Agenda of Planning Committee - Thursday, 5 May 2022

Planning Committee

05 May 2022

Resolutions from the Aotea/Great Barrier, Waiheke and Waitematā Local Boards regarding concerns about helicopter activity

File No.: CP2022/05471

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To respond to resolutions from the Aotea/Great Barrier, Waiheke and Waitematā Local Boards which raise concerns regarding the management of helicopter activity under the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) and the Auckland Council District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section (HGI Plan).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report first appeared on the meeting agenda for the 31 March 2022 Planning Committee meeting however it was deferred to the 5 May 2022 Planning Committee meeting agenda due to the committee running out of time that day.

3. This report has been prepared jointly by the Plans and Places Department and the Resource Consents Department in response to matters raised in resolutions from the Waiheke local Board meeting on 15 December 2021; Waitemata Local Board of 15 December 2021 and the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board on 22 March 2022.

4. The report considers the current regulatory framework of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) and Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) (HGI Plan) in response to local board concerns about the ability of the provisions to manage helicopter activity. In relation to the HGI Plan the report provides clarification regarding the interpretation of rules, and about the notification and processing of resource consent applications for restricted discretionary activities.

5. A comparison of the HGI Plan and the AUP identifies that the HGI Plan provisions are less strict in terms of resource consent activity status and noise standards. The greatest difference is in relation to activity status for helicopter activity in residential areas. In the AUP, helicopter landing and take-off in residential zones is a non-complying activity, meaning that council’s discretion over matters that may be considered is unlimited (providing the matters are within the scope of the Resource Management Act (RMA)). Under the HGI Plan, helicopter activity in residential zones is a restricted discretionary activity, with the matters of discretion being restricted to visual amenity and aural amenity. The assessment criteria enable an assessment of relevant effects, including consideration of helipad locations, flight numbers, flight movements and cumulative effects.

6. The less strict rules for helicopter landing and take-off and helipads on the Hauraki Gulf Islands were developed in the early 2000s to recognise the tourism and economic benefits that can arise from enabling travel to and from the Hauraki Gulf Islands by helicopter, and the very different transport needs that exist on the Hauraki Gulf Islands compared to other parts of Auckland.

7. Both the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the council’s Compliance and Monitoring department have agreed to carry out an analysis of flight data and resource consent conditions for helicopter flights on Waiheke Island, which will provide more detailed information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing regulatory framework and will assist with determining if changes are required.

8. In terms of public and limited notification of helipad resource consent applications, the HGI Plan requires this to be determined on a case-by-case basis. For restricted discretionary activities, while the provisions generally preclude public notification of restricted discretionary activities^{^[1]}, the council can consider special circumstances that may warrant notification under section 95A (9) of the RMA. The consideration of special circumstances occurs on a case-by-case basis. A request by the Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Local Boards for blanket application of special circumstances has been considered and is not considered legally defendable. For discretionary activity helipad applications under the HGI Plan, applications do not benefit from the presumption of non-notification, and a full notification assessment is required.

9. Prohibited activity status has been considered for the AUP, as requested by the Waitematā Local Board. The legal tests for prohibited activity status are very high, as the underlying premise for this activity status is that there are no circumstances in which helipads are appropriate. This would be an extremely difficult position to establish and is not recommended.

10. A moratorium has also been considered for the HGI Plan, as requested by the Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Local Board. It is noted that a moratorium is not a mechanism provided for under the RMA and council cannot lawfully impose this. The equivalent district plan rule would be to apply prohibited activity status through a plan change to the HGI Plan. As discussed above the legal tests for prohibited activity status are very high and would be an extremely difficult position to establish and is not recommended.

11. It is acknowledged there is a lack of information currently available to the council regarding flight data and compliance with consent conditions. Council’s Plans and Places department, Resource Consents department, and Compliance and Monitoring department support the request from the Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Local Board for the development of a compliance and monitoring programme. The Compliance and Monitoring department has developed a project for collection of this information to assess compliance rates and to identify any exceedances or discrepancies in flight-log recording. This project is scheduled to commence immediately and is estimated to take six months.

12. A wider data base of flight information is held by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and discussions are underway to give the council access to this information in order that an analysis and understanding of all helicopter activity in the Auckland area is obtained.

13. The data collected will have a bearing on a determination on whether changes to planning provisions are warranted. It is recommended that an options analysis based on the information collected is provided to the Planning Committee once the work is complete. This in turn will form a valuable evidence base which will be required should a plan change be required.

14. It is important to note that at this point in time, the Plans and Places department does not have the resources available to complete the work that would be required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan. The department is responding to the government’s extensive policy programme (and a significant increase in workload due to the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Act) and a very high volume of private plan change requests, some of which have required the council to make submissions (for which costs cannot be recovered).

15. Lack of capacity to undertake any new policy work is likely to continue for at least the next six months. It is therefore recommended that this matter is reported back to the Planning Committee when the monitoring results are available, at which point in time a further assessment can be made as to whether there is capacity to undertake the further work required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) acknowledge the concerns raised by the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board and Mana Whenua (via the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board) regarding helicopter activity managed under the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section)

b) acknowledge the concerns raised by Waitematā Local Board regarding helicopter activity managed under the Auckland Unitary Plan

c) note that the Compliance and Monitoring department is about to commence a project to analyse flight log information from helicopter resource consent holders on Waiheke Island where this is a condition of consent in order to determine extent of compliance and assist with an evidence-base of effects

d) note that staff will be working with the Civil Aviation Authority to analyse available flight tracking data to obtain an overview of current levels and patterns of helicopter activity in the Auckland region

e) request that once the compliance investigation is complete, a report is prepared for the Planning Committee providing an analysis of results

f) note the advice from staff that the legal tests for prohibited activity status are very high and would be an extremely difficult position to establish for the landing and take-off of helicopters across residential and coastal areas as part of any plan change, and is not recommended by staff

g) note that due to current pressures arising from the government’s extensive policy programme (and in particular the impact of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Act, at this point in time the Plans and Places department does not have the capacity to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) relating to helicopter activity

h) note that the council’s Māori Heritage team is working with mana whenua to identify and protect sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua on Aotea/Great Barrier Island

i) agree that the provisions for helipads in the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) are sufficiently clear and that the council should not seek a declaration in the Environment Court.

Horopaki

Context

16. Over the past six months there has been concern expressed by Auckland residents and public interest groups about the number of and noise generated by helicopters and helipads, particularly on Waiheke Island; the process of considering resource consent applications including the matter of notification; and whether consent holders are complying with consent conditions. There are 49 consented helipad sites on Waiheke Island and five current applications for helipads on Aotea Great Barrier.

17. This report responds to resolutions from the Waiheke local Board, Waitemata Local Board, and the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Waiheke Local Board resolutions of 15 December 2021, WHK /2021/178 (a) to (f)

b) Waitemata Local Board resolutions of 15 December 2021, WTM 2021/298 (a) to (c)

c) Aotea Great Barrier Local Board resolutions of 22 March 2022.

Waiheke Local Board

18. The Waiheke Local Board resolution dated 21July 2021 sought information from council officers about the regulatory framework for managing helicopters activity in the Hauraki Gulf Island Plan (HGI Plan) and options to further control helicopter activity. A joint memorandum of response from the Plans and Places Department and Resource Consents Departments was provided to both the Waiheke Local Board and the Planning Committee on 3 December 2021. The memorandum advised that a review of the HGI Plan provisions as part of the scheduled AUP review in 2026 was considered the most efficient use of the council’s resources, given the ability of relevant effects to be considered under the HGI Plan as it currently stands, and taking into account the council’s current resources, the significant policy workload arising from central government directions (such as the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and National Policy Statement on Urban Development), and the timing of the next AUP review in 2026.

19. It also advised that the Resource Consents Department was discussing the feasibility of the Compliance and Monitoring Department undertaking an educational approach for all existing helipad resource consent holders on Waiheke in conjunction with a CAA educational initiative that is also underway. Copies of the resolution and the memorandum of response are provided in Attachment A.

20. The Waiheke Local Board considered the memorandum at its meeting on 15 December 2021. The board members remained concerned about the management of helicopter activity and passed 12 additional resolutions requesting that, amongst other matters, the council obtain tracking records and set-up ongoing compliance monitoring to collect data on helicopter movements. It also requests that the council resource and instigate a plan change (subject to the outcome of the collection of data) and in the interim, consider certain matters when assessing applications for helipads and take-offs and landings. The resolution (WHK/2021/178) is provided in Attachment B.

Waitemata Local Board

21. The Waitemata Local Board resolution dated 12 December recommends the Planning Committee instigate a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) to make recreational helicopter take-offs and landings in urban and suburban residential areas, and in the coastal zone where adjacent to urban or suburban areas, a prohibited activity. The resolution (WTM/2021/298) is provided in Attachment C.

Aotea Great Barrier Local Board

22. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board has also raised concerns and passed resolutions dated 22 March 2022. The local board is concerned about regulations for managing helicopter activity following the receipt of five applications for helipads on Aotea/Great Barrier Island dated 8 March 2022. The resolution is provided in Attachment D.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. The regulatory framework for helicopter use is divided into two parts. Firstly section 9(5) of the RMA limits Council's consideration of adverse effects to only those that arise in relation to the construction of helipads and the taking off and landing of helicopters. Secondly, the effects that arise from the overflying activity are regulated by the CAA. This is relevant to consider when analysing the sufficiency of the current plan rules and the concerns that have been raised, and not those effects that arise from the broader overflying activity^{^[2]}.

24. The extent of the council’s jurisdiction is discussed in detail in paragraphs 36 - 38 of the memorandum to the Waiheke Local Board (Attachment a).

Overview of AUP and HGI Rules

25. The regulatory framework of the HGI Plan and the AUP in relation to the establishment of helipads, and helicopter activities of take-off and landing is discussed in detail in the memorandum to the Waiheke Local Board dated 4 December 2021 (Attachment A – Part A).

A summary of the regulatory framework is provided below:

26. In relation to the HGI Plan, the rules for helipads are set out in section 13.8 of the HGI Plan. Provision is made for permitted activities (Rule 13.8.1), restricted discretionary activities (Rule 13.8.2) and discretionary activities (Rule 13.8.3). Permitted activities do not require a resource consent (provided they meet all other relevant standards in the HGI Plan); restricted discretionary activities require an application for resource consent which can be declined but only for reasons that relate to the matters over which council has restricted its discretion; discretionary activities require a resource consent application which can also be declined. There are no limits on the scope of matters that can be considered when assessing a discretionary activity (provided they are within the scope of the Resource Management Act (RMA)).

27. The HGI Plan rules are reproduced in full at paragraph 18 of the memorandum (Attachment A).

28. In relation to the AUP, in the residential zones, helicopter landing and take-off is a non-complying activity under provision (A1) of the relevant activity tables. Item (A1) applies non-complying activity status to activities not provided for (in the activity tables). For rural zones, helicopter landings and take-offs associated with servicing rural activities fall under the activity ‘rural airstrip’ and are a permitted activity in all rural zones. Helicopter activity outside of this context (i.e. private use) is a discretionary activity^{^[3]}.

29. The memorandum provides a comparison of the HGI provisions to the AUP provisions. It is noted that the HGI Plan provisions are less strict than the AUP in terms of resource consent activity status and noise standards. The key differences are the activity status applied in residential zones (non-complying in the AUP and restricted discretionary activity in the HGI Plan) and the non-notification rule that applies in the HGI Plan (Rule 13.5). For rural zones, both plans have a permissive approach to servicing rural activities. For non-rural helicopter activity (i.e. private use) the AUP takes a stricter approach than the HGI Plan (discretionary activity and restricted discretionary activity respectively).

30. Notwithstanding that the provisions of the HGI Plan are less strict than the AUP, where restricted discretionary activity status is triggered, the HGI Plan provisions do allow relevant effects, including impacts on visual amenity and aural amenity and cumulative effects to be assessed, and enable the council to decline resource consent applications. The criteria include consideration of helipad locations, flight numbers and flight movements. Where discretionary and non-complying activity status is triggered, whether under the AUP or HGI Plan, the range of discretion is unlimited (within the scope of the RMA). Regarding noise standards of the HGI Plan and AUP, the relevant rules as set out in the memorandum are:

a) AUP noise standard at Rule E25.6.32 applies Ldn 50 dB and LAFmax 85 dB

b) HGI noise standard for restricted discretionary activity at Rule 13.8.2 applies Ldn 50 (using a rolling three-day average). For additional context, it is highlighted here that Rule 13.8.2 is still more restrictive than NZS 6807:1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas as the NZ Standard refers to a seven-day averaging period.

31. Both the AUP and HGI Plan apply Ldn 50dB. The AUP provisions are identified as more restrictive, as compliance is based on any single (24 hour) day rather than an average over three days. Applying the AUP rules, an indicative setback distance to comply with 50 dB Ldn for one flight (landing and take-off) is a minimum of approximately 100m from the helipad to the nearest notional boundary. In comparison, using the HGI Plan Ldn three-day rolling average, the minimum setback distance could be reduced by around 50m for one flight (i.e. the setback is approximately 50m).

32. The less strict rules for helicopter landing and take-off and helipads on the Hauraki Gulf Islands were developed in the early 2000s to recognise the tourism and economic benefits that can arise from enabling travel to and from the Hauraki Gulf Islands by helicopter, and the very different transport needs that exist on the Hauraki Gulf Islands compared to other parts of Auckland.

Alternative Interpretation of applicable rules - HGI Plan

33. The Waiheke Local Board considers that there are other interpretations of the HGI Plan rules and resolution (h) requests council to seek a declaration from the Environment Court on a number of matters including alternative interpretations of the activity status of take-off and landings; whether a broader consideration of amenity should be applied when considering the restricted discretionary criteria including considering impacts on the wider public and visitors; and the adequacy of the scope of the rules in terms of whether consideration should be given to matters such as the Waiheke Local Board Plan Vision of Waiheke as a Sanctuary and issues such as climate change and carbon emissions.

34. The interpretation of Part 13.8 as standalone provisions is discussed in detail in Attachment B to the memorandum. Support for the council’s interpretation of the provisions as ‘standalone’ is found in the analysis of the background to the development of the provisions (reporting on the 2006 district plan review issues, s32 and s42A reports). Attention is drawn to the specific intention of council to consolidate all transport provisions into one chapter. The intention of consolidation and other matters of context outlined in the memorandum (specificity of provisions, correct noise standards and potential absurd outcome (making Chapter 13.8 redundant) are considered to demonstrate clearly that the provisions in Chapter 13.8 are intended to be ‘standalone’ and are the relevant provisions to apply to helicopter activity. The memorandum notes that the council’s interpretation applies a plain word interpretation, and that the consideration of contextual matters is consistent with relevant caselaw on how to interpret plans under the RMA.

35. Attachment B to the memorandum considers the alternative interpretation of a ‘non-complying’ activity. It is noted that the interpretation is based on the premise that the Claris Airport Activity Table identifies helipads as a permitted activity and that the absence of a line item in the land unit activity tables for helipad activity outside of the Claris airport therefore triggers a default non-complying activity status (under Chapter 4.2 general rules).

36. The memorandum identifies that the permitted activity status for helipads in the Claris Airport Activity Table is to recognise existing airport activity which warranted it being treated differently to other new helipads outside the airport. Council staff do not consider that this special recognition triggers non-complying activity status in relation to all other land units. It is noted that if that interpretation was applied, the provisions at Rule 13.8 are made entirely redundant. Applying a plain interpretation of the provisions, this would be considered an absurd outcome (in legal terms).

37. Attachment B to the Memorandum also considers the alternative interpretation of noise rules which is that noise rules at Rule 13.8 and general rules for noise under Rule 10c.5.3 are both applicable. On this matter, the memorandum highlights that the specificity of noise provisions and the context of consolidation of relevant rules into one chapter supports the application of Rule 13.8 and not the general noise rule 10c.5.3. The memorandum highlights the specific nature of Rule 13.8.2 - being expressly intended for helicopter activity, as is evident in the refencing of the correct specification of New Zealand Standards noise standards for helicopter activity (NZX:6807:1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas and NZS 6805:1992 Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning). For the reasons outlined staff believe it is clear that the provisions in Chapter 13.8 are standalone provisions and staff do not consider a declaration from the Environment Court to be warranted.

Resource Consents Assessments

38. The Waiheke Local Board resolution h(iv) raises particular concerns about whether the provisions at Rule 13.8.2 – Restricted Discretionary activities provide for adequate consideration of amenity effects.

39. As discussed in paragraph 26 above, the existing rules are considered to allow the assessment of the typical effects of concern when it comes to the take-off and landing of helicopters (including impacts on visual amenity and aural amenity and cumulative effects). The assessment criteria include consideration of helipad locations, flight numbers and flight movements, and there is a specific requirement to consider cumulative effects. It is acknowledged, however, that the outcome of the monitoring by both the council and the CAA could be that there is a case for changing the provisions in some way.

40. Regarding the assessment of noise effects, an issue has been raised by the Waiheke Local Board in resolution (h)(ii) about noise readings being measured from the notional boundary of sites with sensitive activities^{^[4]} and has indicated that this approach precludes proper consideration of cumulative effects and impacts on the wider community. However, the technical reason for the use of the notional boundary is that this approach results in noise measurements from sites which are worst affected by the application. This approach therefore sets the highest bar for assessment of noise impacts and in this context is a highly representative and broadly inclusive method of assessment.

41. The Waiheke Local Board resolution (h)(iv) questions whether a broader assessment of effects on amenity can be undertaken than is currently being applied by the resource consents teams. Resolutions (d), (e), (f)(iv) and (g) seek that the Waiheke Local Board Plan Vision of Waiheke as a Sanctuary is taken into account, and resolution (f)(iii) seeks that matters of climate change and carbon emissions should also be considered. The scope for these matters to be considered as ‘special circumstances’ for notification determination and assessments of resource consents in terms of the current rules of the HGI Plan is discussed in this report under the heading ‘Other Documents’.

42. Provided that a direct link can be established in relation to the matters of discretion (currently limited to noise effects, and the visual effect of earthworks or retaining structures required to establish a helipad) it is considered that these matters could be relevant to consideration in some applications.

43. Importantly, the restricted discretionary activity applications are subject to a non-notification clause (Part 13.5). This provides for exclusion of notification (public and limited) unless a special circumstance is found to be applicable. Special circumstance parameters are a high bar, being informed by the matters of discretion and the thresholds set by case law. As with all restricted discretionary applications, the use of special circumstances in relation to notification and assessment occurs on a case-by-case basis. Special circumstances are discussed in detail in paragraphs 50 - 57 (below).

Enforcement and Monitoring - Resource consents conditions

44. There are 49 resource consents for helipads on Waiheke Island, and the Waiheke Local Board has recorded its concern that consent conditions for flight data collection (to be provided at council’s request) are not routinely implemented. The local board resolution (b) seeks the development of a compliance and monitoring plan so that the flight data is collected and is available for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of current district plan rules.

45. The Compliance and Monitoring Team has advised that the existing approach to compliance and monitoring of helicopter resource consent conditions is focused on the initial implementation of helicopter consent conditions (to establish a helipad), and that monitoring after the initial set up is reactionary (i.e. it is triggered when a complaint received). This approach is low risk given the low frequency of helicopter related complaints received. As shown in Table 1 below, prior to 2022 the number of complaints has been on average one per year. The reactionary approach recognises that the majority of the consents are not subject of complaint and allows for practical prioritisation of staff resource towards higher risk consent activities.

Table 1: Helicopter complaints recorded between 2004 to March 2022.

2022	Multiple complaints (Cable Bay)
2016	1 complaint (query about flight paths deviation)
2015	3 complaints concerning same consent holder (query about no. of flights) (24 September 10,11 October, 14 October)
2014	1 complaint (query about flight path deviation)
2013	1 complaint (query about flight path deviation)
2004	1 complaint (query about no. of flights)

46. It is however accepted that there is insufficient data from this method to determine overall compliance rates and the Compliance and Monitoring team has agreed to formulate a programme of work (detailed in Attachment E to this report - ‘Proactive Compliance Project proposal’) as a matter of urgency. This programme will obtain and analyse flight log information as included in resource consent conditions since 2015 to provide an overview of the level of compliance currently (establishing a baseline for future comparison) and how it can be improved.

47. The project is to commence immediately and is estimated to take six months. The project will investigate and ascertain baseline compliance of helicopter movements linked with Waiheke Island properties; determine what proportion are occurring in accordance with the conditions of resource consent; and will undertake agreed interventions where non-compliance has been detected. The project’s specific objectives are:

· Determine compliance rates in this consent category (Waiheke Island, Helicopter activity)

· Identify any exceedances or discrepancies in flight-log recording.

48. This work will complement an education initiative by the Resource Consents department and the Civil Aviation Authority which is already underway. The initiative aims to contact helicopter consent holders to raise awareness of their specific helipad consent conditions and the consent holder’s associated responsibilities.

49. In addition to the above outlined initiatives, Plans and Places and Resource Consents staff have met with staff from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to discuss helicopter activity on and around Waiheke Island, and in particular, the views of the CAA on the amount of helicopter activity in relation to safety.

50. The CAA were able to show council digital representations of flight data which provided for broad analysis of helicopter activity both on Waiheke, and in terms of overflying. The CAA has advised that when the modelling of the flight data is completed, it will be made available to council.

51. On the issue of whether flights generated from the number of helipads on Waiheke was considered overly high, the CAA noted that the flight data held by the CAA for the 49 consented helipads on Waiheke shows that only six are in regular use (these include Mudbrick and Cable Bay vineyards, the Waiheke Aerodrome, and the sports field helipad that is utilised by emergency services). The CAA have also advised that very few of the Waiheke helipads tip the threshold of being an aerodrome^{^[5]} (exceeding 7 flights over a 30-day period) and note that a large proportion of the consented helipads have very low levels of activity.

52. The CAA also noted that the helipad activity on Waiheke was occurring against a backdrop of a significantly larger number of helicopter flights overflying Waiheke - which do not land on Waiheke at all. These flights are shown to arrive and depart from mainland areas of Central Auckland, Northland, and Coromandel. As previously noted, the council’s jurisdiction does not extend to overlying helicopters (including safety and noise issues) and these activities will not be affected by changes to the HGI Plan if they are required.

53. On the issue of safety, the CAA has commented that the number of helipads (49) on Waiheke is not considered to pose a safety risk.

Other documents

Waiheke Local Board Plan (WLB Plan)

54. The Waiheke Local Board resolution (g) seeks that the WLB Plan is considered under ‘special circumstances’ when making notification determinations and in assessments of resource consent applications for helicopters. The WLB Plan is adopted pursuant to section 20 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA). The WLB Plan is not able to directly affect or deal with Council’s regulatory function under the RMA.

55. Council staff do not consider that a decision as to whether to notify a resource consent application based on special circumstances under section 95A (9) of the RMA based only on the WLB Plan would be justified. A finding of special circumstances needs to be on a case-by-case basis.

56. Caselaw indicates that a special circumstance is something that is 'exceptional, abnormal or unusual but less than extraordinary or unique'^{^[6]}. Circumstances which are 'special' will be those which make notification desirable, despite the general provisions excluding the need for notification^{^[7]}.

57. In determining the application of special circumstances, it is considered that the key consideration is whether the resulting notification would result in receipt of further information relevant to determining the substantive application. For restricted discretionary applications, the only information relevant to the substantive decision is that which falls within the scope of council’s discretion. Under Rule 13.8.2 matters of discretion are limited to noise effects, and the visual effect of any earthworks or retaining structures required to establish a helipad or airstrip. The assessment criteria include consideration of appropriate controls over the type of helicopter(s) the flight procedure, (flight track/path, ground idling, hovering), the hours of operation and frequency of movement and the location of helipad or airstrip.

58. It is relevant to note that the WLB Plan does not appear to have any explicit bearing on an assessment of these effects, and in this regard, it is considered that the WLB Plan does not provide ‘special circumstances’ justification for public notification of restricted discretionary activity helipad and take-off and landings resource consent applications.

59. For discretionary activity applications, it is unlikely that consideration of the WLB Plan would in every case result in relevant further information coming to light. It is therefore considered that the WLB Plan does not amount to a ‘exceptional’ matter which justifies notification of all resource consent applications for helipads on Waiheke Island. Council staff therefore support a case-by-case determination of special circumstances as part of the notification decision.

60. Regarding the substantive assessment of helipad resource consent applications: for applications with restricted discretionary activity status (Rule 13.8.2) assessment is restricted to noise effects and the visual effect of any earthworks or retaining structures required to establish a helipad or airstrip. These limitations do not allow for consideration of the WLB Plan and the views of the Waiheke LB as to the application of the WLB Plan. These matters are not within the scope of the matters over which the council has restricted its discretion.

61. If the activity status of an application is discretionary, then council will make its substantive decision pursuant to section 104 of the RMA. Under section 104(1)(c) the WLB Plan could be considered as an ‘other relevant matter’ that council could take into account in its assessment of the application. However, even if the WLB is considered to be an “other relevant matter” it is likely to be of limited statutory weight as it is not a plan created under the Rma. In addition, the content of the WLB Plan does not directly address helicopter landing pads. There is a lack of direct relevance or application to helipads in the WLB Plan and this also indicates that limited weight should be given to the WLB Plan.

Carbon emissions and climate change legislation

62. The Waiheke Local Board resolution (f)(iii) requests the council to respond to the helicopter consenting issues by considering the wishes of the people of Waiheke to ‘mitigate future carbon emissions with urgency in relation to the Climate Emergency declared by the Council.’ The request has been considered in light of the RMA as it is currently, and in light of climate change amendments proposed by the Resource Management Amendment Act which comes into force from 30 November 2022.

Current situation

63. The RMA currently has a limited role in climate change mitigation and local authority responsibilities under RMA are confined to climate change adaptation (i.e. response to the effects of climate change, including natural hazards). Climate change mitigation (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) is currently beyond the scope of council’s resource management responsibilities^{^[8]}.

64. The only exception is the ability under section 70B of the RMA to control the effects on climate change of the discharge into the air of greenhouse gases, following promulgation of a National Environmental Standard (NES). However, no such NES has yet eventuated.

Resource Management Amendment Act amendments in force from 30 November 2022

65. The position will change once the RMAA amendments relating to greenhouse gas emissions come into force on 30 November 2022. However, the amendments made by the RMAA cannot be taken into account in an application for resource consent for a helipad until in force.

66. Even after 30 November 2022, where the helipad resource consent application has a restricted discretionary status, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are not permissible considerations as they are outside the scope of the mattes over which the council has restricted its discretion in Rule 13.8.2. A policy and rule framework relating to greenhouse gas emission reduction is likely therefore to need to be the subject of a separate plan change process.

67. Where the helipad resource consent application has a discretionary activity status ‘the effects of climate change’ may be relevant under section 7(i) in the context of council’s Part 2 assessment (albeit the relevance of those effects will depend on the specifics of the application in question).

Prohibited Activity Status

68. The Waitemata Local Board resolution requests the introduction of prohibited activity status in the AUP for recreational helicopter take-offs and landings in urban and suburban residential zones and adjacent coastal zones. It notes that the activity already has a non-complying activity status and that maintaining a quality living environment for these zones likely results in helicopter applications being declined. This being the case, the local board seeks that clarity and certainty is provided to people through the application of a prohibited activity status and notes that this would protect people from wasting time and money on what are likely to be unsuccessful applications.

69. It would be a very difficult task to justify a blanket prohibition on recreational helipads in residential and coastal zones. In order for a plan change that seeks to classify helipads as a prohibited activity in certain zones to succeed, the plan change would need to meet the statutory tests under the RMA. The premise underpinning prohibited activity status is that the effects are such that in no circumstances would a helipad be considered appropriate. It would be very difficult for the council to demonstrate that prohibited activity status was “the most appropriate” under the applicable statutory tests, without also proposing to change the existing policy framework of the AUP by introducing new AUP objectives and policies that support prohibited activity status. In addition, there would need to be comprehensive assessments, including in relation to the environmental effects of helipads, that would need to be undertaken by council to support the prohibited status.

70. It is considered that this would be a very difficult position to establish and council’s data at present would not provide the necessary level of supporting evidence.

71. The compliance and monitoring project outlined above will contribute to meeting the information requirements required to make an informed assessment under section 32 of the RMA by establishing a monitoring baseline. Further data may be obtained from the CAA who have indicated to council staff informally that they are willing to provide council with access to a significantly larger data base of flight log information (which goes beyond council’s helipad consents data) and will provide a broader understanding of helicopter activity in the Auckland Region. It is noted that the CAA database is still being collated and refined and the relevant data is not anticipated to become available to council before December 2022.

72. Although prohibited activity status would provide greater clarity and certainty (as suggested by the Waitemata Local Board) it would also provide no flexibility. The RMA provides for a range of activity statuses from permitted through to non-complying status which provides applicants with an indication of what activities are considered appropriate in a zone based on their potential to create adverse effects. The non-complying activity status is already the most restrictive activity status other than complete prohibition. The concern that applicants may be wasting time and money in making an application that may be turned down is acknowledged, however the risk associated with pursuing a non-complying activity is considered to be clearly conveyed by the status itself, and the assessment required under the RMA for such a status, acknowledging that applications can be granted for non-complying activities.

73. Prohibiting recreational helicopter take offs and landings in urban and suburban residential zones and adjacent coastal zones is not recommended.

Aotea/Great Barrier

74. Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board has advised council of the intention to consider a notice of motion in relation to helicopter activity (Attachment D). The notice of motion will seek the public notification of all helicopter applications by way of a plan change, and that in the interim, notification is applied by using ‘special circumstances; an investigation into the cumulative effects of helicopters and recognition of the lack of enforcement / monitoring; and also requests sites and places of significance to mana whenua be taken into consideration. It is also noted that paragraph 6 of the local board’s notice of motion identifies that mana whenua have requested a suspension of private helipad consent applications on Aotea to allow the planning process to factor in mana whenua’s kaitiaki role, management of compliance and wider concerns.

75. A discussion of public notification is in this report under the heading ‘Other Documents’. This assessment must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis and relate to the effects of the proposal being considered.

76. The local board’s request for an investigation into cumulative effects of helicopter activity and requests for enforcement and monitoring are noted. It is accepted that there is insufficient data on the number of helicopter movements and compliance with helicopter consent conditions., and Council’s Plans and Places, Resource Consents, and Compliance and Monitoring departments are supportive of the commencement of a programme for analysing helicopter flight data to remedy this situation. As previously discussed, a project led by the council’s Compliance and Monitoring Team is about to get underway.The CAA is also assisting council through provision of access to a larger database of flight data which will assist in providing a more accurate assessment of helicopter movements in the Hauraki Gulf area.

77. Regarding the request to address protecting sites and places of significant to mana whenua, it is noted that the council has been working with mana whenua to identify and protect sites and places of significance on Aotea/Great Barrier Island for several years now. A number of sites have been nominated by mana whenua, some of which were due to be included in the first tranche of sites to be scheduled for protection through the council’s Maori Heritage Programme. With the agreement of mana whenua, these sites were moved to the second tranche and work is progressing with mana whenua to ensure the sites can be included in the next plan change.

78. Regarding the request from mana whenua to suspend consent applications it is advised that a moratorium is not provided for under the RMA. The council is obliged to receive and process resource consent applications. It is noted that that all resource consent applications received by council are provided to mana whenua on a weekly basis, and that this provides opportunity for mana whenua to highlight matters of concern that may be applicable as special circumstances in the determination of notification and substantive assessment. It is noted that the determination of whether special circumstances are triggered is made on a case-by-case basis.

Preparation of plan changes to the AUP and HGI Plan

79. For the reasons outlined above, preparing a plan change to the AUP to amend the activity status of the take-off and landing of helicopters to prohibited is not supported. With respect to the HGI Plan, it is possible that the results and analysis of the compliance programme and a more comprehensive review of options under section 32 of the RMA, may demonstrate that a plan change is justified.

80. However, at this point in time, the Plans and Places department does not have the resources available to complete the work that would be required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan. The department is responding to the government’s extensive policy programme (and a significant increase in the work required as a result of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Act) and a very high volume of private plan change requests, some of which have required the council to make submissions (for which costs cannot be recovered).

81. Lack of capacity to undertake any new policy work is likely to continue for at least the next six months. It is therefore recommended that this matter is reported back to the Planning Committee when the monitoring results are available, at which point a further assessment can be made as to whether there is capacity to undertake the further work required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

82. The Government’s first Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) is scheduled to be released by 31 May 2022. It will set out how New Zealand will meet its first emissions budget (2022-2025) and set the path towards meeting long-term climate targets.

83. Auckland Council’s climate plan, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, has called for a 64 percent reduction in transport emissions by 2030. Auckland Council has established a Transport Emissions Reference Group made up of Councillors, Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) members, members of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, and members of the Auckland Transport (AT) board to develop options for achieving the proposed 64% emissions reduction. The reference group will provide strategic direction to officers from the council and AT who are jointly developing a Transport Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) that will outline concrete actions to dramatically reduce transport emissions by 2030.

84. The Government’s ERP and the Councils TERP will be relevant to the assessment of helipad applications and may be considered in any determination as to whether ‘special circumstances’ are triggered in association with a resource consent assessment.

85. These plans will also have relevance to any future changes proposed to the regulatory framework of the AUP and HGI Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

86. The Resource Consents and Compliance and Monitoring departments have contributed to the preparation of this report.

87. Eke Panuku, Auckland Transport and Auckland Unlimited would be consulted as part of any process involving changes to the provisions for Helicopters in the AUP and HGI plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

88. This report responds to concerns about helicopter activity raised by the Waiheke Local Board, Waitemata Local Board and Aotea Great Barrier Local Board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

89. The Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board has included the following matters as supporting information to the (pending) Notice of Motion:

· That all applications be referred to Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea for an up-to-date Cultural Values Assessment as at least two of the current applications proposed are within areas of well-known archaeological and waahi tapu sites.

· The Aotea Local Board has identified that it is of concern to mana whenua that there are currently no archaeological sites, or sites of significance to mana whenua, scheduled in the Auckland Unitary Plan or HGI Plan on Aotea / Great Barrier Island. The local board presented to the Planning Committee on 1 July 2021 regarding protecting sites and places of archaeological and cultural significance on the island. It is understood that council is seeking to address this legacy issue of data gaps and we request urgency in this matter.

· Charles Nepia (Kaiwhakahaere, Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust) noted the planning permissions for helipads showed little consideration for our intrinsic values or need to safeguard our whenua and moana

· Mana whenua have requested a suspension on private helipad consent applications on Aotea to allow the planning process to factor in mana whenua’s kaitiaki role, management of compliance and wider concerns.

90. The request from mana whenua to allow the planning process to provide for mana whenua’s kaitiaki role is acknowledged. At present all consent applications received by council are provided to mana whenua on a weekly basis, providing an opportunity for mana whenua to review applications and highlight matters of concern. Where applicable these may be provided for as special circumstances in the determination of notification and substantive assessment. It is noted that the determination of whether special circumstances are triggered is made on a case-by-case basis.

91. In considering whether special circumstances exist, the council must consider the information which might be obtained through the notification process. Given the council's discretion is restricted in assessing restricted discretionary activity helicopter landing pad applications, only matters which can be considered when assessing the substantive application are able to be taken into account in the consideration of whether special circumstances apply.

92. For a restricted discretionary activity, the effects which can be assessed in the substantive decision are those listed in Rule 13.8.2. This includes the effect of noise, and visual and amenity effects associated with any physical works.

93. Regarding the request from mana whenua to suspend consent applications it has been previously noted that a moratorium is not provided for under the RMA. The council is obliged to receive and process resource consent applications. Any applications received must be assessed and determined, avoiding unreasonable delay as directed by s21 of the RMA.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

94. As previously noted, at this point in time, the council’s Plans and Places department is not resourced to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan relating to helicopter landing and take-offs and helipads. Engaging consultants to undertake this work has been considered, however considerable oversight by council staff would still be required at a time when there is simply no capacity available. If consultants were engaged, the evaluation supported a plan change, and the Planning Committee agreed to notify a plan change, there would be an ongoing need for oversight well into 2023 and most likely beyond. The costs of using a consultant are also likely to be significant due to the high likelihood of any plan change being appealed to the Environment Court.

95. It is therefore recommended that this matter is reported back to the Planning Committee when the monitoring results are available, at which point a further assessment can be made as to whether there is capacity to undertake the work required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

96. To date the representations to the local boards do not appear to have included consent holders, helicopter operators and helicopter users, all of whom have views that would need to be considered in any plan change relating to the helicopter provisions. Given the contentious nature of the topic and anticipated contest by stakeholders, a solid evidential basis for any proposed plan change will be necessary.

97. It is noted that the current level of information about helicopter activity and compliance with consent conditions is insufficient to support a plan change process, and that further research is necessary in order that any decision to progress a plan change is able to be justified in terms of RMA tests. Statutory tests under section 32 of the RMA require that proposed changes are the most appropriate method to achieve the sustainability purpose of the Act and are the most efficient and most effective method to apply. The work being undertaken by the council’s Compliance and Monitoring department is an important way to mitigate the risk of any plan change failing when contested at a hearing or in the Environment Court.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

98. The proposed next steps are:

a) The council’s Compliance and Monitoring department will urgently commence and complete a programme to analyse flight log information from helicopter resource consent holders where this is a condition of consent in order to determine extent of compliance and assist with an evidence-base of effects.

b) Staff will work with the Civil Aviation Authority to analyse available flight tracking data to obtain an overview of current levels and patterns of helicopter activity in the Auckland region.

c) Once completed, staff will report the results of the monitoring work and work with the CAA back to the Planning Committee, at which point in time an assessment will be made as to whether the Plans and Places department has the capacity to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) relating to helicopter activity.

d) The council’s Māori Heritage team will continue to work with mana whenua to ensure that nominate sites are able to be included in the next and subsequent plan changes.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Memorandum to Waiheke Local Board - 3 December 2021	29
b ⇩	Waiheke Local Board Resolution WHK2021/178	47
c ⇩	Waitemata Local Board Resolution WTM2021/298	49
d ⇩	Aotea Great Barrier Notice of Motion 22 March 2022	51
e ⇩	Proactive Compliance Project - Proposal - Waiheke Helicopters	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Alison Pye - Senior Policy Planner

Warren Maclennan - Manager - Planning, Regional, North, West & Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 May 2022

Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case

File No.: CP2022/04621

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this agenda item is to enable the committee to formally consider and endorse the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case which identifies how best to spend the $306 million currently allocated in the Regional Land Transport Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This item first appeared on the meeting agenda for 31 March Planning Committee. However, the item was deferred due to the committee running out of time that day. Minor / editorial changes have been made to this version to improve readability (mostly to the Executive summary), footnote 3 explaining Future Connect has been extended, and a little more detail has been added to the Māori impact statement.

3. Cycling and micromobility need substantial investment to be equitable with other transport modes and to realistically contribute to the mode shift aspiration of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan seeks to reduce Auckland’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, with a 64% reduction in transport emissions. The resulting cycling mode share (by distance) goal is 7% by 2030. It is acknowledged that this target may change following the development of the Transport Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP).

4. The Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case (CAM-PBC) is a new 10-year investment programme for cycling and micromobility that identifies how best to spend the $306 million that is currently allocated in the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and prioritises future investment should any additional funding become available. It works alongside and complements other cycling and multi-modal transport projects and programmes to reduce transport emissions and increase cycle and micromobility mode share.

5. Ensuring safe cycling infrastructure is delivered across more of our network is critical to enabling cycling in greater volumes, as safety is the number one impediment to the uptake of cycling. Additional investment in cycling and micromobility improvements is justifiable because of the positive health, emissions, and place outcomes, as well as the positive return on investment, which is (in the case of the CAM-PBC) twice that of similar scale roading projects.

6. The CAM-PBC aims to improve safe cycle access and uptake through an agile programme that includes network development, cycle parking and customer growth initiatives (e.g., marketing, cycle skills training, bike hubs) and identifies policy changes required to support its investment strategy.

7. To reduce cost and accelerate delivery, the CAM-PBC has prioritised cycle projects based on (among other things) the ability to reallocate road space to safe cycle facilities and building a connected network that caters to multiple different trip types. In addition, the CAM-PBC supports:

· a programme-level design standards departure to further enable road space reallocation;

· the bundling of project procurement to gain further delivery efficiencies and cost savings;

· the use of ‘lite’ / fast track business cases for projects less than $15 million (whole-of-life cost) to speed up investigation and design; and

· scaling up in-house resources and working with the market to ensure professional services are available to support accelerated delivery and community engagement.

8. In terms of the CAM-PBC working alongside other projects and programmes, the current RLTP is expected to deliver at least 210km of strategic cycling connections by 2030, of which 45km would be delivered by a portion of the $306 million allocated to the CAM-PBC. The funded portion of the CAM-PBC will also deliver four focus areas of targeted cycling investment, which results in additional kilometres of cycling infrastructure, over and above the 210km highlighted in the table below. The table below sets out what can be developed under different funding scenarios of the CAM-PBC. I.e., a $1 billion package and a $2 billion package.

	Kilometres of cycling connections delivered by 2030	Number of focus areas delivered by 2030^{^[9]}	Value of cycle parking and customer growth initiatives^{^[10]}
Non-PBC cycling investments (currently funded in RLTP)	165km total
$306 million CAM-PBC programme (currently funded in RLTP)	45km total ($175 million)	4 focus areas ($110 million)	$21 million
$1 billion CAM-PBC programme ($700 million currently unfunded)	150km total (Additional 105km) ($746 million)	7 focus areas (Additional 3 areas) ($185 million)	$70 million
$2 billion CAM-PBC programme ($1.7 billion currently unfunded)	260km total (Additional 110km) ($1.5 billion)	14 focus areas (Additional 7 areas) ($360 million)	$140 million

9. In addition to delivering kilometres of cycling connections and focus areas, which contributes to the regional goal of a 7% cycling mode share by distance (subject to funding), the CAM-PBC will also contribute to reducing deaths and serious injurious by 40% by 2031; and increase the proportion of the population that can access opportunities within a 15-minute bike ride to 40% by 2031.

10. Delivering the Cycling and Micromobility Strategic Network in Auckland Transport’s (AT) Future Connect^{^[11]}, which the Planning Committee and AT’s Board have seen previously, and is not under consideration here, remains AT’s ultimate goal. The CAM-PBC estimates the cost of delivering all of Future Connect’s ‘Strategic’ cycling and micromobility connections to be over $6 billion and would require the additional components as outlined in bullet points ‘b’ and ‘c’ of paragraph 11 below.

11. The CAM-PBC identifies an investment strategy and programme that seeks the greatest uplift in cycling and micromobility mode share within a conceivable funding scenario with:

a. a cycling investment programme of $2 billion for new safe cycle facilities, cycle parking and customer growth initiatives;

b. the implementation of currently funded cycling and multi-modal projects from the RLTP;

c. the implementation of a number of currently unfunded projects (such as Connected Communities projects, Light Rail, Airport to Botany), that include significant cycling components within their overall project scopes and their funding envelopes; and

d. implementation of a significant number of behaviour change policies to further lift cycling mode share and to close the gap between what infrastructure investment can achieve and the mode share target.

12. In addition to the funding gap between what is currently available ($306 million) and what is required to deliver the CAM-PBC’s identified investment programme, there are a number of constraints on AT’s ability to deliver a larger programme that will need to be overcome. These include internal capacity and market readiness.

13. Endorsement of the CAM-PBC does not imply approval of any additional funding at this stage. The endorsement being sought is for CAM-PBC’s investment strategy, and its prioritisation process that provides an agile programme. This agility will allow AT to work towards the cycle mode share goal and enables a rapid scaling up of delivery, should additional funding become available. Further, a strategic communications plan to support delivery of the walking and cycling programmes is being developed. Political support is required to help deliver its messaging and for delivering successful projects. It is also required for the advocacy and implementation of the behaviour change policies.

14. Following the Planning Committee being asked to formally consider and endorse the CAM-PBC, it will subsequently be tabled with the AT and Waka Kotahi boards for final endorsement.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case as summarised in this agenda report including:

i) acknowledgement of identified funding levels and policy recommendations,

ii) its investment strategy, and

iii) prioritisation approach,

which will identify how best to spend the $306 million in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031.

b) note that while approval of additional funding is not sought at this stage, achievement of 7% cycling and micromobility mode share by distance by 2030 would require:

i) an increase in capital funding from $306 million in the 2021-2031 Regional Land Transport Plan to $2 billion (for cycling connections, focus areas, cycle parking, and customer growth initiatives);

ii) implementation of the current cycling and multi-modal projects of the 2021-2031 Regional Land Transport Plan;

iii) currently unfunded projects such as Connected Communities and Airport to Botany that have crucial safe cycling connections being funded for implementation;

iv) a significant proportion of the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case’s policy recommendations being implemented by Auckland Transport, its partners, Government, and other parties; and

v) additional OPEX to enable delivery of the full suite of recommended Customer Growth Initiatives.

c) note that the Auckland Transport Board will consider final endorsement of the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case following the Planning Committee's endorsement.

d) note that changes are required to current procurement and funding settings to enable delivery of the recommended Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case investment programme over the next decade.

Horopaki

Context

15. In February 2021, the Planning Committee nominated three members and invited two Local Board members to join the project’s Political Reference Group. The developing direction of the CAM-PBC was presented to a workshop of the Committee on 15 December 2021.

16. The CAM-PBC is the result of a review of the 2017 Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case (2017-PBC). The CAM-PBC was primarily developed to respond to lessons learnt about the cost and speed of delivery of cycling facilities, new transport and funding policy, and to establish a new 10-year funding case for cycling and micromobility. It includes an investment strategy to increase cycling mode share through infrastructure, associated customer growth initiatives, and policy. The CAM-PBC was developed following Waka Kotahi business case guidelines and together with Waka Kotahi and Council staff, and further supported by broader technical reference groups as discussed below.

17. The strategic direction generally remains consistent with the 2017-PBC in that the Auckland transport system is failing to protect people on bikes who are over-represented in deaths and serious injuries; the unsafe and unattractive cycling experience means the mode is not fulfilling its potential which is leading to: poor environmental, social, health, and place outcomes. The following new ‘problem’ has been added: “Current cycling delivery mechanisms and resistance towards reallocating road space to cycling infrastructure are resulting in cost escalations, delays in delivery, and facilities that do not always meet customer expectations”.

18. The CAM-PBC will: contribute to reducing deaths and serious injuries by 40% by 2031; contribute to a regional cycle mode share by distance target of 7%; and increase the proportion of the population that can access opportunities within a safe 15-minute bike ride to 40% by 2031.

19. These objectives reflect the following (noting that some are still in development): Vision Zero and Road to Zero; the 2021 Government Policy Statement; Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 (with 64% of that allocated to transport); the Government’s draft Emissions Reduction Plan, Council and AT’s joint development of a Transport Emissions Reduction Plan; and the National Policy Statement for Urban Development.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Auckland Transport’s network plan - Future Connect – sets out AT’s ultimate indicative Cycling and Micromobility Strategic Network. The purpose of the CAM-PBC is to determine which projects should be prioritised to deliver on the investment objectives.

21. The recommended approach to achieving the objectives of the CAM-PBC is to leverage the network effects by closing gaps in the regional network, enhance connections to schools, rapid transit stations, and Metropolitan Centres. Connections to rapid transit stations have been prioritised on patronage, with those with lesser boardings not having high enough benefits to bring into the programme list at this time, such as many outer ferry terminals. The shortlisting process also included the assessment of key destinations, such as tertiary institutions located in Metropolitan Centres.

22. Key features of the approach are a prioritised programme that can respond to various levels of funding, customer growth initiatives, and policy recommendations that are crucial for Auckland to meet its targets.

23. The entire CAM-PBC programme exceeds the identified funding of $306 million of the On-going Cycling Programme of the RLTP. This is because the identified funding of $306 million and that of other RLTP projects and programmes (that include cycling improvements) are modelled^{^[12]}to lift the cycling mode share to 1.3% by distance by 2030 or providing an additional 100,000 cycle trips a day (without the benefits of policy changes). The 7% cycling mode share goal by distance goal would equate to roughly 750,000 additional daily cycling trips or 30 times that of today. It is acknowledged that there is more work and investment needed to achieve the mode share goals of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri (discussed above).

24. The full project list evaluated in the CAM-PBC includes 180 prioritised connections and focus areas that exceed $3 billion. Development of this extended list of connections and focus areas allows AT (and Waka Kotahi) to respond quickly and progress the next project/s if additional funding is made available. The existing projects of Henderson, Māngere East, and Manukau are scheduled to begin their construction phase in the earlier years of the programme and are now pivoting where possible to include road space reallocation (and minimal kerb movement) to deliver cycling facilities quickly and in a cost-effective manner.

25. While it might appear that the prioritisation process results in network gaps (at the various investment levels), the ultimate Cycle and Micromobility Strategic Network in Future Connect closes these gaps. Such gaps will however remain as network gaps in the CAM-PBC programme until additional regional connections are brought forward, such as Skypath, or regional funding is significantly increased. A change management approach has been built into the CAM-PBC that can respond to network and funding changes and in turn re-evaluate and potentially elevate local connections (that currently do not score high enough) and close any such network gaps.

26. Effective delivery of this programme relies on the Parking Strategy to support road space reallocation (removal of roadside parking); the potential removal of some flush medians and in some cases general traffic lanes; prioritised cycling connections that often favour secondary or parallel or lower order corridors to manage the interface with frequent public transport; and designs that are safe but may not always include width for passing within the facility.

27. A proposed programme wide departure from AT’s design standards underpins the reduced project costing assumptions made in the CAM-PBC. It is critical to the delivery of the programme. A proposed programme level departure from design standards has received positive feedback from our technical working group and the independent reviewer.

28. Customer growth initiatives^{^[13]}account for up to 7% of the programme cost and will be implemented with projects and across the programme.

29. Additional policy changes, such as the revised Parking Strategy and smarter transport pricing initiatives, will be needed to close the gap between what infrastructure can achieve and the goal of 7% cycling mode share. AT is not the authority for many of the policy recommendations and will therefore work with its partners to advocate for these changes. A summary of the policy recommendations is included in attachment A.

30. The Benefit Cost Ratio of the programme is 2.0 - 3.4 for the first $2 billion spent, demonstrating very low diminishing returns and good value for money.

31. The following table sets out the CAM-PBC’s pathway to 7% cycling and micromobility mode share by distance by 2030, along with mode share forecasts of the infrastructural and policy components. It is acknowledged that the mode share forecast from the infrastructural components (items a – d) will likely be higher than 3%, due to the limitations of the modelling tool to accurately forecast the impacts of large-scale cycling investment.

	Estimated Cycling mode share by 2030
a. $2 billion^{^[14]} of investment in safe cycling facilities (by taking the highest prioritised connections and focus areas forward for investigation, design and delivery); b. the various cycling connections of the RLTP’s cycling and multi-modal projects; c. the crucial cycle connections of unfunded projects (such as those of Connected Communities) being funded and implemented in this decade; d. Additional OPEX for Customer Growth Initiatives; and	3% (from items ‘a’ to ‘d’)
e. Key policy initiatives are recommended by the CAM-PBC to make up the balance from what can be achieved through infrastructure investment^{^[15]}.	4%
Total forecast cycling mode share by distance by 2030	7%

32. The CAM-PBC concludes that $2 billion of investment is required^{^[16]}to contribute to the 7% mode share scenario. However, in addition to the gap between the funding available and the funding required, there are a number of other constraints on AT’s ability to deliver investment of this scale over the next decade. These constraints include: market readiness, internal capacity, dedicated cycling delivery programme managers and funding certainty to minimise delays.

33. Staff from AT and Council will continue to engage with Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport to advocate for options to address these constraints as quickly as possible, enabling cycling infrastructure to be upscaled rapidly should additional funding become available.

34. The CAM-PBC provides a solid basis to make the case for additional funding and to prioritise investment when funding is confirmed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. Transport is Auckland’s largest source of emissions. Transitioning to a sustainable transport system is critical to give effect to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which aims to halve regional emissions by 2030 and transition to net zero emissions by 2050. Increasing the uptake of cycling and micromobility is a priority in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri.

36. Auckland has a lower cycling mode share compared to other cities in New Zealand. However, around half of the car trips in Auckland are under 6km and therefore within cycling distance for many, especially with electric bikes.

37. Accelerating the delivery of safe and connected cycling and micromobility networks in Auckland will enable more people to undertake more of their daily trips through sustainable active modes, leading to reduced transport emissions and greater wellbeing. It also enhances community and transport resilience by providing affordable, fossil-fuel free travel options for people and goods.

38. The CAM-PBC represents one element of addressing the transport emissions reduction challenge in Auckland. Much greater funding and a range of policy and regulatory changes are required to achieve the cycling mode share targets in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. The CAM-PBC’s investment strategy sets the foundation for investment and the delivery of cycling facilities to be scaled up across the region, should additional funding be made available.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39. Investment in cycling has a high degree of political and public interest. Establishing the project’s Political Reference Group and involvement of Council and Waka Kotahi staff in the Project Working Group and Project Control Group sought to ensure the project had a greater level of awareness of both political, public, and partner views.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40. The CAM-PBC Political Reference Group includes three councillors and two local board members. Feedback on a range of topics has been provided by the group, including transport equity, micromobility, the particular needs of rural areas, and the importance of building strong community support through local champions. The group also wanted the CAM-PBC to show a pathway to a significant increase in cycling mode share in Auckland.

41. Local board feedback on AT’s RLTP shows overwhelming support for more investment for sustainable transport modes, including cycling, micromobility and walking.

42. Local boards have a critical role to play in generating public support for cycling improvements. Local boards also provide important input on specific improvements that help communities transition to low carbon travel, e.g., safety hotspots and missing links.

43. The CAM-PBC is a strategic document. Local board and community engagement will occur as part of the next step of the process when more detailed work is done on cycling connections in local areas.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. Increasing the provision of safe, connected cycling and micromobility facilities across the region, and especially in areas with high Māori population, has significant benefits for Māori. These include more equitable access to opportunities, fewer traffic-related deaths and injuries, more opportunities to travel actively, less transport related emissions, and lower transport costs.

45. The development of the CAM-PBC was informed by feedback from Mana Whenua, through Auckland Transport’s mana whenua operational tables. A project specific Mana Whenua reference group was established after staff presented the project plan at each of the area hui. Three separate Mana Whenua reference group workshops were held. The intention to establish this reference group via the Mana Whenua operational tables was outlined to the Planning Committee on 25 February 2021. Key feedback from Mana Whenua representatives was that investment needs to be equitable and not just in areas where there are already good cycling connections, it needs to be safe, and that the rationale for cycling investment need to be communicated to community.

46. An equity lens has been applied in the prioritisation of the CAM-PBC projects, resulting in many connections in the south and west being identified as high priority.

47. Partnering with iwi, hapū and Māori-led organisations in the delivery of the CAM-PBC and other cycling projects will help amplify the benefits of the investment programme to Māori and identify barriers that need to be addressed. Engagement through the southern operational table on the cycle business cases for Māngere East and Manukau have identified key areas of interest as these projects move to the design phase, including stormwater treatment, cultural narrative and use of planting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. As this report does not request additional funding, there are no financial impacts on Auckland Council at this stage. Should it be approved, the Climate Action Targeted Rate will help close the gap between current funding levels and what is required to deliver the investment strategy identified in the CAM-PBC.

49. Closing the funding gap fully will require a significant injection of funding from central government. Waka Kotahi’s current nation-wide allocation to walking and cycling is insufficient to fully fund the $2 billion package identified in the CAM-PBC. While the government has signalled additional funding for active modes in its draft Emissions Reduction Plan, this too has yet to be confirmed and staff do not have any insight into the quantum of potential funding this may involve.

50. The estimated cost of projects includes contingency for investigation, design, and implementation. Operating expenditure has been considered in the CAM-PBC, however the funding has not been secured.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. The following table sets out the key programme risks.

Key risk	Mitigation
Current funding, procurement, governance and delivery settings do not support the rapid roll out of the recommended programme in the CAM-PBC and the level of mode shift required.	Staff from AT and Auckland Council will continue to engage with Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport to advocate for options to address these constraints as quickly as possible.
The Parking Strategy is not agreed and / or does not support road-space being managed to prioritise safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services.	AT staff actively work with Council on approving the strategy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. The next steps include the CAM-PBC being tabled at: the May Auckland Transport Board meeting for endorsement; and the Waka Kotahi Board for endorsement (likely in July).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case policy recommendations	69

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jon Kearins - Principal Transport Planner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jenny Chetwynd - Executive General Manager Planning and Investment, Auckland Transport

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Decision: PC54 / PM13 Enable Rainwter Tank Installation in Residential and Rural Zones	75

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Planning Committee forward work programme (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency Auckland Programme Activity Update (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Memo: Auckland Council’s Feedback on Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Auckland Council’s submission on National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Correspondence sent to the Minister for the Environment about the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (Under Separate Cover)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Auckland Council Preliminary Response - Endorsement For Public Engagement report (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Auckland Council Preliminary Response - Endorsement For Public Engagement decision (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Auckland Council Preliminary Response - Endorsement For Public Engagement minutes attachment document (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Auckland Light Rail update report (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Auckland Light Rail update decision (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Auckland Light Rail update minutes attachment document (Under Separate Cover)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Planning Committee forward work programme	113
b ⇨	Auckland Council’s feedback on Drinking Water Standards and other related technical guidance under the Water Services Act 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Auckland speed management plan 2023-26 workshop notes (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – April 2022 (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Memo: Density, location and land value trends, 2016 to 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

Planning Committee

05 May 2022

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

Forward Work Programme 2022

This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use, transport and infrastructure strategies and policies relating to planning, growth, housing and the appropriate provision of enabling infrastructure, as well as programmes and strategic projects associated with these activities. The full terms of reference can be found here.

Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the meeting(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2022
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	3 Feb	3 Mar	31 Mar	5 May	2 Jun	30 Jun	4 Aug	1 Sep
Urban Growth and Housing
National Policy Statement on Urban Development and related enactments Chief Planning Office	The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD) was gazetted by the government on 20 July 2020 and comes into force on 20 August 2020 with ongoing timeframes for implementation. The purpose of the NPS UD is to require councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations. The Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 will result in significantly more land within urban Auckland being affected by the intensification plan change required under the NPS UD. The Act requires medium density residential standards be incorporated into the Auckland Unitary Plan.	Decisions sought will include: · consideration of the significant policy and implementation issues that are presented by the NPS on Urban Development, approve the detailed work programme for the next phase of work · approval to proceed with plan changes and to notify plan changes; · consider engagement approach with Aucklanders (proposed to take place in April) on the NPS UD/Enabling Housing Supply Act ‘intensification plan change Progress to date: Endorsed work programme PLA/2021/8 and workshops held Feb – March 2022. Received findings of Housing Development Capacity Assessment PLA/2021/77 Approved development of a plan change to Regional Policy Statement of the Auckland Unitary Plan PLA/2021/78 Endorsed approaches to the intensification provisions relating to walkable catchments, special character areas and qualifying matters PLA/2021/80 and all other locations PLA/2021/97 Endorsed the development of a plan change to address matters arising from the removal of carparking minimums PLA/2021/104 Endorsed principles for the application of new policy 3(d) in the NPD UD arising from the Enabling Housing Supply Amendment Act PLA/2022/11 Endorsed council’s preliminary response to the NPS UD and Enabling Housing Supply Act for public engagement PLA/2022/31 The 2022 work programme includes workshops in February and March with reports due on 31 March and 1 September. Topics include: · Implementation of the NPS UD in the city centre · Quality built environment and enabling 6+ storey within ‘walkable catchments’ · Issues arising from the removal of parking minimums and private ways · Intensification plan change proposals
Future Development Strategy Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	Within the NPS UD framework, there is a requirement to complete a Future Development Strategy (FDS) in time to inform the 2024 Long-term Plan. The purpose of the FDS is to help Council set the high-level vision for accommodating urban growth over the long term and identify strategic priorities to inform other development-related decisions. The FDS will spatially identify where long- term growth should happen.	Decision required: endorsement of the interim strategic direction of the Future Development Strategy Progress to date: Workshops are planned for March, May June and July 2022. Report due 1 September. Further committee decisions will be needed in the first half of 2023.
Affordable Housing Chief Planning Office	To progress the resolution (PLA /2019/17) on Auckland Council’s role and position on affordable housing in phases: Progress report and approach to advice	Decision required: receive Affordable Housing progress update and insights Progress to date: Forward work programme approved and political working party formed PLA/2020/65 Update memo November 2021 Report due August 2022.
Crown Auckland Council Joint Work Programme Chief Planning Office	Quarterly update on the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Work Programme on Urban Growth and Housing.	Decision required: Generally none. Receive updates by memorandum on JWP and any proposed changes to the workstreams.
Updated Area Plans for parts of Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Plans and Places	Area plans are non-statutory documents which provide a framework to support growth and development in the area over the next 30 years. Approval of the area plans by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards will be sought in August 2022.	Decision required: consider and adopt the updated area plans Report due 1 September.
Integrated Area Plan for parts of Albert Eden and Puketāpapa Local Boards Plans and Places	Area plans are non-statutory documents which provide a framework to support growth and development in the area over the next 30 years. Endorsement of the integrated area plan by the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa local boards will be sought in July/August 2022.	Decision required: consider and adopt the area plan Report due 1 September.
Unitary Plan Monitoring including Climate response (led by Plans and Places)
Auckland Unitary Plan Monitoring Report Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under section 35 of the Resource Management Act to provide a comprehensive monitoring report five years from date the Auckland Unitary Plan became ‘operative in part’ (i.e. by November 2021). This work will consist of a series of monitoring reports delivered in a phased way from 2022 onwards. Examples of monitoring topics include urban growth and form, quality built environment, historic heritage, indigenous biodiversity, Māori economic, social and cultural development, natural hazards (including flooding) and climate change. This work may result in plan changes being recommended ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.	Decisions required: Interim reports seeking committee feedback and decisions on possible plan changes ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026. Reports due 2 June, 30 June and 4 August 2022.
Enabling Rainwater Tanks Plan Change Plans and Places	Mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations.	Decisions required: committee to consider options and recommendations Progress to date: Delegated authority to approve notification of the plan change PLA/2020/47 Memo update October 2021. Report due 5 May 2022.
Auckland Plan 2050
Auckland Plan Annual Scorecard (monitoring report) and Annual Update Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	To report annual progress against the 33 measures of the Auckland Plan 2050	Decision required: Receive annual scorecard and approve updates to measures and the plan Progress to date: The next annual monitoring report is due 30 June.
Resource Management Act framework reform
Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) to provide for land use and environmental regulation (this would be the primary replacement for the current RMA) Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission. The bill is expected to be introduced in the second half of 2022. Progress to date: authority delegated to approve council’s input on Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system discussion materials PLA/2022/3 February 2022							TBC	TBC
Resource Management system reform – Strategic Planning Bill Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	The Strategic Planning Act to integrate with other legislation relevant to development (such as the Local Government Act and Land Transport Management Act) and require long-term regional spatial strategies. Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission. The bill is expected to be introduced in the second half of 2022.							TBC	TBC
Resource Management system reform – Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Bill Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	The Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act to enable and address issues associated with managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation. Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation is likely to occur alongside consultation on the National Adaption Plan in early or mid-2022.				TBC	TBC
National Policy Statements
National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 – implementation approach Chief Planning Office	The NPS-FM was adopted by central government in September 2020. A high -level implementation plan has been approved; preceding plan changes required before the end of 2024.	Decision required: to approve key policy responses developed with Mana Whenua to enable next steps, including broader engagement. Progress to date: Memo update August 2021. Report due 2 June 2022.
Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Lands Chief Planning Office	The finalisation of the proposed NPS-HPL is due to be considered by central government in 2022. If adopted, this will have implications for land use in the Auckland region, and how highly productive lands are recognised and managed.	Decision required: to consider council’s approach to implementation of any finalised NPS-HPL in the Auckland region.
Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity Chief Planning Office	The finalisation of the proposed NPS-IB is due to be considered by central government after May 2022. If adopted, this will have implications for how biodiversity outcomes are managed in the Auckland region, particularly through planning frameworks.	Decision required: to consider council’s approach to implementation of any finalised NPS-IB in the Auckland region.
Transport Strategy Programme (led by Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO in conjunction with others)
Congestion Question	The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is conducting an inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.	Decision required: A Cabinet decision on legislative change is expected in July 2022. Following Cabinet’s decision, a committee paper would be provided asking approval for council staff to begin work with Auckland Transport to develop a scheme proposal by 2024 for consideration by the Government. Progress to date: Authority delegated to provide direction and approve submission May 2021 PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37 Memo update on select committee’s recommendations September 2021 Progress update memo planned for late March 2022. Report due in August (dependent on Cabinet decision).
Auckland Light Rail	Cabinet announced its decisions on the next steps for Auckland Light Rail in January 2022.To date Auckland Council has been represented on the Sponsor’s Group and on the Establishment Unit Board. Council staff are working with central government officers on the next iteration of governance arrangements for councillors to make decisions on these and other matters.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)	Increasing the cycling mode share is a priority for Council. The Programme Business Case will recommend the package required to increase cycling mode share as well as recommending policy changes to lift and normalise cycling. Council’s support for these aspects of the programme will be crucial.	Decision required: formal consideration of Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case Progress to date: Workshop held December 2021. Report due 31 March 2022.
Auckland Transport
Northwest Interim Bus Improvements	Construction at the Te Atatu Road and Lincoln Road interchanges will take place from February 2022 - mid-2023 to allow for the new bus network rolled out in West Auckland. The Westgate Bus Station is in the design phase. Temporary bus stops will be in place by mid-2023 to support the new bus network.	Receive updates
Access for Everyone business case	The A4E Programme Business Case was endorsed by the Auckland Transport Board 24 February 2022. It is now proceeding through the Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency approval processes.	Receive updates
Northern Busway enhancements	Auckland Transport has completed the Detailed Business Case and earlier implementation funding is being sought as the funding for the project in the Regional Land Transport Plan is allocated in financial years 2027/28 – 2030/31.	Receive updates
Auckland Parking Strategy	AT has started work on updating some parts of its 2015 parking strategy. The indicative completion date is August 2022.	Decision required: strategic direction and delegation to approve discussion document. Endorsement of draft strategy, public consultation on draft strategy and the adoption of the final parking strategy. Progress to date: Workshops held June and October 2021 and March 2022. Endorsement of strategic direction underpinning development of the 2022 Parking Strategy and authority delegated to endorse the Parking Discussion Document November 2021 PLA/2021/125 Endorsement of Draft Parking Strategy for public consultation PLA/2022/24 Workshop planned for August 2022 with decision making reports due in August.
Auckland Rapid Transit Plan	The Auckland Rapid Transit Plan has significant implications for Auckland’s future growth and urban form, and development of the preferred network will involve significant capital investment over the next three decades.	Decision required: Endorsement of Auckland Rapid Transit Plan. Progress to date: Workshop planned for August. Report due 1 September.
Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan	The Regional Public Transport Plan is a statutory document that needs to be updated every 3 years to reflect the outcomes of the RLTP. It outlines the current public transport system, the changes planned over the next decade and details policies related to the operation of the transport network. Auckland Transport are seeking council’s endorsement of the strategic direction for public transport in Auckland to help guide the development of the RPTP.	Decision required: Endorse strategic direction for the project. Progress to date: Workshops planned for June. Report due 30 June.
Programme development for Waka Kotahi’s Streets for People fund	The Waka Kotahi Streets for People programme is seeking projects and programmes that will be designed using the learnings from the Innovating Streets programme (2019). This new programme will aim to deliver trials, tactical urbanism interventions and complementary initiatives across the region, to reduce transport emissions through encouraging mode shift to active modes.	Decision required: Endorsement of a proposed programme to be submitted to Waka Kotahi by Auckland Transport Progress to date: Workshop planned for 25 May. Report due 30 June.
Auckland Transport’s Interim Speed Management Plan	The Auckland Plan envisages a transport network free of death and serious injury by 2050. To meet this goal, Auckland Transport has developed Vision Zero for Tāmaki Makaurau with the council and other partners. The interim speed management plan will play a significant role in delivering Vision Zero.	Direction required: Provide feedback on the next phase of safe speeds. Progress to date: Workshop planned for 6 April.
Infrastructure
National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy APSR	This will replace the current national 30-year plan. It will consider how infrastructure might support environmental, social, cultural, and economic wellbeing	Decision required: to be confirmed Progress to date: Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Strategy 3 June 2021 PLA/2021/54 The draft strategy will be presented to the Minister for Infrastructure in September 2021. The final strategy will be tabled in Parliament by early 2022. Possible briefing from the Infrastructure Commission on ministerial decisions before June 2022.
Infrastructure Acceleration Fund	The results of the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund request for proposal are expected from the Crown by May 2022.	Receive updates. Memo update on results of request for proposal process May 2022.
Auckland Unitary Plan oversight
Making Plan Changes Operative Plans and Places	Statutory Resource Management Act requirement to make council and private plan changes operative once the decision on the plan change is made and any appeals are resolved.	Decision required: Make plan changes operative.	As and when required
Private Plan Changes Plans and Places	Private plan change requests not dealt with under staff delegation. These will be brought to committee as and when required.	Decision required: Accept/adopt/reject/deal with the request as a resource consent application.	As and when required
Plan Change – Residential Plans and Places	Monitoring of the Auckland Unitary Plan has indicated that some improvements can be made to the provisions for residential development.	Decision required: Provide direction on the scope and timing of a potential plan change. Progress to date: Endorsed the preparation of a plan change for Integrated Residential Development provisions PLA/2020/115 Update memo received in July. Workshop held October 2021. Further workshop planned for February 2022.
Māori Heritage Sites of Significance Plans and Places	Second tranche of plan changes to identify Māori Heritage sites and places of significance	Decision required: To approve the plan change Progress to date: Frist tranche approved and made operative PLA/2021/6 Second tranche considered September 2021 PLA/2021/108 Workshops indicated for June with a report due mid-2022.
Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space Plans and Places	Scoping report identifying opportunities to offer unutilised areas of road reserve and unformed legal roads back to Māori former landowners	Decision required: Consider recommended approach.
Plan Change 60 – Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters Plans and Plans / Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Plan change to rezone land to recognise land recently vested or acquired as open space, correct errors or anomalies, facilitate Eke Panuku’s land rationalisation and disposal process, and facilitate council or Kainga Ora’s redevelopment of some neighbourhoods.	Decision required: Approve plan change in part. Part of the plan change will form part of the intensification plan change required by the National Policy Statement for Urban Development. Report due 2 June.
Coastal hazard maps plan change Plans and Places	Plan change to update the Auckland Unitary Plan definition of “coastal erosion hazard area” with a reference to new coastal erosion maps and to remove the coastal storm inundation map from the plan. Funding for this plan change was approved as part of the targeted rate for climate change in 2021/22.	Decision required: Approve notification of the plan change Report due 2 June.
Eke Panuku urban regeneration
Wynyard Point Precinct Plan and Plan Change Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Refreshed Wynyard Point Precinct Plan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.	Decision required: Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Precinct Plan for public consultation. Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Plan Change for public notification. Workshop planned February 2022. Report due 30 June 2022.
Onehunga Wharf Precinct Plan & Plan Change Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Onehunga Wharf masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery. Status update pending from Eke Panuku.	Direction required: Support for a revised approach that covers feasibility of mixed-use development, options for wharf renewal and open space plans. Report due 5 May
Eke Panuku Future Programme Eke Panuku Development Auckland	TBA Status update pending from Eke Panuku.	Decision required: Approval of the process to develop and engage on recommendations for the Eke Panuku future urban regeneration programme and funding models Report due 4 August.
Transit-oriented development opportunities – Eastern Busway Eke Panuku Development Auckland	TBA Status update pending from Eke Panuku.	Direction required: receive feedback on the Strategic Regeneration Overview for the Eastern Corridor development opportunities Progress to date: December 2021 workshop held. Report due 5 May.
City Centre Masterplan Implementation update Eke Panuku Development Auckland	On 30 Nov 2021 the Planning Committee endorsed Eke Panuku as the lead agency for the implementation of City Centre Masterplan 2020 and the establishment of a council group matrix team.	Decision required: Receive updates on implementing the City Centre Masterplan, engagement, programme business case and priorities. Updates will be provided through quarterly reporting.
Decisions of other committees which are relevant to the Planning Committee
Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)	As capacity allows staff from council and ATAP partner agencies will commence work on recommended indicative packages for decades two and three.	Decision required: There is no ATAP work this year which will require decisions from the Planning Committee. The focus this year on transport emission reduction – which is being considered by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.
Briefings to be confirmed
Ministry of Education – development programme for Auckland Chief Planning Office	A briefing is being explored in conjunction with the Future Development Strategy work. The committee has indicated interest in hearing from the Ministry of Education on its plans for schools long term, and the current issues and challenges it faces. Including how legislative change affects schools particularly and the impacts of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.	No decision or direction required from the committee.
Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency Chief Planning Office	The committee has indicated interest in hearing from Waka Kotahi in terms of its Auckland Programme.	No decision or direction required from the committee.
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office	The committee has indicated interest in hearing from Kainga Ora in terms of its Auckland Programme.	No decision or direction required from the committee.
Kiwirail Chief Planning Office	The committee has indicated interest in hearing from Kiwirail in terms of its Auckland Programme.	No decision or direction required from the committee.
Urban Design Chief Planning Office	The committee is interested in hearing about the work programme of the Urban Design unit.	No decision or direction required from the committee.

Completed

Lead Department	Area of work		Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
Chief Planning Office	Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities second Bill		Approval process for council’s submission	Political working group established to develop and approve submission by Planning Committee 5 December 2019 PLA/2019/92
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, Chief Planning Office	Submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/9
Chief Planning Office	Submission on the Urban Development Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/10
Chief Planning Office	Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/15
Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring		Receive an update on the Auckland Plan 2050 and the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress report	Updates received by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/16
Auckland Design Office	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adoption		Consider and adopt refreshed City Centre Masterplan	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adopted by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/17, PLA/2020/18, PLA/2020/19
Financial Strategy and Planning	Submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/20
Development Programmes Office	Shovel-ready projects for Central Government		Agreement on list for submission to central government	Process agreed at Emergency Committee 9 April 2020 EME/2020/13
Chief Planning Office	Submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 16 April 2020 EME/2020/23
Chief Planning Office	Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan		Consider and approve the final structure plan	Final structure plan approved by Governing Body 30 April 2020 GB/2020/38
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, Chief Planning Office	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund		Approval of council approach and submission	Endorsed first round of funding and approved process for developing the second round at Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, Chief Planning Office	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund		Approval of second round funding bids to NZTA	Approved Council and AT proposed list of projects for further development and refining, and authority delegated to approve the final submission, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/30
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, Chief Planning Office	Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021-2031, and draft National Rail Plan		Approve council submission on GPS and Draft national rail plan	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/56
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	National Environmental Standards on Air Quality – council submission		Approve council submission	Council’s draft submission endorsed, and authority delegated to approve final submission, Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/31
Chief Planning Office	Resource Management Act Framework Fast-track consenting legislative change		Approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/32
Plans and Places	Strategic Land Use Frameworks for Dairy Flat and Kumeu Huapai Future Urban Areas		Approval to prepare strategic land use frameworks for Wainui Silverdale Dairy Flat and Kumeu-Huapai.	Approved preparation of spatial land use frameworks, and established a Political Working Party to approve the draft spatial land use frameworks, at Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/37
Plans and Places	Plan Change - Whenuapai		Approve next steps.	Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/44
Plans and Places	Plan Change – Events on Public Space Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.		Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.	Notification of plan change approved at Planning Committee 3 September 2020 PLA/2020/68
Plans and Places	Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule		Consider the timing of a full review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees in the context of resourcing constraints and priorities	Options for reviewing the schedule in future considered at 5 November Planning Committee. PLA/2020/95, PLA/2020/96, PLA/2020/97
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Additional Harbour Crossing		Consideration of finalised business case. The business case is a joint piece of work between Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council.	Business case considered, findings noted and support given to continue council’s involvement in the project, at 5 November Planning Committee PLA/2020/100
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question		Consideration of findings in the Congestion Question project final report.	Noted that phase two of the project is completed, received the report findings, considered scope of phase three and requested approvals and updates to return to the committee PLA/2020/116
Panuku Development Auckland, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council	Downtown Carpark development outcomes		Establish agreement on the Auckland Council group development outcome requirements for the Downtown Carpark to enable site sale through a contestable market process.	Development outcomes confirmed in confidential section of the December 2020 Planning Committee meeting PLA/2020/120 and strategic transport outcomes agreed in June 2021 PLA/2021/52
Auckland Transport	Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case Review		Agree committee members to participate in an Auckland Transport-led political reference group.	Members delegated to the political reference group PLA/2021/7
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Project		Agree funding package.	Approved the recommended ATAP 2021-31 indicative package PLA/2021/15
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Plan Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measure confirmation		Confirm new Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome measures	New measures confirmed PLA/2021/26
Auckland Transport	Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031		Agreed funding package for consideration of RLTP committee and AT board	Endorsed Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2931 for the Auckland Transport board to adopt.
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Infrastructure Strategy		Provide strategic insights and direction 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee)	Strategy adopted by Finance and Performance Committee in June 2021 (as part of Long-term Plan)
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Plan 2050 implementation and monitoring		To note progress against the measures in the Auckland Plan 2050	2021 monitoring report received PLA/2021/69
Chief Planning Office	Unit Titles Act		To approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/27
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)		To approve the recommended Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package.	Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package approved PLA/2021/15
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Regional Fuel Tax		To consider components and changes to current status	Regional Fuel Tax Variation Proposal adopted by the Governing Body in May 2021 GB/2021/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question		To approve council’s submission to the select committee on the Inquiry into congestion pricing	Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy		To approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission PLA/2021/54
Plans and Places	Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) – Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua		To approve the plan change and make it operative	Plan Change 22 and Plan Modification 12 (Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua) made operative PLA/2021/6
Development Programme Office	Infrastructure Acceleration Fund		To approve council’s submission to the Crown’s Infrastructure Acceleration Fund	Endorsed preliminary list of programmes for the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund and authority delegated for approval of final list for submission PLA/2021/92
Chief Planning Office		Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill	To approve council’s submission on the Bill	Group delegated to approve council’s submission on the bill November 2021 PLA/2021/123
Eke Panuku		Wynyard Quarter Tram	To endorse the Eke Panuku Board decision to cease operated of the tram in 2022.	Endorsed the Eke Panuku Board decision to cease operation of the Wynyard Quarter Tram by late 2022 PLA/2021/126
Chief Planning Office		Affordable Housing: advocacy plan, research findings and consider options	To receive updates on Affordable Housing Advocacy Plan and initial engagement, consider affordable housing research, implications and options.	Received memo update on Affordable Housing Advocacy Plan in November 2021, considered options relating to increasing housing for older people PLA/2020/92, and inclusionary zoning PLA/2020/93, PLA/2020/94
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research		Public Transport Operating Mechanism review	To receive updates on Public Transport Operating Mechanism review.	Received memo related to Ministry of Transport’s discussion paper 22 July 2021.
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research		Government Policy Statement – Housing and Urban Development	To approve council’s submission.	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission PLA/2021/70
Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research		Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill (exposure draft)	To approve council’s approach and submission.	Authority delegated to approve council submission on bill exposure draft PLA/2021/75 July 2021. Received memo on select committee report November 2021.
Chief Planning Office		National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 – implementation approach	To receive an updated council implementation approach for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 and associated instruments.	High-level implementation plan approved, working group formed to provide political oversight PLA/2021/12.
Chief Planning Office		Auckland Light Rail	To provide feedback and receive updates.	Guidance for Light Rail Establishment Unit on network integration provided June 2021 PLA/2021/53 Workshops with Establishment Unit held in June and August 2021 Confidential report considered September 2021 PLA/2021/109
Plans and Places		Regional Historic Heritage Grant	To approve the grant recommendations.	Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2021/2022 funding round allocation approved March 2022 PLA/2022/9
Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research		National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water	To approve council’s submission on the proposed amendments to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 and a package of related technical drinking water standards.	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission March 2022 PLA/2022/10
Eke Panuku Development Auckland		Thriving Town Centres - Town Centre Guidelines for Eke Panuku locations	To endorse the guidelines for Eke Panuku locations to support future urban regeneration delivery and engagement with stakeholders and partners.	Endorsed Thriving Town Centres – Guidance for urban regeneration in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland PLA/2022/33

[1] HGI Plan, Part 13 Transport, Rule 13.5 Notification Requirements

[2] Following the Court’s approach in Saville v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2019] NZEnvC 94, Dome Valley District Residents Society Inc v Rodney District Council, Environment Court, Auckland, 14/12/2007, Sheppard Judge, A099/07, and Dome Valley District Residents Society Inc v Rodney District Council High Court (2008) 14 ELRNZ 237

[3] AUP Rule C.1.7 infringement of standards applies discretionary activity status where an activity does not comply with a development standard

[4] The term 'notional boundary' is used in the Plan in the context of measuring noise. The notional boundary is defined as a line 20 meters from any side of a dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling.' This is the same meaning as NZS 9801:1999 Acoustics - Measurement of Sound.

[5] requiring the CAA to undertake a s157 determination - Civil Aviation Rule Part 157 requires that prior notice be given to the Director whenever a person intends to construct, alter, or activate an aerodrome or heliport. A determination will then be issued by the Director in one of the following categories: unobjectionable, conditional, or objectionable.

[6] See Kawau Island Action Incorporated Society v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 3306 at [154], and Mills v Far North District Council [2018] NZHC 2082 at [176] both relying on Far North District Council v Te Runanga-A-Iwi O Ngati Kahu [2013] NZCA 221 at [36].

[7] Murray v Whakatane District Council (1997) 3 ELRNZ 308; [1997] NZRMA 433 (HC)

[8] [See Ministry for the Environment, Transforming the Resource Management System: Opportunities for Change Issues and Options Paper CR 390, November 2019, pages 30-31. It is noted there is no express reference in sections 30 or 31 of the RMA (regional council and territorial authority functions, respectively) to either climate change mitigation or adaptation.]

[9] Focus areas will include additional kilometres of cycling connections.

[10] Schemes to improve access to bicycles, promotion, activation and events, digital experience improvements, marketing, communications.

[11] The Cycle and Micromobility Strategic Network in Future Connect is AT’s tool for planning cycling and micromobility routes across Auckland. The indicative network outlines where cycling is most important in Auckland and where the most people are expected to cycle. Future Connect outlines the strategic networks for other transport modes, including Walking, Public Transport, Freight and General Traffic.

[12] It is acknowledged that the modelling results are conservative in terms of cycle mode share uplift.

[13] Schemes to improve access to bicycles, promotion, activation and events, digital experience improvements, marketing, communications.

[14] The $2 billion level of investment includes the committed $306 million of the RLTP.

[15] It is not considered possible to accurately estimate which policy changes will result in a particular mode share. Attributing 4% to policy recommendations is an estimate at this stage to demonstrate the pathway towards achieving a 7% mode share by distance.

[16] Included other projects, programme, and policy change.

Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Richard Hills
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Tracy Mulholland
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Pippa Coom	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr John Watson
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	IMSB Member Karen Wilson
	IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Shane Henderson

Date	Subject
2/3/2021	5. Confidential: National Policy Statement for Urban Development Intensification Plan Change - Proposals for initial preliminary response (no attachment)
16/3/2021	Confidential: Parking Strategy Review – discussion document feedback and draft Parking Strategy and policies (no attachment)

Date	Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item
January 2022	Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency Auckland Programme Activity Update
March 2022	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – March 2022
2/3/2022	7. Memo: Auckland Council’s Feedback on Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion
4/3/2022	Auckland Council’s Feedback on Kia kaha ake te tiakina o ngā puna wai-inu / Improving the protection of drinking-water sources: Proposed amendments to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007: consultation document
18/3/2022	Correspondence sent to the Minister for the Environment about the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

Date	Subject
30/3/2022	5. Confidential: Future Development Strategy (no attachment)
6/4/2022	Auckland speed management plan 2023-26

Date	Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item
28/3/22	Auckland Council’s feedback on Drinking Water Standards and other related technical guidance under the Water Services Act 2021
April 2022	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – April 2022
4/4/2022	7. Memo: Density, location and land value trends, 2016 to 2022

Author	Kalinda Iswar - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy