recognise and protect the cultural heritage on regional parks, which is of significant value to mana whenua and to Aucklanders

·   responding to recreation requests by prioritising:

o track network planning in the Waitākere Ranges to identify next steps beyond the existing track reopening programme

o recreation planning to unlock the potential opportunities in the Hūnua Ranges

o planning for expected rapid growth in visitor numbers at Te Ārai

o providing for other opportunities across the regional parks network

·   responding to the growing population and increasing diversity of Aucklanders by:

o seeking to cater for different cultural needs where we can safely do so

o aiming to provide more information about heritage and nature to build understanding and a sense of identity and connection

o continuing education programmes and supporting others to deliver also

·   overcoming budget limitations by seeking to collaborate with others to deliver the outcomes of this plan, including reviewing the commercial activities framework.

33.    The draft plan aligns to, and references, current council policies, strategies and programmes, noting management of regional parks touches on many areas of council policy and activity.

Public consultation on the draft plan

34.    As required by section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977 (for land held under that Act), the draft plan was open for public consultation from 10 December 2021 to 4 March 2022. The Reserves Act 1977 provides for written comments from submitters followed by hearings.

35.    Given the high level of interest in this draft plan, the consultation period was publicised widely through council channels, emails to mana whenua, previous submitters and a wide list of regional park stakeholders, via social media, on regional parks and through leisure centres. Hard copies were available in a number of libraries and in the Arataki Visitor Centre and a public online briefing was held.

36.    The consultation also followed the special consultative procedure under section83 of the Local Government Act 2002, noting that a summary was not required under section87(2)(a). The requirement to adopt the special consultative procedure stems from the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 and applies to the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

Submissions received

37.    Some 4684 written submissions (excluding duplicates) were received within the submission period including from mana whenua, individuals, and 82 organisations. Of those more than 3830 submissions were generated from a campaign website of which 3646 were identical.

38.    The table shows the number of submissions and identical campaign submissions received by local board area (where this information was provided). Attachment D lists submitters (other than the identical form submitters) who provided their local board area or postal code. The full list including campaign form submitter names is published on the hearings page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Number of submissions by local board area[4]

Local board area

Number of 'unique' submissions

Number of repeat campaign submissions

Albert-Eden

56

99

Aotea / Great Barrier

2

0

Devonport-Takapuna

40

130

Franklin

40

208

Henderson-Massey

21

31

Hibiscus and Bays

112

350

Howick

23

184

Kaipātiki

19

100

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

7

10

Manurewa

2

45

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

19

117

Ōrākei

41

271

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

1

10

Papakura

7

43

Puketāpapa

10

31

Rodney

172

241

Upper Harbour

20

117

Waiheke

19

72

Waitākere Ranges

166

114

Waitematā

25

106

Whau

18

37

Outside Auckland

73

1313

Location not provided

112

17

Regional / national organisations

33

0

Totals

1038

3646

Grand total

4684

 

39.    Thousands of comments (supportive and critical) were received, covering many parts of the draft plan. The summary of submissions presents an overview of:

·   responses to the feedback form questions

·   emailed comments on the general sections of the draft plan

·   all comments relating to each regional park chapter.

40.    Four groupings of submitters presented the same or similar comments. These were in respect to:

·   seeking continued council control of regional parks (the campaign submission)

·   opposition to aspects of the draft plan in respect to Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, including:

o seeking access to closed tracks and seeking to not be excluded from the central part of the forest long-term

o seeking changes to reinstate aspects of the 2010 management plan for the park including the 2010 vision

o opposition to any proposals that might facilitate increased numbers of visitors and change the wilderness aspect of the park.

·   more opportunities for overnight stays for self-contained certified campervans from campervan users

·   local community views on Pakiri Regional Park.

41.    All submissions are publicly viewable on the council’s hearings page at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/hearings/find-hearing/Pages/Hearing-documents.aspx?HearingId=526.

Foreshadowed inclusion of Ngaroto lakes (local parkland) at Te Ārai

42.    The Te Ārai south regional parkland was vested in the council on 9 November 2021. This parkland is included in the draft plan as the vesting had been anticipated to occur before the draft plan was finalised.

43.    The Te Ārai park chapter also includes mention of several local reserves at Ngaroto Lakes (Slipper, Spectacle, and Tomorata). The chapter acknowledges the reserves are currently under the control of Rodney Local Board. The chapter foreshadows the potential transfer of these reserves into the Te Ārai Regional Park as they relate to the new southern portion of the park and foreshadows some management intentions for them should the transfer occur.

44.    If the reserves are transferred into the regional park before the plan is adopted, proposals for their management will have been consulted on, removing the need for a separate consultation and variation. If the transfer does not go ahead, community comments on the lakes will be useful for Rodney Local Board to consider for the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan (which is in development).

45.    A separate report on the proposed transfer is presented to the Rodney Local Board’s 20 April 2022 business meeting alongside this report. If approved by Rodney Local Board, a report will be prepared for the PACE Committee to consider the transfer.

46.    As the proposed transfer was transparent in the draft plan, the community had an opportunity to comment. One submitter commented on the possibility of transfer. This submitter (published as E001 Michael and Lynette Harris) stated they had gifted land adjacent to Slipper Lake to Rodney District Council, supported its transfer into the regional park and asked that it be quickly progressed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47.    The draft plan aims to embed the mitigation and adaptation policies from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. The proposed adaptation and mitigation policies are outlined in paragraph 30. The expected impact of the mitigation policies will be to gradually reduce emissions associated with farming and visitor vehicles over time, and to retain and increase the carbon stored in permanent indigenous forest.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48.    Advice from staff across the council group helped to draft this plan including from:

·   Parks, Sport and Recreation in particular regional parks and visitor experience

·   Community Facilities in particular land advisory, farming and sustainability

·   Infrastructure and Environmental Services including coastal, biosecurity, natural environment teams

·   Auckland Plan Strategy and Research including the chief sustainability office, strategic advice, natural environment strategy and Hauraki Gulf

·   Ngā Matarae / Māori Outcomes

·   Plans and Places in particular heritage

·   Community and Social Policy.

49.    Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited (Screen Auckland in particular) and Watercare were engaged over aspects of the draft plan relevant to their roles.

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

Local impacts and local board views

50.    A summary of all the submissions received from the community and organisations is in Attachment A.

51.    Attachment B provides the collated local board suggestions for the review from March 2021. Attachment C presents the common themes from local boards’ input and the draft plan response.

52.    A list of submitters by local board area (where known) is in Attachment D.

53.    This report is presented to enable local boards to include comments on the draft plan for the hearing panel, following workshops earlier this month of April 2022. The hearings panel has set aside Monday 9 May to listen to local board representatives.

54.    Local boards will be provided with updates on the hearings panel report and PACE committee decisions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55.    The Reserves Act 1977 is one of the acts in the First Schedule to the Conservation Act 1987. In performing functions and duties under the Reserves Act 1977, the council must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

56.    Treaty obligations are overarching and not something to be considered or applied after all other matters are considered.

57.    The draft plan acknowledges council’s obligation to iwi in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi in regional parks management planning. In developing the draft plan council aimed to honour these obligations.

58.    The draft plan’s intentions to involve mana whenua in park management and acknowledgement of mana whenua associations with regional parkland, impact positively on mana whenua and council’s commitments to improve Māori outcomes (in particular Kia ora Tāmaki and Kia ora Te Taiao, which relates to the role of Māori as kaitiaki).

59.    Sixteen of the 19 mana whenua in the region and the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum, formerly the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, engaged during the drafting of the plan.

60.    Mana whenua aspire to a more substantive role including co-governance and co-management. The role of mana whenua with respect to regional parks and how the draft plan portrays mana whenua and partnerships was the most highlighted point across all mana whenua engagement. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum sought clarity on how the council views its partnership role, in particular seeking co-governance for mana whenua of the regional parks. It also sought recognition of case law that confirmed mana whenua priority for business opportunities on Reserves Act land.

61.    In chapter one the draft plan identifies that governance of the regional parks rests with the council’s governing body. While it does not provide for co-governance of the regional parks, the draft plan acknowledges that this is part of a broader discussion.

62.    The policy chapter titled Mana Whenua Partnerships provides for potential co-management acknowledging paragraph 60) but does not specify how this should occur, as there are a variety of emerging models of co-management. Given the number of iwi involved and the variety of associations with different regional parks it would not be appropriate to specify models in this plan. This chapter includes policies aligning to council’s commitment to improve Māori outcomes and to address mana whenua aspirations as outlined in the Issues of Significance 2021-2025, including:

·   setting an enabling framework to build partnerships at all levels

·   enabling an expanded mana whenua role beyond cultural heritage; the draft plan reflects mana whenua interest in all areas of park management

·   supporting a Māori identity on parks and Māori wellbeing including through park naming (the draft plan reflects the decisions made by this committee on 11 November inviting mana whenua to provide Māori names for six parks (PAC/2021/61).

63.    The first management intention in each park chapter is to work with mana whenua to explore their priorities and involvement in delivering the intentions for that park.

64.    Several mana whenua and the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum submitted on the draft plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

65.    There are no cost implications arising from local board feedback.

66.    Costs relating to the review are covered from the project budget. Hearings’ commissioner costs are met from existing operational budgets.

67.    This draft plan sets aspirations for the care, management and use of regional parks. The policies and management intentions are not costed nor prioritised and in many cases they are aspirational. The draft plan provides for the regional community to partner in support of council to deliver the outcomes in the plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

68.    The following table outlines relevant risks and mitigations.

Risk

Mitigation

The draft plan sets out ambitions that exceed the current budget. There is a risk that it will raise expectations beyond current resource capacity in the Long-term Plan.

The draft plan explicitly identifies the intentions are not fully funded and explains funding decisions are through the LTP and annual budgets.

It opens the door to collaboration with and resourcing by others and notes plan delivery will involve setting priorities across its wider portfolio and is impacted by changes to budget and revenue, such as impacts from Covid-19.

Many suggestions and submissions relate to issues that are beyond the scope of the plan and are not addressed, raising the risk that people think the council is not responsive.

Continue to communicate that the plan covers matters relating to the management of the regional parks covered by the plan, setting the scene for management for the next decade.

If the correct processes under the Reserves Act 1977 and other legislation are not followed, the review process could be open to challenge.

·    Confirm the legal status of regional park land holdings and check the statutory and other obligations over each land parcel to ensure compliance.

·    Ensure legal requirements regarding consultation processes are correctly followed.

The large number of submissions received through the ‘campaign’ website is evidence that many were unnecessarily concerned there was a plan to move the regional parks from council control.

The Our Auckland article titled ‘No plan to change ownership or management of Auckland’s regional parks’ released on 11 February 2022 provided reassurance that council was not planning to relinquish control of the regional parks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

70.    The next steps will be:

·   local board feedback provided through the minutes to this report will be sent to the hearings panel

·   the hearings panel will hear from representatives of local boards on 9 May 2022

·   hearings with submitters are booked for the week of 16 May 2022

·   deliberations are booked for the week of 23 May 2022.

·   providing the hearings panel completes its report with recommendations for changes by 30 June 2022, the panel’s recommendations will be reported to the PACE committee on 11 August 2022.

71.    The review’s target is to present to the PACE committee a final amended regional parks management plan for adoption at its meeting on 22 September 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Summary of submissions to the draft plan (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Local board input into preparation of the draft plan (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Summary of responses to local board input (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Submitters by local board area (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jo Mackay - Project Manager

Authorisers

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

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Sandspit Carpark - options to provide an improved parking service

File No.: CP2022/04403

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To seek approval from the Rodney Local Board to undertake a procurement process to identify a specialist paid parking provider to provide parking services under a Reserves Act 1977 licence at Sandspit Carpark, a recreation reserve located at 1429 Sandspit Road, Laly Haddon Place, Sandspit. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The operational management and maintenance of the Sandspit Carpark (the site) was transferred from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council on 1 October 2020 and is listed on the Community Facilities maintenance schedule.

3.      Auckland Transport ordinarily undertake the role of managing off street parking under delegation, on behalf of the council. Community Facilities has limited capacity to undertake such a role including the provision of the necessary infrastructure, charging and enforcement regimes that will be required. Parking charges at the site were discontinued on 1 October 2020 as a consequence of the transfer.

4.      With the carpark becoming free of charge, the site has been over-used and improper parking behaviour has occurred.

5.      Residents have raised concerns that there is no existing parking management at the facility which results in issues around traffic flow and safety. Long-term parking for Kawau Islanders has been challenging, and the business on the wharf has been significantly impacted. In addition, there have been reports of freedom camping, thefts, and vandalism occurring at the site.

6.      An internal review of the parking facility has been carried out by staff to identify opportunities to reintroduce a managed parking system and improve outcomes. The review identified the opportunity to investigate a parking management solution through a specialist service provider, that would have the capability and experience to implement and manage a paid-parking system at the site.

7.      The Reserves Act 1977 provides for the grant of a licence (or lease) under section 54(1)(a) for a third party to undertake parking management on part or parts of the Sandspit recreation reserve in any area set apart under section 53(1)(h) for a parking place and for the setting of reasonable parking charges.

8.      This report follows discussion with the Rodney Local Board on 9 March 2022.

9.      Staff have identified two options:

Option one:  Status Quo

Maintain status quo and accept the ongoing impacts of parking congestion, low compliance, unsavoury behaviour, and inefficient use of the available parking.

 

Option two:  Reintroduce a managed parking system at Sandspit Carpark

Undertake a procurement process to identify a suitable service provider to manage the car park, including charging and enforcement. The purpose of the parking regime would be to better manage the fair use of the reserve and increase parking turnover and compliance, as well as provide options for longer term concession agreements for residents and ratepayers of Kawau Island.

 

Once a suitable provider is identified, they would then need to be approved by the local board, in accordance with the statutory requirements, to set aside parts of the reserve for parking and set reasonable charges under section 53(1)(h)(ii) and grant a licence under section 54(1)(a) of the Reserves Act 1977.

10.    Staff recommend option two: Reintroduce a managed parking system.

 

This option would:

a)    enable staff to undertake a procurement process to identify alternative service models and commercial offerings that will achieve optimised outcomes for our customers and ensure the statutory considerations for managing parking on the reserve are integral in this process.

b)    assess how to best manage parking pressures over the next 10 years, as the region grows.

 

11.    A decision is now needed from the local board to enable staff to undertake a procurement process and identify a preferred outcome to improve parking services at the site. A procurement process and any subsequent proposed licence agreement under section 54(1)(a) of the Reserves Act 1977 will ensure that reasonable charges for parking will be set by council. 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      request staff to undertake a procurement process to identify a specialist parking provider to provide parking services, under a Reserves Act 1977 licence, at Sandspit Carpark described as Allotment 340 Parish of Mahurangi, Survey Office Plan 43479, located at 1429 Sandspit Road, Laly Haddon Place, Sandspit.

Horopaki

Context

Existing Sandspit Carpark

12.    The Sandspit Carpark facility is situated on a peninsula in a unique position. It contains approximately 320 parking spaces, divided into 10 distinct bays, and has historically provided parking to over 150 leases, mobility, and casual parking customers.  In addition, this facility services a considerable demand for boat on trailer parking, both lease and casual.

13.    Auckland Transport (AT) operated the public carpark at Sandspit until it relinquished control to Auckland Council in October 2020.  AT operated the site as a paying carpark and entered into Concession Carpark Licence Agreements (CCPLA) with residents.

14.    Sandspit wharf is the main entry point for travel to Kawau Bay and Kawau Island and provides access to the wider Hauraki Gulf. Public transport is not available at Sandspit wharf, however commercial operators provide transport and access for residents and visitors to the area. 

15.    Kawau Island does not have any road access, and visitors and residents rely on the public carpark when using sea transport services. Kawau Cruises run a ferry service from the wharf between four and five times a day from 8.00am to 6.30pm, and Hauraki Express operate a regular water taxi service. 

 

Land Status

16.    The council land, Allotment 340 Parish of Mahurangi, SO plan 43479 is located on 1429 Sandspit Road, Laly Haddon Place, Sandspit and is held as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (Attachment A to the agenda report – Sandspit Cadastral Map).

Decision-Making Authority

17.    The Rodney Local Board:

a)    is the allocated decision maker for administering body decisions for the reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

b)    has allocated decision-making authority on the use of, and activities within, the Sandspit Recreation Reserve. 

18.    The council may enter into a Reserves Act 1977 licence agreement with a third party to manage carparking onsite including charging and enforcement. Such an arrangement under the Reserves Act 1977 would require the local board, in its capacity as administering body, to resolve to:

·    set aside the area for parking under section 53(1)(h)(ii) and,

·    subject to statutory process and successful approval, to grant a licence for this purpose to the provider under section 54(1)(a).

Sandspit Recreation Reserve Management Plan

19.    The recommended approach is consistent and contemplated by the operative Sandspit Recreation Reserve Management Plan 1997 (RMP) for the Sandspit carpark. The reserve area is described in the RMP as being the main service area for ferry commuters and the ferry service, comprising a large carpark (approximately 320 carparks).

20.    The RMP contains a specific objective to maintain and promote Sandspit as a major centre for boating and tourist activities in the area, with an accompanying policy that states: Continue the policy of charging a fee for parking (Attachment B to the agenda report).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Internal Review

21.    An internal review of the parking facility has been carried out by staff to identify opportunities, address residents’ concerns, and provide best outcomes.

22.    With the carpark becoming free of charge since October 2020, the site is no longer achieving the best use of the space by maximising the turnover of car parking and occupancy rates.

23.    The situation has generated complaints from residents. The key issues identified in these complaints are as follows:

·      summer months can become congested, and parking is difficult to find

·      the lack of parking is encouraging inconsiderate parking behaviour with an overflow of vehicles and boat trailers parking on the roadsides, especially on Brick Bay Drive

·      car parks are essential for people travelling to and from Kawau Island and other local areas without public transport

·      long-term parking for Kawau Islanders has been challenging

·      unsavoury social behaviour has occurred such as tyres being cut, thefts, vandalism, and freedom camping

·      the business on the wharf has been and continues to be materially affected.

24.    The internal review recognised that:

a)    the existing free of charge and unrestricted parking at Sandspit results in a lower turnover of vehicles and means that fewer people can use the space each day. Low vacancy rates at the facility have led to congestion in surrounding streets.

b)    a fair, efficient parking management system is an essential component of making a visit to Kawau Island enjoyable for visitors, providing options for residents for longer term parking options, and supporting local businesses by encouraging customers to visit the area.

c)    as the Rodney region grows, the demand for the limited supply of parking at Sandspit will also grow. This demand must be managed to reduce congestion and ensure reasonable access for all.

d)    Community Facilities – Area Operations is not currently equipped or delegated to manage a paid parking solution or undertake the regulatory powers of compliance and enforcement.

e)    reintroducing a paid-parking system through a Reserves Act 1977 licence agreement, would help mitigate the current issues while allowing revenue generation.

Options Analysis

25.    Staff have identified two options:

·    Option one:  Status Quo

Maintain status quo and accept the ongoing impacts of parking congestion, low compliance, and inefficient use of the available parking.

 

·    Option two:  Re-introduce a managed paid-parking system

Undertake a procurement process to identify a specialist parking service provider that has the capability and experience to implement and manage a paid-parking system at the site, in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Reserves Act 1977.

26.    Table A below provides a high-level summary of identified risks and benefits of the two approach options:

 

            Table A - Options Analysis:

 

Option 1: Status Quo

Option 2: Reintroduce a managed paid parking system 

Risks

Risks

·   Ongoing impacts of parking congestion, low compliance, and inefficient use of the available parking. 

·   Operational risk to council in maintaining the parking service without a deep review and revision to achieve best outcomes.

·   Defers an opportunity to seek a competitive market offering, including the perspectives of different stakeholders.

·   Potential requirement to revisit alternative service models in the future, requiring extra resource and financial cost.

·   Opportunity costs -the benefits foregone from an alternative parking solution.

 

·   Following the introduction of time restrictions and parking tariffs, demand for parking in nearby surrounding streets may increase.

·   Public resistance to the prospect of an external commercial operator.

·   Administration and resource - this project will require commitment from internal resources over a period of three to six months.

·   Public resistance to change.

 

Opportunities

Opportunities

·   Continue with site-specific maintenance plan.

·   Maintain direct control over the day-to-day operations of the site.

·   Less likely to generate high levels of opposition or interest.

 

·   Undertaking a procurement process will allow council to identify and evaluate an optimised service model, source market intelligence, and input into the recommendations for a preferred option.

·   Identify solutions to increase parking turnover and compliance.

·   Increase non-rates revenue, reducing the burden on the ratepayer.

 

 

 

Preferred Option

27.    To manage the high demand for parking and unsavoury behaviour occurring in Sandspit Carpark, staff recommend option two, which is to initiate a procurement process and support the continued investigation of a managed paid parking solution. 

28.    The proposed procurement process is intended to inform specific parking decision-making such as time restrictions, tariff rates, overall design of the facility, and terms of a commercial agreement.

29.    Subject to the local board decision, the procurement objectives and weighted attributes will be scoped and defined within a procurement plan. The procurement plan will set the objectives and principles for parking at Sandspit, including the Reserves Act 1977 requirement that the parking charges are reasonable, in a way that supports the local board’s objectives and preparing the region for growth.

30.    It is considered that the “status quo” option, would not be a sustainable option if the recommendations outlined in the internal review are to be resolved.

Key Considerations

31.    The Rodney area has been experiencing steady growth over the last decade. The Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 anticipates that the future urban zones areas surrounding Warkworth town could accommodate an additional 7,500 dwellings or an additional 20,000 people.  To accommodate this population growth, the facility requires an efficient parking system that makes better use of this limited parking space.

32.    Parking fees can exclude people who cannot afford to pay for parking.  Under Auckland Transport’s legacy management, parking fees did not increase with inflation between 2015 and 2020. As a result, how council may set parking fees or the outcome from any price change may not be clear to the community. A clear pricing methodology is required that is linked to the local board’s objectives and satisfies the statutory requirements under the Reserves Act 1977.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

·      climate adaptation: to be resilient and adapt to the impacts and effects of climate change by ensuring we plan for the projected changes.

34.    The proposals outlined in this report do not include any change in the use of the land or activity on the land or introduce any new sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

35.    Climate change has the potential to impact this reserve as it sits within a flood plain. It is predicted to be covered by flood water during a 1-in-100-year storm event.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36.    Auckland Transport operated the public carpark at Sandspit until it relinquished control to Auckland Council on 1 October 2020.  The car park was identified within Auckland Transport’s network as not having any current or future transport function.

37.    Council specialist staff from within Customer and Community Services (Community Facilities Area Operations, and Parks, Sports and Recreation), Financial and Business Performance, Legal Services, and Auckland Transport have been consulted.

38.    Staff are supportive of the initiative to reintroduce a managed paid parking system at the site, as it will improve the overall quality of the carpark, address the concerns raised by residents, and reflect the management intentions for the reserve under the Sandspit Recreation Reserve Management Plan.  

39.    Council’s Commercial Advisory team have carried out initial investigations to inform on the financial implications, and their recommendations will be incorporated as part of the procurement development process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40.    The Rodney Local Board is the decision maker for service agreements on Sandspit Recreation Reserve.

41.    The recommendations within this report support Rodney Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes:

·      Outcome three: facilities and infrastructure meet the needs of our growing communities, thinking strategically about sites and assets, and how they may support revitalization and local business communities to thrive. 

·      Outcome four: communities are resilient and have access to what they need. 

·      Outcome five: local parks and recreation facilities meet the needs of our growing communities and visitors.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

43.    These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework and Local Board Plans.

44.    As part of the procurement criteria, consideration will be given to how the activities and services provided by potential service providers can create benefits for local communities, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45.    The proposal to undertake a procurement process is a result of an internal review.

46.    The procurement process will assist with the evidence base to allow the local board to consider the full financial implications, benefits of options available and assess the most effective model to meet the needs of the community.

47.    Following the procurement process, commercial negotiations on the details of any agreement and proposed parking tariffs that would form part of a licence agreement.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48.    The following risks and mitigations have been considered:

 

Risks identified

Mitigation

Parking tariffs 

·      Council will ensure that any tariff fees are reasonable in accordance with the Reserves Act, justifiable, well communicated, and linked to policy objectives.

·      The pricing methodology will be based on achieving the best use and highest priority use of the parking spaces. Pricing will reflect the demand, the land value, the opportunity, and environmental costs of providing parking at Sandspit Carpark.

Budget is not adequate

·      Under a proposed licence agreement, the vendor would be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the equipment at the site, which shall be at its own cost and expense.

Damage to equipment

·      The implementation of a paid-parking system would likely require installation of equipment such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition system cameras, signage and consumables associated with the management of the car park.

·      During the term of the agreement, the service provider would be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the equipment, at its sole cost and expense.

Dependencies on any other project / department

·      Under a third-party licence agreement, the day-to-day maintenance of the site (pothole repairs, line marking, etc) would stay with Community Facilities – Area Operations.

Reputational

·      A clear communication and engagement plan would be developed to ensure that the public are advised of the proposed change and price tariffs for parking.

·      Auckland Council would undertake public consultation prior to implementing any changes to the use of the carpark.

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49.    Subject to the Rodney Local Board granting approval to move forward with the procurement process, staff will finalise a procurement plan in readiness to seek a competitive commercial agreement through a third-party provider in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

50.    It is proposed that a further workshop is held in mid-2022, to discuss the results of the procurement process, and to seek further direction from the local board.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A: Sandspit Cadastral Map, 1997, Page 1.

65

b

Attachment B, Sandspit Reserve Mgt Plan, Rodney District Council, 1997, Page 8.

67

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Zee Lasseter - Business Growth & Development Mgr

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Diagram, schematic

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Graphical user interface, website

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Diagram, schematic

Description automatically generated

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, website

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, website

Description automatically generated

A picture containing PowerPoint

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Grant a new community lease to Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated for land it occupies at Riverhead War Memorial Park

File No.: CP2022/04410

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To grant a new community lease to Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated for land occupied by its clubroom at Riverhead War Memorial Park, Coatesville-Riverhead Highway.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Proposed new community lease

2.      For well over a decade, Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated (the club) has occupied land at the Riverhead War Memorial Park on which its clubroom is located. The club, to date, has not entered into a community lease for land at the park.

3.      In November 2021, the club formally applied to council for a community lease.

4.      As the operative reserve management plan for the Riverhead War Memorial Park provides for the court-based activities, public notification was not required prior to recommending the grant of a lease.

5.      Engagement with mana whenua identified as having an interest in the area was required prior to granting of any lease. Leasing staff has satisfied this statutory requirement.

6.      This report recommends that the Rodney Local Board grant Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated a community lease for the land occupied by its clubroom at Riverhead War Memorial Park. Terms and conditions would be in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 with respect to group-owned improvements.


Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      grant Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated a community lease for 132 square metres (more or less) of land legally described as Lot 1 Deposited plan 56612 comprising part of Riverhead War Memorial Park, 1087 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead (Attachment A to the agenda report) subject to the following terms and conditions:

i)     term – 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years commencing 21 April 2022

ii)    rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if demanded

iii)    a community outcomes plan will be appended as a schedule to the lease agreement.

b)      approve Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan (Attachment B to the agenda report).

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

Horopaki

Context

7.      This report considers community leasing matters with respect to the club’s occupation of part of the land comprising Riverhead War Memorial Park.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Land, club’s occupation, improvements and proposed new community lease

9.      Riverhead War Memorial Park is located at 1087 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway and comprises 6.17 hectares which is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The classification legally supports the club’s activities.

10.    The club has occupied land at the Riverhead War Memorial Park adjacent to the council-owned hard courts for well in excess of a decade in the absence of a formal occupancy agreement. The existing clubroom is an old schoolhouse built in 1903 and in 2009 was relocated from the Riverhead School to its current site.

11.    The club has formally applied to council for a community lease in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012. For groups that own their improvements, council staff recommend an initial term of 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years.

12.    The operative Riverhead War Memorial Park Management Plan as adopted by the former Rodney District Council in October 2008 provides for the court-based activities. As such, staff recommends formalising the club’s occupancy by way of a community lease.

Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated

13.    The Riverhead Community Courts Club was duly incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 25 May 2009. The club has a strong committee, it’s financials indicate it has adequate funds to meet its liabilities and it has the requisite insurance cover in place.

14.    To date the club has undertaken works on the building including re-roofing, exterior paint, replacing the window frames and adding a deck. The club is planning further works including a re-paint of the exterior and interior.

15.    Its current membership comprises active and social members. The table below contains information supplied by the club about the approximate number of people actively using the adjacent council-owned and managed hard courts and skatepark facilities on an average Saturday.

Age range

Approximate numbers

0 to 4 years

50

5 to 13 years

120

14 to 21 years

200

22 to 50 years

200

51 years and above

40

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

17.    The designated impact level of the recommended decision on greenhouse gas emissions falls within the “no impact” category because the proposal continues an existing activity and does not introduce new sources of emissions.

18.    The lease area is not located directly within a flood plain of a 1-in-100 years rainstorm event by river or surface flooding (Attachment C).

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

Team

Feedback

Service and Asset Planning Specialist, Service Investment and Programming.

This proposal aligns with the draft Rodney Local Board Local Parks Management Plan. We have draft management intentions to:

·    Manage the park to provide for a variety of active sport and recreation uses.

·    Implement the Riverhead Parks and Play Concept Document. For this park, the plan provides for provides for a high level of physical activity and connection to community via enhancements to playground, pedestrian access and circulation and activity zones.

 

Lease contemplations in the draft Rodney Local Board Local Parks Management Plan also support all the activities they’re talking about:

·    Current and contemplated leases and licences within existing footprints for:

·    Organised recreation and education activities, e.g., youth activities and development

·    Organised sport and facilities

 

Community Facilities Senior Sports Parks Maintenance Coordinator 

“No concerns from my perspective.”

 

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

b)      Our local parks and recreation facilities meet the needs of our growing community (outcome five).

23.    The proposed new community lease to Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated is in addition to the leasing items listed on the Customer and Community Services 2021/2022 work programme approved by the Rodney Local Board at its business meeting of 16 June 2021 (resolution number RD/2021/265).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

25.    For the purposes of seeking feedback from mana whenua groups identified as having an interest in land in the local board geographical area, staff prepared a power point document containing detail on the proposed new lease.

26.    On 18 February 2022, staff emailed the document to key representatives for mana whenua as follows; Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Maru, Ngati Pāoa, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngātiwai, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whatua Ōrākei, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Te Patu Kirikiri and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. Staff has not received any feedback on the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27.    There is no direct cost to council associated with the grant of a new lease. Riverhead Community Courts Club Incorporated will continue to take responsibility for all operational and renewal costs involved with its building located on Riverhead War Memorial Park.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28.    Should the Rodney Local Board resolve not to grant the club a new lease, this would preclude the club from seeking and obtaining funding necessary for asset renewals. As such, this decision may increase Auckland Council’s maintenance and renewal responsibilities in terms of the land and improvements.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29.    Subject to the grant of a new community lease, council staff will draft the necessary documentation for signing and sealing by the club and subsequent execution by council.

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

GIS aerial view showing lease area

93

b

Community Outcomes Plan

95

c

GIS aerial view from Auckland Council's Hazard Viewer

97

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karen Walby - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Table

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with medium confidence


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate

File No.: CP2022/04440

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To provide an update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate programme being delivered by Auckland Transport using the funding from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      This report provides general information about the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate including:

·    a summary of the funds collected and expenditure to date

·    a summary of expenditure against funds allocated under the programme

·    an overview of the expenditure allocated by subdivision

·    a summary of expenditure by project type, including bus stops and bus services, park-and-ride facilities and footpaths

·    an update on the investigation and construction of projects within the programme.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)   receives the Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

Horopaki

Context

3.      In May 2018, the Rodney Local Board recommended that the Governing Body approve a targeted rate to accelerate investment in transport infrastructure in the Rodney Local Board area (Resolution number RD/2018/61). This recommendation was accepted, and the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate (RLBTTR) is scheduled to run for a 10-year term (2018-2028)

4.      Auckland Council receives the targeted rate payments and Auckland Transport administers the fund on behalf of the Rodney Local Board.

5.      The RLBTTR is ring-fenced for transport projects within the Rodney Local Board area that are not included in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2018-2028. It was established on the basis that the fund is to support:

·    new bus stops and bus services;

·    new park-and-ride community hub facilities; and

·    new footpaths.

6.      The targeted rate must be spent on these items and any material changes to spending priorities may require further public consultation.

7.      The rate was also established on the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area receives a proportion of the benefits of the targeted rate equivalent to the proportion of the revenue collected from that subdivision.

8.      The Rodney Local Board monitors the performance of the projects. As projects develop and more detailed cost estimates are prepared, it is expected that ongoing decision-making is required to ensure that projects proposed are delivering the best outcomes for the community. Also, that expenditure relative to revenue gathered is maintained between each subdivision.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Financial Summary

9.      Given the local board has the facility to borrow against future income from the RLBTTR, it is important to understand a high-level estimate of future income per subdivision. The table below shows the estimated value of rates to be collected over the RLBTTR’s lifetime, beginning July 2018.

Targeted rate total amount expected to be collected - based on SUIPs as at July 2018

Wellsford

Warkworth

Kumeū

Dairy Flat

Total

No of SUIPs as on 1 July 2018

3,185

12,673

12,280

2,660

30,798

Annual income at $150 per SUIP

$477,750

$1,900,950

$1,842,000

$399,000

$4,619,700

Targeted rate in total for 10 years based on 1 July 2018 # of SUIPs

$4,777,500

$19,009,500

$18,420,000

$3,990,000

$46,197,000

10.    The table below outlines the programme’s total amounts of targeted rate expenditure to date per subdivision, including as a percentage of the total revenue:

Total expenditure (to 28 February 2022)

Subdivision

Value

As a percentage of the total revenue

Wellsford

$797,697

17%

Warkworth

$3,963,834

21%

Kumeū

$5,270,953

29%

Dairy Flat

$1,287,819

32%

TOTAL

$11,320,302

25%

 

11.    Please note the figures above are the spend-to-date per subdivision, and include park-and-ride facilities, footpaths, new bus stops and new bus services.

 

Proportional spending by subdivision

12.    The below table shows current programme actuals and projected expenditure by project type, per subdivision:

Projects to date

Subdivision

Bus stops

Park-and-rides

Bus route services

Footpaths

Totals

Wellsford

$29,412

$0

$642,837

$125,448

$797,697

Warkworth

$0

$2,266,088

$642,837

$1,054,909

$3,963,834

Kumeū

$500,000

$126,433

$4,483,297

$161,223

$5,270,953

Dairy Flat

$58,824

$0

$635,887

$593,107

$1,287,819

TOTAL

$588,235

$2,392,521

$6,404,859

$1,934,686

$11,320,302

Expenditure by project type

13.    The targeted rate is split into:

·      service costs for ongoing activities – this includes bus services, maintenance of facilities and any land rents; and

·      project costs for building infrastructure - this includes bus stops, footpaths and park-and-ride facilities.

14.    The table below outlines the overall expenditure by project type:

Expenditure by project type

Cost

Spent to date

Bus route services

$6,404,859

Park-and-ride facilities

$2,392,521

Bus stops

$588,235

Footpaths

$1,934,686

Rents (future costs when leasing land for park-and-rides)

$0

Total

$11,320,302

 

15.    Auckland Transport is currently investigating whether there are any operational costs associated with the new bus stops.

Expenditure on bus services

16.    The table below outlines the total amount spent on bus services to date:

Service

Subdivision

Total expenditure (Mar 2019 to Feb 2022)

Helensville to Silverdale

Kumeū

$ 4,483,297

Westgate to Albany                            

Dairy Flat 

$ 635,887

Wellsford to Warkworth

Wellsford

$ 642,837

Warkworth

$ 642,837

Total

 

$6,404,859

Expenditure on park-and-ride facilities

17.    The table below outlines the total costs of investigation, detailed design and construction works associated with park-and-ride facilities:

Facility

Subdivision

Spent to date

80 Great North Road, Warkworth

Warkworth

$ 2,266,088

Huapai Domain

Kumeū

 $ 126,433

Total

 $ 2,392,521

Expenditure on bus stops

18.    At its November 2020 business meeting, the local board resolved to design and build two bus stops at 564 and 571 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway.

19.    The table below outlines amounts spent on new bus stops to date:

Cost

Spent to date

Detailed design and project delivery

$257,369

Construction

$330,866

Total

$588,235

Expenditure on footpaths

20.    The local board resolved in December 2020 and March 2021 to fund the design and delivery of 22 footpaths across the four subdivisions.

21.    The table below outlines the progress of these footpath projects, currently at varying stages of delivery:

Footpath

Subdivision

Status

Hudson Road

Warkworth

Completed

Omaha Drive

Warkworth

Completed

Dairy Flat Highway - outside Dairy Flat School

Dairy Flat

Completed

Coatesville Riverhead Highway, including bus stops

Dairy Flat

Construction

School Rd

Wellsford

Design

Alice Street (including King Street)

Kumeū

Design

Leigh Road

Warkworth

Design

Coatesville Riverhead Highway

Dairy Flat

Design

Newton Road

Kumeū

Design

Goodall Road

Warkworth

Design

Puhoi Road

Warkworth

Design

Rodney Street

Wellsford

Design

Dairy Flat Highway - from the school to Postman’s Rd

Dairy Flat

Design

Albert St footpath

Warkworth

Design

Cambridge Road and Queen Street

Kumeū

Design

Duke Street

Kumeū

Design

Matua Road and Tapu Road

Kumeū

Design

Princes Street

Kumeū

Design

Queen Street/York Terrace

Kumeū

Design

Pakiri Road

Warkworth

Investigation

Waimauku Station Rd

Kumeū

Investigation

Wech Drive

Warkworth

Investigation

22. The below table shows the cost breakdown of footpath projects across the four subdivisions:

Subdivision

Number of footpaths

Spent to date

Wellsford

2

$ 125,448

Warkworth

8

 $ 1,054,909

Kumeū

8

$ 161,223

Dairy Flat

4

$ 593,107

Total

22

 $ 1,934,686

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22.    The RLBTTR contributes to the RLTP 2018-2028 outcome of: “A green Auckland – by reducing our reliance on petrol, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.”

23.    The RLBTTR also supports the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri/Auckland's Climate Plan and council’s priorities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.    The appropriate council group inputs were sought by Auckland Transport in the preparation of this report.

25.    The proposed decision of receiving this report has no impacts on the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.    Local board views were sought and reflected in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28.    The current financial status of the RLBTTR programme is outlined above with detailed analysis at project levels.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29.    Auckland Transport will provide regular updates on the RLBTTR, and separate decision reports for specific projects. This will ensure the local board is fully informed before making any decisions regarding the fund.

30.    To adhere to the principle that each subdivision within the Rodney Local Board area receives benefits of the targeted rate that equate to the percentage of the revenue collected from that subdivision, AT and the local board will actively monitor expenditure to ensure this is equitably distributed. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31.    Auckland Transport will provide a further report to the Rodney Local Board at its May 2022 business meeting.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Duminda Wijayasinghe – Programme Director – Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Paul Thompson – Head of Community Engagement - Auckland Transport

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Local Board views on private plan change 70 for 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa

File No.: CP2022/03682

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To invite local board views on a private plan change by Riverview Properties Limited for 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.      Riverview Properties Limited lodged a private plan change for 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa. The purpose of the plan change is to rezone 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa from Rural – Countryside Living Zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone. A consequential amendment is also required to remove a subdivision variation control, associated with the Rural – Countryside Living Zone, from 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway.

4.      A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on private plan change 70. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.


Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      provide local board views on private plan change 70 by Riverview Properties Limited for 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa

b)      appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on private plan change 70, if it is considered necessary by the local board

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

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

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

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

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

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

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

10.    The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board expresses its views on private plan change 70. The planner must include any local board views verbatim in the evaluation of the private plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

11.    The private plan change applies to approximately 5.6 hectares of land at 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa (shown in yellow outline in Figure 1). The land within the plan change area is zoned Rural-Countryside Living. The Subdivision Variation – Rural, Kaukapakapa Countryside Living control also applies to the land within the private plan change area. A small portion of the plan change area adjacent to the Kaipara Coast Highway is subject to the High-use Stream Management Area overlay.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 Auckland Unitary Plan map of 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa (outlined in yellow) and surrounding area

12.    751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa were part of larger parcels that had a split zoning of Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement and Rural – Countryside Living zones. The area of Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone adjacent to the north of the plan change area has been through a subdivision process. The remainder of 787 Kaipara Coast Highway zoned Rural – Countryside Living is now bisected by Maclennan Farm Lane with its western portion adjacent to 751 Kaipara Coast Highway. Both sites front onto the Kaipara Coast Highway and this forms a physical edge to the plan change area with the western edge adjacent to land zoned Rural – Rural Production Zone. This proposed rezoning to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone adjacent to Rural – Rural Production zone is a similar pattern of zoning within Kaukapakapa both to the north and east of the private plan change area.

13.    Riverview Properties Limited states the purpose of private plan change 70 is to utilise the existing land resource efficiently to provide for extra housing within Kaukapakapa in order to meet the high demand for quality housing solutions in this location.

14.    Riverview Properties Limited included technical reports that evaluate traffic, infrastructure, ecological, archaeological, contaminated land, geotechnical, stormwater, and wastewater effects. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=122

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

·      technical reports supplied by the applicant

·      submissions

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

Themes from submissions received

16.    Key submission themes are listed below.   

·      inadequate consideration of alternative modes of transport

·      reverse sensitivity noise effects from Kaipara Coast Highway

·      volume of, and access to, water supply for firefighting

·      archaeological – built heritage and cultural values.

17.    Submissions were made by five submitters:

         Table 1: submissions received on plan change 70

Submissions

Number of submissions

In support

1

In support subject to amendments

3

In opposition

1

Neutral

0

 

18.    Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from council’s website in the link below: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=122 .

 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

20.    The first of council’s climate goals is relevant because it relates to climate adaption. That goal aligns with the legal principle for Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) decision-makers to have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) RMA)

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

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

Implications for local board views

23.    The table below provides guidance as to what the local board may wish to consider in forming any view.

         Table 2 Relevance of climate change to RMA decision-making

In scope for RMA decision-making

Out of scope for RMA decision-making

Climate adaption issues such as:

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

Climate mitigation issues such as:

·        release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere

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

Submitters’ views

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.    Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters Department will review relevant submissions and provide expert input to the hearing report. 

26.    Auckland Transport made a submission. The key matter raised was that the private plan change did not give effect to Policy B3.3(2)(5)[5] in regard to ‘encouraging land use development and patterns that reduce the rate of growth in demand for private vehicle trips, especially during peak periods’.

27.    Auckland Transport’s submission states the following reasons for its view:

·      the reliance on the private car for transport

·      lack of footpaths beyond the existing and proposed Riverview subdivision

·      limited access to public transport

·      lack of access to the town or village through a range of transport options including walking and cycling.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28.    The private plan change request is for 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa, within the Rodney Local Board area. While the site is approximately 270 metres from Sinclair Park, it is relatively distant from any other relevant assets over which the local board has some decision-making powers.

29.    This plan change relates to the Rodney Local Board area only.

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

·    interests and preferences of people in local board area

·    well-being of communities within the local board area

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

·    responsibilities and operation of the local board.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32.    If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori People, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview). 7551 residents in the local board area identify as Māori, in 2018 census results.   

33.    Riverview Properties Limited advised council that it did not consult with iwi authorities when it prepared the private plan change.

34.    Auckland Council notified the private plan change to iwi authorities with an interest in the plan change area as required by Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition, the notification period for submissions was extended for an extra 10 working days. An information letter was also forwarded to iwi prior to notification with a follow-up letter sent during the extended submission period. The additional steps were undertaken to ensure that there was adequate time and opportunity for iwi to lodge a submission if they wished to do so.

35.    No iwi authorities have made a submission on plan change 70.

36.    The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991, which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The hearing report will analyse the provision of infrastructure and any associated effects on streams as it may be a particular matter of relevance.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37.    The private plan change request does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

38.    Costs associated with processing the private plan change request will be recovered from the applicant. Impacts on infrastructure arising from the private plan change request, including any financing and funding issues will be addressed in the hearing report. 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

43.    The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the private plan change request by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jo Hart - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Auckland Transport - Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2022/03990

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To seek local board input on Auckland Transport’s proposed Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Auckland Transport proposes to use bylaw-making powers granted to Auckland Transport under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Act 1998 to replace five existing, legacy bylaws with a new ‘Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw’.

3.      A single bylaw encompassing all activities in the road corridor will make it easier for members of the public to find information about regulations, and for Auckland Transport to regulate activities in a consistent and appropriate way.

4.      As part of developing the proposed bylaw, a consolidation and refresh of regulations will be undertaken, and new provisions may be proposed where appropriate.

5.      Public consultation occurred in January and February 2022, and the new bylaw is expected to be operational in June 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the draft Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw 2022 ahead of it being submitted to the Auckland Transport Board for final approval.

Horopaki

Context

6.      There are five bylaws relating to activities in the road corridor that require an approval from Auckland Transport. These are:

·      Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015

·      Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

·      Rodney District Council General Bylaw 1998 Chapter Six Stock on Roads

·      Franklin District Council Stock on Roads Bylaw

·      Legacy Bylaw Provisions on Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places 2015.

7.      Auckland Transport has developed a draft bylaw to regulate activities within the road corridor that were previously covered under these bylaws, such as construction; trading, events, and filming; and livestock on roads.

8.      The new bylaw should streamline processes and ensure activities across the road corridor are done so legally and safely and will be made under the bylaw-making powers granted to Auckland Transport under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Act 1998.

9.      The proposed bylaw is a consolidation and refresh of regulations in the above bylaws. New provisions may also be proposed where appropriate, for example to future proof for planned activities such as climate change adaptations.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.    Of the five bylaws listed above, three have expired (Rodney and Franklin livestock bylaws, and Public Safety and Nuisance bylaw) and one will expire at the end of March 2022 (Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015). The legacy bylaw provisions on Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places Bylaw - a combined legacy bylaw approved in 2015 which covers seven bylaws from pre-amalgamation councils – is due to expire in October 2022.

11.    The existing bylaws do not cover everything they need to, because:

·      they were written before some innovations, situations or issues emerged, or

·      new operational issues have now been identified which need to be addressed to enable better management of the transport system.

12.    The core components of the bylaw will be based on existing bylaw rules around activities in, on, under and above the road corridor to ensure that relevant activities are undertaken safely, without damaging Auckland Transport assets. The bylaw will also detail which approvals are required.

13.    Key proposed changes to the bylaw are outlined in Attachment A to the agenda report and the full draft bylaw is included as Attachment B to the agenda report.

14.    Where possible, Auckland Transport intends to future-proof bylaws to allow for strategic outcomes and activities, such as changes to who uses parts of the road corridor.

15.    In addition, the ability to set fees and charges or reclaim costs associated with permits, licenses, leases, inspections, investigations or enforcement will be included where appropriate.

Public consultation

16.    Auckland Transport undertook engagement with the public in January and February 2022, by distributing information to all database contacts including Business Improvement Districts and advisory boards. A letter was posted to rural livestock owners.

17.    An electronic survey was advertised using social media and media releases.

18.    Facilitated focus groups were conducted with industry leaders and representatives from the following groups:

·        construction and traffic management

·        events and filming

·        trading (including micro-mobility, mobile vendors and performers)

·        livestock.

19.    Written submissions were invited, and seven people spoke to a hearings panel. 

20.    A more detailed review of public engagement and the emergent themes was supplied to local boards in mid-March and is included as Attachment C to the agenda report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21.    Auckland Transport is strongly committed to providing alternatives to private vehicle travel, reducing the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the wider transport network by encouraging use of electric vehicles, use of non-car transport and public transport.

22.    This bylaw contributes directly to these goals, including new provisions for managing electric vehicle parking and better regulating micro-mobility (i.e. electric scooters), both of which will directly lower emissions.

23.    Further, the bylaw seeks to address some of the issues currently experienced managing traffic around filming, events and work in the road corridor. Better traffic management improves the efficiency all types of transport, reducing carbon emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.    Staff from Auckland Transport and Auckland Council worked together to develop the draft bylaw and investigated two options to make sure that Auckland Transport and Auckland Council bylaws remain compatible, and avoid regulatory gaps:

·      option one was for both organisations to develop ‘mirror’ bylaws, which are identical, and then each entity just enforces the aspects under their respective legal remits

·      option two was for each organisation to develop ‘zipper’ style bylaws, where each bylaw covers the aspects under control of the organisation, and the two bylaws together cover the full needs with no overlap

25.    The ‘Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw’ has utilised the ‘zipper’ approach as:

·      the bylaw relates to approval processes for activities within the transport network (for example, construction of a vehicle crossing or running a mobile stall); and

·      Auckland Transport’s mandate for bylaws is much narrower than Auckland Council’s. ‘Zipper’ bylaws allow fewer, clearer, and more succinct bylaws that are consistent across activities; and

·      Auckland Transport can still delegate enforcement powers to Auckland Council, e.g., for permitting micro-mobility providers.

26.    Provisions relating to trading, events and filming have been aligned with the Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022, which takes effect from 26 February 2022 and regulates similar activities in public places other than the road corridor.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27.    This report is to formalise local board feedback on the draft bylaw.

28.    Local board members were invited to attend an online briefing for local boards on 18 February 2022. In addition, local board workshops with subject matter experts were organised for boards that requested one.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29.    Both Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are committed to meeting their responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

30.    Auckland Transport’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. Auckland Transport also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

31.    The actions being considered are likely to have few specific impacts on Māori, because the bylaw consolidates a number of existing bylaws into one new bylaw.  Further, the bylaw changes do not impact on land or water rather on behaviours so do not impact on Māori kaitiakitanga of these resources.

32.    At the time this report was written, specific Māori engagement is being undertaken. Representatives of mana whenua tribes have been contacted and hui are currently underway. This feedback is not currently available but will be included in the information provided to the Auckland Transport Board.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.    There are no financial implications for local boards providing feedback on the proposed bylaw.

34.    For Auckland Transport, this bylaw will have limited financial impact. The bylaw consolidates existing bylaws into one bylaw and does not create significant new revenue streams, nor public expenditure.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.    Three of the bylaws have expired and a fourth is due to expire in 2022. Without a replacement bylaw, Auckland Transport does not have the legal right to give approval for activities in the road corridor or enforce certain behaviours on the road network. For example, Auckland Council’s current regulation of public hire micro-mobility devices is regulated through the Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015, which expires at the end of March 2022.

36.    Although Auckland Transport will not be able to have this new bylaw in place before the end of March the aim is to mitigate risk by getting approval as quickly as possible.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.    Based on feedback received from local boards, iwi and through the public consultation, Auckland Transport staff will make recommendations to the Auckland Transport Board on any proposed changes to the draft bylaw.

38.    The Auckland Transport Board will decide in May 2022 whether to go ahead with the changes to the draft bylaw as proposed.

39.    The Activities in the Road Corridor bylaw is expected to become operative in June 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Quick guide – Activities in the road corridor bylaw 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Draft bylaw – Activities in the road corridor (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Consultation report – Activities in the road corridor (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Planning, Local Board Services

Andrew McGill - Head of Integrated Network Planning, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager, Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Submission on central government’s proposals to transform recycling in Aotearoa

File No.: CP2022/04086

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To outline the opportunity and process for local board members to give feedback on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document: Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      On 13 March 2022, the Ministry for the Environment released its consultation document on proposals to transform recycling in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

3.      The consultation document seeks feedback on the following three proposals:

i)     A container return scheme that encourages people to return their empty beverage containers for recycling.

ii)    Improvements to household kerbside recycling, including nationwide standardised material collections and urban food scraps collection.

iii)    Separation of food scraps from general waste for all businesses.

4.      Approval of the submission is proposed to be delegated by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee at its 7 April 2022 meeting to two councillors and an Independent Māori Statutory Board representative.

5.      Waste Solutions staff will lead the development of Auckland Council’s submission which is due to the Ministry for the Environment by 8 May 2022.

6.      Auckland Council’s submission will be developed based on policy positions articulated in relevant council strategy, such as Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau 2018 – Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 and other recent council submissions on government policy relating to waste management and minimisation.

7.      Feedback provided by local boards through the development of the Waste Plan 2018 and other related recent submissions on government policy will inform the overall direction of the submission.

8.      Local boards can provide formal feedback by 5.00pm on 21 April 2022 to inform the council’s submission or by 5.00pm on 4 May 2022 to be appended to the council’s submission.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document: Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling discussion document to inform the council’s draft submission.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.      On 13 March 2022, the Ministry for the Environment released its consultation document, Te kawe i te haepapa para: Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling.

10.    The document covers three proposals:

i)       A container return scheme that encourages people to return their empty beverage containers for recycling.

ii)       Improvements to household kerbside recycling, including nationwide standardised material collections and urban food scraps collection.

iii)      Separation of food scraps from general waste for all businesses.

11.    These are part of the wider Ministry for the Environment work programme including:

·          a new waste strategy and associated legislation

·          implementation of the 2021 National Plastics Action Plan

·          the increase and expansion of the waste levy

·          reducing greenhouse gas emissions from organic wastes via a proposed Emissions Reduction Plan.

12.    The reasons for the changes include the need to:

·          substantially increase our recycling rates noting that Aotearoa/New Zealand only recycles and composts about one-third of materials we place on the kerbside, with the rest going to landfills (many countries recycle two-thirds)

·          reduce carbon emissions noting that the waste sector contributed around four per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, and around nine per cent of biogenic methane emissions.

13.    Recent Auckland Council submissions to the Ministry for the Environment on waste related topics have supported development of a new waste strategy and legislation, developed in partnership with Māori, to move to a circular economy.

14.    The council has been a long-time advocate for a national container return scheme, and co-led work with Marlborough District Council in 2020 to co-design a scheme with a wide range of sector stakeholders. The council has also supported work to standardise kerbside collections and highlighted the importance of reducing carbon emissions from organic waste in our recent submissions.

Timeframe

15.    Submissions close on 8 May 2022. A delegated authority to approve the council’s submission is being sought in advance because the submission will be due before the next the Environment and Climate Change Committee meeting.

16.    The Ministry for the Environment has provided indicative timeframes for the proposals:

·        2025 for implementation of the Container Return Scheme

·        2024-2030 for various requirements related to kerbside collections

·        2025-2030 for businesses in metropolitan areas to separate their food waste depending on availability of processing facilities.

17.    These timeframes are subject to decisions on each proposal, together with other decisions pending and initiatives already underway. For example, decisions on whether to enact regulation under current legislation or wait until new legislation is in force.

 

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Proposal 1: a container return scheme

18.    A container return scheme (CRS) is proposed to incentivise people to return their empty beverage containers for recycling and/or refilling in exchange for a 20 cent per container refundable deposit.

19.    A CRS could increase beverage container recovery to 85 per cent or higher, increasing the number of containers recycled annually by over one billion.

20.    The scheme should reduce the large amount of recyclable material lost to landfill, reduce litter and emissions, and support a circular economy in recycling and reuse options.

21.    A snapshot of the proposal is included in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Proposal 2: improvements to household kerbside recycling

22.    The proposal includes two core proposals to improve household kerbside recycling:

i)     Collecting a standard set of materials across the country to reduce confusion and improve the quality and quantity of collected recycling.

ii)    All urban populations to have a kerbside food scraps collection to reduce climate emissions and recycle nutrients back to the soil.

23.    It also includes four supporting areas of improvement:

·        requirement for both council and private-sector reporting on household kerbside collections

·        setting targets/performance standards for councils; being a minimum baseline performance and a high achieving target for kerbside diversion

·        separate collection of glass and paper/cardboard

·        require all councils to provide a kerbside recycling collection to urban households.

24.    A snapshot of the proposal is included in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Proposal 3: separation of food scraps for all businesses

25.    This proposal is to require all businesses to collect food waste separately from other waste materials in order to reduce climate emissions and recycle nutrients back into our soil. Food waste diverted from landfills can be used to feed animals, improve soil quality and generate energy.

26.    Feedback is sought on the different ways a requirement to separate food waste could be introduced and how it would affect businesses. A snapshot of the proposal is included in Attachment C to the agenda report.

Auckland Council’s position on the proposal

27.    The council’s submission will be developed based on policy positions articulated in related plans and strategies together with evidence and data from subject matter experts from across the council family, and input from previous mana whenua engagement and public submissions.

28.    Auckland Council’s position on waste management is guided by Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau – Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 (‘the Waste Plan 2018’), and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

29.    The Waste Plan 2018 is guided by the vision ‘Auckland aspires to be Zero Waste by 2040, taking care of people and the environment and turning waste into resources’ and sets out over 100 actions to achieve this vision. It continues a zero-waste vision that was originally set out in Auckland Council’s first Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2012.

30.    Staff will also advise the Waste Advisory Political Advisory Group of the consultation and offer an opportunity to input. Input will also be sought from mana whenua through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum.

31.    Staff are also contacting the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Tāmaki Makaurau Kaitiaki Forum to alert them to this proposal and the opportunity to provide input.

Timeframe for consultation on Transforming Recycling  

Milestone

Date

Discussion document released

14 March 2022

Deadline for incorporated feedback

21 April 2022

Deadline for appended feedback

4 May 2022

Consultation period closes

8 May 2022

Decision-making on proposals

Later this year

Further material

32.    Relevant strategies and existing agreed positions in the council’s recent submissions are mainly from:

a)         Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau – Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018  

b)         Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33.    The disposal and treatment of waste comprises around four per cent of Aotearoa’s gross greenhouse gas emissions. The main sources include organic waste, wastewater treatment, incineration and open burning, and biological waste treatment (composting).

34.    The Transforming Recycling proposal includes measures to divert organic waste going to landfill, in alignment with the proposed Emissions Reduction Plan. The outcomes from this consultation, including potential diversion of food scraps by businesses, will influence Auckland’s ability to achieve its regional emissions reduction targets of halving emissions by 2030 and reaching net zero emissions by 2050, as adopted by the council through Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35.    Feedback from relevant council departments and council-controlled organisations on the draft submission will be sought. The council-group was involved in establishing existing council positions.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36.    The proposals would impact on a range of council services such as kerbside collections and litter services, our work in supporting community initiatives including the resource recovery network, and programmes to raise public awareness and education amongst others. The proposals would have wider impacts on environmental outcomes and economic costs and opportunities including local opportunities to support a circular economy.

37.    Local board views will be sought on the draft submission and either incorporated within the report or appended to the submission, depending on when they are able to provide their views. Local boards provided strong direction through the development of the Waste Plan 2018 and other related recent submissions on government policy and these views will inform the overall direction of the submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38.    Staff have contacted the Independent Māori Statutory Board, Tāmaki Makaurau Kaitiaki Forum and the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum to alert them to this proposal and the opportunity to input.

39.    The consultation document outlines opportunities for iwi involvement in the management of recycling schemes as well as job or entrepreneurial opportunities in the provision of the container return scheme. Staff will work with iwi to advocate for these types of opportunities in the council’s submission. This aligns with the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s 2021 Schedule of Issues of Significance for Māori for council to identify Māori social procurement opportunities including in recycling and waste management.

40.    Feedback expressed on previous related discussions and submissions, including consultation undertaken in 2021 on the submission to the Ministry for the Environment on a new waste strategy and legislation, will be incorporated into the development of this submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41.    The submission can be developed as part of business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

42.    Potential financial implications of the proposals for the council will be considered as part of the council’s submission.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43.    There is minimal risk in making a submission on the Ministry’s consultation document.

44.    Potential risks to the council arising from implementation of proposals will be considered as part of the council’s submission. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45.    Local board resolutions on the Transforming Recycling submission/draft will be included in the Auckland Council submission on this matter.

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

·          5.00pm on 21 April 2022: deadline for feedback to be considered in the council’s submission. Formal feedback to inform the council’s submission needs to be returned to Jacob van der Poel (Jacob.vanderpoel@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)

·          5.00pm on 4 May 2022: final date for any formal local board feedback to be appended to the submission. Formal feedback to inform the council’s submission needs to be returned to Jacob van der Poel

·          as there is no Environment and Climate Change Committee meeting scheduled before the due date for submissions a committee report is being prepared to seek approval from the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee meeting on 7 April 2022. This will seek delegated authority for two councillors and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board for the approval of the council’s submission

·          the final submission is due to the Ministry for the Environment by 8 May 2022. A copy of the final submission will be provided to all elected members, local board members, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board once submitted.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Container Return Scheme: Snapshot of the consultation Wellington: Ministry for the Environment

125

b

Te whakapiki i te hangarua paeara ā-kāinga Improvements to household kerbside recycling: A Snapshot Wellington: Ministry for the Environment

133

c

Te whakawehe i ngā para kai ā-pakihi Separation of business food waste

139

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jacob van der Poel - Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, website

Description automatically generated

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, timeline

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

A screenshot of a phone

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Graphical user interface, text, website

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, website

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, website

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, website

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, website

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Transport Emissions Reduction Plan

File No.: CP2022/04134

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To provide a progress update on the development of the Transport Emissions Reduction Plan and seek formal feedback.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are developing a Transport Emissions Reduction Plan to deliver a 64 per cent reduction in transport emissions by 2030 and achieve wider wellbeing outcomes. Improving equitable access to sustainable transport modes is a key principle of the plan.

3.      The Transport Emissions Reduction Plan gives effect to the commitments in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan to halve regional emissions by 2030 and transition to net zero emissions by 2050.

4.      The Transport Emissions Reduction Plan is being developed in the wider context of increasing government action on climate change. This includes the development of the government’s Emissions Reduction Plan, which is expected to introduce policy changes and additional funding to better enable the delivery of sustainable transport modes.

5.      A recommended Transport Emissions Reduction Plan pathway will be presented to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for approval in July 2022. Implementation of the pathway will require significant additional funding, policy changes and the reshaping of the urban environment by the Auckland Council group and Government.

6.      A bespoke Transport Emissions Reduction Plan emissions model has been developed to identify the scale of the challenge. Preliminary modelling indicates that change is possible, but the level of transformation required is immense. Three key observations arise from the modelling work so far:

·        although central government has outlined several actions in its Emissions Reduction Plan, these do not go far enough, nor do they act fast enough to achieve a 64 per cent reduction in emissions. The Transport Emissions Reduction Plan must fill a large gap between the baseline and the target

·        all levers across transport and a range of other sectors will need to be pulled as hard as they can be within the timeframe available

·        among the levers, mode shift is by far the most powerful to meet the 2030 target. However, significant mode shift to all sustainable modes is required, especially active modes. A compact urban form and accelerated decarbonisation of the public and private vehicle fleet are also crucial.

7.      Achieving a low carbon transport system will bring many other benefits for all Aucklanders, including cleaner air, safer streets, reduced transport costs and easier ways of getting around the city. The Transport Emissions Reduction Plan will set out a pathway to deliver this vision.

8.      Previous local board feedback shows overwhelming support for more investment in sustainable transport. There is also broad support for policies that suppress private vehicle travel, such as congestion pricing, subject to the adequate provision of sustainable options.

9.      Local boards have a critical role to play in advocating for specific improvements that support their communities transitioning to low carbon travel, e.g. addressing safety hotspots, accelerating the delivery of walking, cycling and micromobility networks, and improving the coverage, frequency, and hours of operation for public transport.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      receive the progress update provided on the Transport Emissions Reduction Plan

b)      note the scale of the challenge to meet Auckland’s transport emissions reduction target and that mode shift is the most powerful lever for reducing transport emissions

c)      provide feedback on:

i)        ways to dramatically reduce transport emissions in its local board area, or more broadly, while achieving broader wellbeing outcomes

ii)       ways to increase uptake of walking, cycling and public transport for communities in its local board area

iii)      barriers that might prevent the implementation of a sustainable, healthy, accessible, and equitable transport system for Auckland, and potential solutions

iv)      ways to build public support for the initiatives that will be introduced as part of the Transport Emissions Reduction Plan.

Horopaki

Context

10.    Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are developing a Transport Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) to deliver a 64 per cent reduction in transport emissions by 2030. As transport is Auckland’s largest source of emissions, modelling has shown that this steep reduction in transport emissions is necessary to fulfil Auckland’s commitment to halve emissions by 2030 and transition to net zero emissions by 2050.[6]

11.    The TERP also seeks to achieve wider wellbeing outcomes for mana whenua, mataawaka and Auckland’s diverse communities.

Past decisions and information provided

12.    The TERP’s approach and governance framework were endorsed by the Environment and Climate Change Committee in August 2021 (ECC/2m021/32). In December 2021, the Committee noted the urgency of Auckland’s decarbonisation challenge and unanimously endorsed Auckland Council and Auckland Transport taking quick and decisive action to reduce the region’s transport emissions through several ‘early actions’ that can be advanced prior to the approval of the TERP (ECC/2021/45).

13.    A memo on the TERP was provided to local board members in October 2021 (Attachment A), followed by two local board briefings which were held online in November and December 2021.

Broader policy context

14.    The TERP is being developed in the wider context of increasing government action on climate change. Central government is due to finalise its Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) in May 2022. Its ERP discussion document in November 2021 set out targets in key areas, including a 20 per cent reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled.

15.    Central government’s ERP discussion document also includes many highly ambitious policy interventions that will be required to achieve those targets, which are well-aligned with Auckland’s TERP.

16.    In its present state, however, the ERP leaves too many of its actions until after 2030. Therefore, the TERP cannot rely on government’s ERP alone to meet Auckland’s targets. The TERP needs to pull hard on all the levers available and advocate for government to bring forward the actions and investment it outlines in its ERP.

17.    The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS – UD) is another key instrument due to take effect that, over time, has the potential to enable significant emissions reductions through more compact urban forms. Auckland Council’s response to the NPS will be crucial.

18.    The systemic changes that will be delivered through the ERP, resource management reforms, and the NPS - UD will create an environment that is much more conducive to reducing transport emissions than is currently the case – the near future context will be very different from what it is today.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Understanding the scale of the challenge

19.    As reported to the Environment and Climate Change Committee in December 2021, preliminary modelling shows that a large gap remains between the baseline and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri’s modelled 64 per cent pathway, even accounting for initiatives within the government’s ERP. Modelling shows that there is likely only one pathway available for the TERP: it needs every lever available, and it needs to pull each of them as hard as it can. 

20.    The figure below illustrates the gap between the projected baseline (shown in red) and the target (shown in green).

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

21.    Modelling shows that significant reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) is the only plausible strategy to achieve a 64 per cent reduction in transport emissions by 2030. Reducing VKT will require rapid and transformational improvements to public transport, walking and cycling options for all Aucklanders. Land use changes that enhance accessibility by bringing destinations closer will also be required, to make walking, cycling and public transport systematically the most competitive modes for daily trips.

22.    Staff are also engaging with the freight, rail, shipping, and aviation sectors to understand the opportunity for emissions reduction within these sectors, opportunities for cross-sector collaboration, and potential barriers that need to be resolved.

Taking a systems approach

23.    Cities around the world are increasingly taking a systems approach to transforming energy-intensive transport systems into sustainable, healthy, and accessible ones. This approach recognises that “climate action could be more efficient and effective if focused on systems as a whole, so that – by design – systems require less energy and materials, and produce less emissions, while achieving wider wellbeing outcomes, such as improving our health and safety, and subsequently better lives” (OECD 2022[7]).

24.    Taking a systems approach to tackling Auckland’s carbon-intensive transport system means firstly addressing its car-oriented status quo and the cycle of induced demand, urban sprawl, and the long-standing erosion of active and shared transport modes that further perpetuate car dependency.

25.    Induced demand, urban sprawl and erosion of shared and active transport modes are the source of high emissions and a number of negative impacts on people’s wellbeing, such as air and noise pollution, congestion, road injuries and fatalities, reduced travel options and unequal access to opportunities.

26.    Without addressing the challenges of the transport system as a whole, there is a tendency for incremental improvements to dominate, focusing on technological and pricing solutions without changing the underlying system.

Developing a package of interventions

27.    The TERP takes a systems approach in developing a high-level programme of interventions, which work synergistically to create a transport system that is sustainable-by-design and achieves broader wellbeing goals.

28.    These interventions draw from best practice around the globe and fall under broader themes, examples of which are likely to include:

·    accessible neighbourhoods in an accessible region

·    using online options where appropriate e.g., working from home

·    replacing private vehicles trips with active, public, and shared modes

·    transitioning to zero emissions vehicles

·    better options for moving goods.

29.    Auckland Transport’s increased emphasis on addressing climate change and road harm means that there is a range of programmes underway that can be scaled up and funded as part of the implementation of the TERP pathway.

30.    The scale of transformation required to drastically cut transport emissions will not be possible without fixing the existing inequities of the transport system. Improving equitable access to sustainable transport modes is therefore a key principle of the TERP. In most instances the types of interventions needed to bring about significant emissions reductions will also help improve transport equity. However, a small number of specific interventions (road pricing, for example) have the potential to make the transport system more unaffordable for some communities and additional mitigations will be required as part of the TERP programme.

Assessing the broader impacts of TERP

31.    An impact assessment will be undertaken to assess the social, environmental, financial, and cultural impacts of the TERP. This assessment could:

·        help inform decision-makers of the impacts on society as a whole

·        support future decision-making about intervention design (e.g., to mitigate inequitable impacts, where to concentrate certain efforts)

·        provide a sense of the type and scale of co-benefits (in addition to emissions reduction) and costs

·        show the changes to costs and benefits over time (i.e., 2030 and beyond).

Identifying barriers and potential solutions

32.    Work is underway to identify the legislative, regulatory, financial, and cultural impediments to achieving emissions reductions of the scale required by the TERP. The purpose in identifying these systemic barriers is not to set a cap on the ambition of the TERP but rather to document the reforms required at both central and local government level as part of the implementation of the TERP. Some of these barriers are features of the way in which institutions or funding mechanisms have been designed, others are more cultural in nature.

33.    Many of the impediments are already well known and in many cases work is underway outside of the TERP process to address them. The barriers workstream of the TERP will bring this together and point to areas where further work is required over and above what is already underway across different agencies.

34.    The output from this workstream will include:

·        an assessment of the criticality of resolving specific barriers for the ability to achieve rapid and significant emissions reductions

·        an assessment of the relative ease of resolving each barrier

·        the role of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport in resolving each barrier – resolution of many of the barriers will fall within the remit of central government and local government’s role may be one of advocacy

·        a high-level forward work programme, based on the above, to address the identified barriers.

35.    Continued collaboration between Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Waka Kotahi, and the Ministry of Transport on many of these issues will be crucial to the resolution of many of the barriers identified by this workstream.

Engagement

36.    Staff have engaged with mana whenua, local boards, and a range of stakeholder groups in the development of the TERP. These groups include:

·          Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and iwi chairs

·          local boards

·          Auckland Council’s demographic advisory panels

·          transport advocates, ranging from Bike Auckland to the Automobile Association

·          business interests such as the Sustainable Business Council and Employers Manufacturers Association

·          academics and experts in public health, Māori health, community psychology, injury prevention, disability access, sustainability transitions, climate finance

·          frontline community groups such as South Seas Healthcare.

37.    Feedback has generally been positive. There is widespread recognition on the need for systems change to achieve Auckland’s climate goals and address the problems caused by decades of transport and land use policies that have prioritised private vehicle travel over other sustainable modes.

38.    Deep and sustained engagement with iwi Māori and Auckland’s diverse communities is necessary to reimagine a low carbon transport future for Auckland. Staff are exploring how the implementation of the TERP could be supported over a longer period through the use of deliberative democracy, living labs and wānanga to better enable citizen participation and identify community aspirations as well as barriers in transitioning to a sustainable, healthy, and accessible transport system.

Supporting the implementation of the TERP

Building public support

39.    The TERP requires a thoughtful public communications approach to proactively socialise the scale of change required to achieve the region’s climate goals.

40.    Auckland Transport and Auckland Council communications staff, with guidance from the Transport Emissions Reference Group, are developing an agreed set of principles to guide on-going and future communication campaigns and behavioural change programmes, as well as assess funding requirements for any dedicated additional campaigns/programmes to support the TERP.

Applying behavioural science to transport emissions reduction

41.    Achieving a two thirds reduction in transport emissions by 2030 requires a range of responses, including the purposeful application of behavioural science. Information sharing or communication campaigns alone will not be sufficient.

42.    Rather than assuming people’s preferences are fixed, social scientists point to “malleable preferences” and the opportunity to redesign infrastructure and services to bring about significant behavioural change and improved wellbeing.[8] A memo by Dr Jesse Allpress from Auckland’s RIMU provides an overview of the behavioural science behind reducing transport emissions (Attachment B).

Measuring Aucklanders’ access to opportunities via sustainable modes

43.    Reducing VKT without impacting negatively on people’s wellbeing requires a focus on accessibility (people’s ability to reach desired services and activities) instead of mobility (people’s ability to travel faster and further).

44.    Staff are developing a regionwide assessment framework to measure access to social and economic opportunities via walking, cycling and public transport. This framework will:

·          measure access across the urban area to destinations (‘opportunities’) that enable the people of Tāmaki Makaurau to fulfil their daily needs consistently and reliably

·          identify current barriers to access to opportunities for the people of Tāmaki Makaurau

·          assess distribution of access across Tāmaki Makaurau and across demographic groups and understand how different factors (e.g., age, level of ability) could limit a person’s potential use of the transport network

·          inform investment and planning for transport infrastructure and services, land-use planning, and the location of new facilities. This will involve integrating the framework into policy and investment decision-making processes over time.

Assessing willingness and ability to change travel behaviour

45.    An initial project will investigate Aucklanders’ most frequent car trips with a focus on the real and perceived viability of non-driving alternatives. The research will survey over 4000 car drivers in Auckland on their ability and willingness to travel in alternative ways. These perceptions will be compared to ‘objective’ travel data from Google Maps.

46.    The research will identify:

·        where negative perception matches actual experience (to target service improvement)

·        where negative perception does not match actual experience (to target other behavioural interventions)

·        the suburbs and population groups where access to alternative modes of travel is poorest, so these inequities can be addressed via the TERP.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47.    Auckland has less than 100 months to transform its current transport and land use system to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target. Meeting this target will require a fundamental shift from traditional transport planning and investment processes. Incremental change, reliance on existing practices and focusing on standalone policy instruments will simply not be enough.

48.    A transport emissions reduction plan needs an integrated mix of policies. Supply-side interventions that make public transport, walking and cycling more attractive will only lead to emissions reduction if they replace trips that were previously made in private cars. A stronger focus on demand-side approaches is also required, e.g., congestion pricing and changes to the supply and cost of parking.

49.    While technological innovation and fleet improvements will play an important role in the transition to low carbon transport, particularly beyond 2030, these policies need to be combined with interventions that reduce the demand for travel in private vehicles and increase the use of sustainable transport modes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50.    Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are jointly developing the TERP. This is reflected in the composition of the working groups and in all levels of the governance framework.

51.    The Auckland Transport Board is represented in the Transport Emissions Reference Group, which provides staff with oversight and direction on the TERP.

52.    The TERP’s recommended pathway will be recommended to both the Environment and Climate Change committee and the Auckland Transport Board for their endorsement in mid-2022.

53.    Implementation of the TERP will require concerted action from multiple agencies. Auckland Transport will be particularly critical to the success of implementation given its key role in relation to many aspects of Auckland’s transport network.

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

Local impacts and local board views

54.    The TERP is a strategic regional plan and will not include area-specific projects. However, implementation of a transport decarbonisation pathway will have significant impacts at the local level.

55.    Local board feedback on the Climate Change Commission’s draft advice, the government’s Emissions Reduction Plan discussion document and Auckland Transport’s Regional Land Transport Plan shows overwhelming support for more investment in sustainable transport. There is also broad support for policies that suppress private vehicle travel, such as congestion pricing, subject to a range of caveats, such as the adequate provision of sustainable options.

56.    Local boards have a critical role to play in advocating for specific improvements that support their communities to transition to low carbon travel, e.g., addressing safety hotspots, accelerating the delivery of walking, cycling and micromobility networks, and improving the coverage, frequency, and hours of operation for public transport.

57.    Staff are seeking feedback from the local boards on the following topics:

·        ways to dramatically reduce transport emissions in the local board area, or more broadly, while achieving broader wellbeing outcomes

·        ways to increase uptake of walking, cycling and public transport for communities in the local board area

·        barriers that might prevent the implementation of a sustainable, healthy, accessible, and equitable transport system for Auckland, and potential solutions

·        ways to build public support for the initiatives that will be introduced as part of the Transport Emissions Reduction Plan.

58.    Successful implementation of the TERP at a local level will require council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to urgently review how they currently design, consult on, fund, and implement minor capital works, as recommended in the Independent Panel’s review of Auckland Council’s CCOs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

59.    Addressing climate change for the benefit of current and future generations aligns strongly with Māori values of environmental and inter-generational wellbeing.

60.    Some of the low carbon transport interventions that Mana Whenua and Mataawaka have advocated for in previous submissions include more reliable and affordable public transport as well as safe walking and cycling facilities.

61.    Partnership with iwi, hapū and Māori organisations in delivering climate action is a common theme in submissions received. Equity is also a strong focus for many submitters, highlighting the need for a transport system that increases access, choice, and affordability, particularly for lower income groups and those living outside of the urban core.

62.    Reducing transport emissions to mitigate against the worst impacts of climate change has significant positive implications for Māori. These include cleaner air, fewer traffic-related deaths and serious injuries, lower transport costs, and more equitable access to opportunities for whānau. However, without additional support, some low carbon transport policies could adversely impact on disadvantaged communities.

63.    The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and Independent Māori Statutory Board are represented on the Transport Emissions Reference Group, which provides staff with oversight and direction on the TERP.

64.    Staff have presented to the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum twice on the TERP and have also written directly to iwi chairs to seek early feedback.

65.    A series of hui will be held between March 2022 and April 2022 to seek input from Mana Whenua and Mataawaka on the TERP, including solutions that will support Māori communities in Tāmaki Makaurau to transition to low carbon travel. The council expects to continue working with Mana Whenua and Mataawaka to co-design solutions as part of the implementation of the TERP.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

66.    Development of the TERP is being funded from within existing Auckland Council and Auckland Transport budgets.

67.    Delivery of the recommended pathway will require significant investment from both Auckland Council and central government over a period of many years. As part of the assessment of the wider impacts of the TERP, high level costings of the recommended pathway will be worked up. Detailed costings of specific interventions are beyond the scope of this plan, but this work will be undertaken over time as specific projects move closer to implementation.

68.    Some of the early interventions identified in this report may require additional funding to that which is signalled in the Long-term Plan (LTP) and Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP). Funding implications will be investigated and reported back to the committee as part of the pre-implementation decision making process.

69.    In the ERP discussion document, the government indicated its intention to substantially increase funding for public transport and active modes. Auckland would expect to benefit from a good proportion of any additional government funding given its greater potential for mode shift than other parts of New Zealand. Any confirmation of additional government funding would likely come through the final ERP and the government’s budget, both due in May 2022.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

70.    The table below provides the key risks associated with the TERP. The paper presented to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 2 December 2021 includes the full risk register. 

Risks

Mitigation update

There may not be sufficient evidence to credibly support the assumptions that will go into the model, especially if there is a delay to the technical work required, and some interventions will be difficult to model.

A consultancy has been engaged to provide advice on international best practice in terms of assessing the likely emissions reduction potential of interventions.  This is being augmented by work undertaken internally to document the experiences of many international and domestic cities that have implemented the types of interventions that will be included in the recommended pathway. 

Current central and local government funding, planning and regulatory frameworks are not reformed quickly enough to enable the transformation required to meet the transport emissions reduction goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. 

Work on identifying barriers to implementation and potential ways of unlocking them is an important aspect of the TERP.  Responsibility for addressing many of them lies with other agencies and continued collaboration will be essential as the work proceeds.  Government’s ERP discussion document proposes solutions for several key regulatory, fiscal, and legislative barriers.

Disruption from the scale of change required could disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities.

Equity has been one key focus area for the work to date.  Many of the interventions proposed will help address current transport inequities, e.g., vastly improved public and active transport will help address lower levels of access and travel choice for certain parts of Auckland.  Other interventions such as road pricing will require specific mitigation measures.

The equity impacts of the recommended pathway will be assessed and presented to the committee.

Strong support for climate action does not always translate into support for specific action at the local level.

A public communications campaign is needed to identify the wider benefits of decarbonisation, the risks of inaction and the ways to ensure a Just Transition. Early work on this has started with the Reference Group.

The implementation of specific actions within the chosen pathway will be subject to public consultation processes.

Auckland Council is not seen to model good emissions reducing behaviours within its own corporate activities

Auckland Council will be asking Aucklanders to make considerable adjustments to the way they travel around the city. It is important for the perceived credibility of the plan that council’s own practices are seen to role model best practice in reducing transport emissions. While the transition to a lower emissions fleet is a start, work should be undertaken immediately to consider what else could be done, particularly around site specific travel plans, encouragement for staff to use public transport, parking privileges.

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

71.    A recommended pathway will be presented to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for approval in July 2022. Feedback from local boards will be summarised and included in the committee report.

72.    Implementation of the TERP will follow the committee’s decision in 2022. Local boards will have an opportunity to provide input on the interventions in the endorsed pathway as they are planned and implemented in the future. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local board memo October 2021 - TERP

155

b

The behavioural science behind reducing Auckland’s transport emissions

159

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Szening Ooi - Principal Transport Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

A picture containing chart

Description automatically generated

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Rodney Local Board workshop records

File No.: CP2022/00207

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      Attached are the Rodney Local Board workshop records for 24 March, and 6 April 2022.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the workshop records for 24 March, 6 April 2022.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board workshop record 24 March 2022

167

b

Rodney Local Board workshop record 6 April 2022

169

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Natasha Yapp - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Table

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Governance forward work calendar

File No.: CP2022/00206

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To present the Rodney Local Board with a governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.      This report contains the governance forward work calendar, a schedule of items that will come before the Rodney Local Board at business meetings and workshops over the coming months until the end of the electoral term. The governance forward work calendar for the local board is included in Attachment A to the agenda report.

2.      The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

3.      The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Local board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the governance forward work calendar.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board governance forward work calendar

173

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Natasha Yapp - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 


 


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 8.3      Attachment a    Netball Rodney presentation Page 181


Rodney Local Board

20 April 2022

 

 

Diagram

Description automatically generated

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

Chart, diagram

Description automatically generated

Map

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated



[1] Local Government New Zealand and Department of Conservation (n.d), Reserves Act Guide, retrieved from https://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/legislation/reserves-act-guide.pdf

[2] A prioritised area of ecological significance that guides the delivery of conservation activity.

[3] https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/hearings/find-hearing/Pages/Hearing-documents.aspx?HearingId=526

[4] Notes: Duplicate submissions from the same submitter were excluded. The first of the identical campaign submissions is counted in the ‘unique’ submissions column. The campaign submissions provided postal codes which have been mapped to local board areas. Postal code areas do not match local board areas. The local board area forming the largest portion of the postal code area was assigned to the postal code, however some of these submitters may be resident in a neighbouring area.

[5] B3 Ngā pūnaha hanganga, kawekawe me ngā pūngao – Infrastructure, transport and energy

[6] Auckland Council (2020). Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/topic-based-plans-strategies/environmental-plans-strategies/aucklands-climate-plan/Pages/default.aspx

[7] OECD (2021). Transport strategies for net-zero systems by design. https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/well-being-lens/

[8] Creutzig, F., Niamir, L., Bai, X. et al. (2022). Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nature Climate Change, 12, 36–46.