Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board - Thursday, 16 June 2022

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 12 May 2022.	9
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 19 May 2022.	15
c ⇨	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minute attachments - 19 May 2022. (Under Separate Cover)

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

Local board feedback on proposed supporting plan changes to accompany the Medium Density Residential Standards and National Policy Statement on Urban Development plan change

File No.: CP2022/08038

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on the development of draft plan changes and variations to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) that are to be considered for notification at the August 2022 Planning Committee meeting together with the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) on medium density residential standards (MDRS) and implementing Policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD). These are:

· Transport-related changes to promote safe and efficient access to residentially zoned parking spaces and rear sites, and to address additional parking issues that were identified following the mandatory removal of car parking minimums from the AUP (Auckland-wide chapters E24 Lighting, E27 Transport, and E38 Subdivision – Urban access and parking provisions).

· Additions to scheduled items to enable their protection when the IPI is notified (Schedule 10 Notable Tree Schedule and Maps, and Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps).

· Mandatory variations to incomplete plan changes (council-initiated and private) required by the government to ensure MDRS are applied in all relevant residential zones.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of the council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents.

3. Auckland Council is required to publicly notify its IPI in August 2022 to implement the NPS- UD and MDRS in relevant residential zones. The council’s IPI must now re-write residential objectives, policies and rules to include MDRS, as well as making other changes to implement NPS-UD intensification directives, like increasing height to at least six stories within walkable catchments of certain zones and the rapid transit network stations.

4. Additional plan changes and variations are necessary to address related matters and are proposed to be notified alongside the IPI.

5. Feedback is sought from local boards on the policy approach and content of these draft plan changes and variations prior to the Planning Committee’s August 2022 meeting where notification will be considered.

6. The specific text of each plan change and variation is likely to be amended as these changes progress towards notification as a result of feedback received from local boards, iwi authorities, key stakeholders, internal specialists and legal review.

Transport

7. Auckland Council has already removed minimum car parking requirements from the AUP as required by NPS-UD and is completing a technical plan change to address gaps created by those removals. In doing so, other more complex additional parking matters need to be addressed in the AUP.

8. Greater intensification across Auckland brings forward the need to address gaps and inconsistencies in the residential access provisions in chapters E27 Transport and E38 Subdivision - Urban.

Notable trees and Historic Heritage Places

9. Additional notable trees and historic heritage places are proposed to be added to the AUP schedules 10 and 14 following staff-evaluation and these will be qualifying matters in the IPI.

10. Historic heritage places and notable trees are qualifying matters that will be set out in the IPI to limit intensification so those values can be accommodated. Amendments to the notable tree and historic heritage places schedules are required to both update and add in newly assessed items for protection. It is important to protect qualifying matters by including items that are not presently scheduled to avoid the loss of those items through intensification.

Variations to incomplete plan changes

11. The government requires that the council prepare a variation for each plan change commenced, but not completed, at the time the December 2021 amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) came into force, where a change relates to a relevant residential zone. The governments’ MDRS will apply for up to six private plan change requests, and one council-initiated change.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) note the content outlined in the agenda report relating to the development of draft plan changes and variations to the Auckland Unitary Plan to be considered for notification at the August 2022 Planning Committee meeting together with the Intensification Planning Instrument on medium density residential standards and implementing Policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

b) provide feedback as the local board’s response to the matters discussed in this report:

i) Transport

ii) Notable trees - Schedule 10

iii) Historic heritage - Schedule 14

iv) Variations to incomplete plan changes.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

12. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of the council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents.

13. Local boards have a critical role in helping shape the council’s policy response to the NPS-UD. Plan changes and variations are required to address issues arising from implementing government policy and in terms of access matters in the Transport plan change, to address gaps and inconsistencies in the AUP provisions.

14. The plan changes and variations relate to:

Transport

· Addressing access to residentially zoned parking spaces and rear sites to prioritise pedestrian access and safety and to improve access efficiency and convenience for all user groups.

· Developing parking provisions to:

o provide safe and convenient pedestrian access to dwellings that have no vehicle access

o require accessible parking so that people with disabilities can participate in everyday life

o ensure the loading/unloading of goods can occur in a manner that does not compromise the safe and efficient functioning of the road network (including accessways)

o cater for emerging changes in transport, including greater use of e-bikes, micro-mobility devices and electric vehicles.

Notable Trees and Historic Heritage Places

· Updating the Auckland Unitary Plan notable tree schedule 10 and adding new notable trees

· Adding new historic heritage places to the AUP historic heritage schedule 14, and removing one place from schedule 14.

Variations to incomplete plan changes

15. The government requires variations so that all relevant residential zones include MDRS. Variations will be complementary to the approach taken in the IPI. These mandatory variations must be processed alongside council’s IPI and will use the same fast-track process. Council staff will prepare variations for:

Incomplete private plan changes relating to relevant residential zones:	Local board area in which land is located
PC 49 Drury East	Franklin
PC 50 Waihoehoe	Franklin
PC 51 Drury 2	Franklin
PC 59 Albany 10 precinct	Upper Harbour
PC 66 Schnapper Rock Road	Upper Harbour
PC 67 Hingaia precinct 1	Papakura
Incomplete council-initiated plan changes relating to relevant residential zones	Suburbs in which land is located
PC 60 Open space	Less than 20 sites across: Forrest Hill Ellerslie Freemans Bay Grey Lynn Pukekohe Beachlands Waiuku Howick Birkenhead Mangere East

16. Addressing access and parking matters must be addressed alongside the IPI so that the development community responds to growth opportunities appropriately. The rule changes are required to implement standards for assessing resource consent applications.

17. Protecting historic heritage places and notable trees is important to comprehensively address qualifying matters in the AUP and protect these for future generations. The IPI will acknowledge historic heritage places (and other values) and notable trees as qualifying matters, but a separate change is necessary for those historic heritage places and trees that are not already scheduled but whose known values are significant, and eligible for scheduling.

18. Local board feedback is an important input to help develop the plan changes and variations that are proposed to be notified alongside the IPI in August 2022.

19. Local boards will have a second opportunity to express views after submissions close on the changes. Views expressed after submissions close in a resolution will be included in the analysis of the plan changes and submissions received. If a local board chooses to provide its views, a local board member will be invited to present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who make the decision on the plan changes.

20. This report provides an overview of the IPI-supporting plan changes related to transport matters, and additional and corrected historic heritage places and notable trees and mandatory variations to incorporate MDRS. This report does not include a recommendation. Planning staff cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views as part of reporting to the Planning Committee.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Transport

21. The Plans and Places department maintains a ‘Residential Issues Register’ and is currently finalising the draft 2021 ‘Section 35 Monitoring: B2.3 Quality Built Environment’ report. The register and the draft section 35 report identify the need for changes to the AUP to achieve better-quality access outcomes. As noted above, the identified parking issues are a consequence of the mandatory removal of car parking minimums.

22. Attachment A outlines a summary of the potential changes at this stage in the process and the principal reasons for the changes.

Notable Trees

23. The AUP protects and retains notable trees with significant historical, botanical or amenity values. Trees or groups of trees in Schedule 10 were evaluated using a set of criteria based on historical association, scientific importance or rarity, contribution to ecosystem services, cultural association or accessibility and intrinsic value. These factors are considered in the context of human health, public safety, property, amenity values and biosecurity.

24. Tree schedules are highly dynamic and are not as easily maintained as other AUP schedules which are static (e.g. Outstanding Natural Landscapes Overlay Schedule, Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule) meaning that they fall out of date over time. This is because subdivision, development and consents for removal/alteration as well as emergency works affect the description of listings on the Schedule. The health of trees can also naturally deteriorate. Given the number of listings contained in the Schedule, errors will continue to be identified and further updates will therefore be required. To update Schedule 10 requires a plan change. These changes cannot be addressed through any other process.

25. There is a database of nearly 600 nominations received as submissions through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan process and further unsolicited nominations received through the current nomination process. These nominations have been received for trees right across the region and are not limited to any specific geographical area. There is an expectation from the community that the council will evaluate and progress a plan change to add trees to the Schedule. There is a large volume of nominations and due to resourcing constraints, it has not been possible to evaluate them all at once. There will however be a portion of these nominations which have been evaluated and some of these trees may be found to meet the criteria for scheduling.

26. Notable tree nominations are being investigated in the Albert-Eden, Franklin, Howick, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Rodney, Waitematā and Whau Local Boards. There are also more general amendments required to ensure the Schedule is accurate and operating as originally intended (for example, removals of listings where the tree has been physically removed, updating legal descriptions as a result of subdivision).

27. Options relating to notable trees were presented to the Planning Committee on 5 November 2020 which resolved to review or make changes to the notable tree schedule as resources permit (PLA/2020/96). This included addressing existing nominations. It is important to note the scope of this work would not include calling for additional nominations.

28. In accordance with the resolution discussed in paragraph 22, the Notable Trees Plan Change will amend Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule of the AUP as follows:

· Add those nominated trees which merit inclusion to the schedule

· Amend the schedule to address known inaccuracies/inconsistencies.

29. The IPI will recognise notable trees as qualifying matters, including the newly proposed notable trees. A separate change is needed to schedule these additional trees as that is not the purpose of the IPI.

Historic Heritage

30. Historic heritage is a matter of national importance that decision makers must consider under section 6 of the RMA. Significant historic heritage places are identified in Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps of the Unitary Plan. Places identified in the schedule are subject to the provisions of the Unitary Plan Historic Heritage Overlay, which seeks to protect scheduled historic heritage places from inappropriate subdivision, use and development and enable the appropriate use of scheduled historic heritage places.

31. For a place to qualify to be included in the AUP historic heritage schedule, each place must meet the criteria and thresholds for scheduling that are outlined in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) section of the AUP. Historic heritage places must be at least of considerable significance to their locality or beyond.

32. Historic heritage places have been identified in the Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Ōrakei, Rodney, Waitematā and Whau Local Boards. A list of these places is included in Attachment B.

33. Most of these places were identified as a result of the survey of the special character values that was part of the council’s response to the NPS-UD. Other places were identified via public nominations. This work is supported by a Planning Committee resolution:

where significant historic heritage values are identified within the Special Character Areas Overlay, develop a plan change for places or areas to be added to the Auckland Unitary Plan historic heritage schedule.^{^[1]}

34. Each identified historic heritage place’s evaluation demonstrates the criteria and thresholds for scheduling set out in the RPS are satisfied. It is important that places with significant historic heritage values are included in the AUP historic heritage schedule, so that these values can be appropriately managed. The historic heritage places listed in Attachment B are proposed to be included in Schedule 14 via a plan change.

35. Two historic heritage places are proposed to be deleted. The former St Andrews Sunday School Hall at 40 Rankin Avenue, New Lynn (Schedule 14.1 ID 189) was demolished in 2019. The Residence at 147 Sturges Road, Henderson (ID 75). This historic heritage place has been identified as not meeting the RPS thresholds for scheduling. It is not appropriate for a historic heritage place without sufficient value to remain in the AUP historic heritage Schedule 14.

36. The IPI will recognise scheduled historic heritage places as qualifying matters, by limiting intensification to the extent necessary to continue to provide for the scheduled values. A separate change is needed to schedule the newly identified historic heritage places and to remove the place at 147 Sturges Road, as that is not the purpose of the IPI.

Variations

37. Amendments made to the RMA in December 2021 came into force immediately and require tier 1 local authorities (including Auckland) to incorporate the government’s MDRS into all relevant residential zones.

38. The government’s intention is that all plan changes relating to relevant residential zones also incorporate MDRS. Transitional provisions inserted into the RMA require the council to prepare variations where changes commenced, but were not completed, when the RMA was amended. Up to seven variations are required to be notified at the same time as the council’s IPI, and to be processed alongside it. Work is commencing on variations to these changes:

Incomplete private plan changes relating to relevant residential zones:	Local board area in which land is located
PC 49 Drury East	Franklin
PC 50 Waihoehoe	Franklin
PC 51 Drury 2	Franklin
PC 59 Albany 10 precinct	Upper Harbour
PC 66 Schnapper Rock Road	Upper Harbour
PC 67 Hingaia precinct 1	Papakura
Incomplete council-initiated plan changes relating to relevant residential zones	Suburbs in which land is located
PC 60 Open space	Less than 20 sites across: Forrest Hill Ellerslie Freemans Bay Grey Lynn Pukekohe Beachlands Waiuku Howick Birkenhead Mangere East

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

41. However, the RMA currently precludes the second goal: consideration of climate mitigation. The council may only consider climate adaptation and resilience.

42. Several plan changes have some bearing on climate change. The transport plan change addresses the car parking design for new developments and access to residential car parking spaces and rear sites. How sites are designed and accessed provides for climate resilience, particularly by encouraging people to walk and cycle and facilitating sustainable modes of transport. Adding notable trees to the AUP schedule provides statutory protection for trees, adds to biodiversity and improves urban amenity for residents.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43. The draft transport plan change has been consulted on with internal advice from Auckland Transport, Watercare and all relevant council departments including Auckland Plans Strategy and Research, Resource Consents, Regulatory Services, Infrastructure & Environmental Services, and the Tāmaki Makurau Design Ope (formerly the Urban Design Unit).

44. Key specialists are also involved in the review of the draft transport provisions and their feedback will be considered in the ongoing development of this plan change.

45. In addition, the planning team is also working with the Infrastructure and Environmental Services technical standards team in their development of an Access Technical Guidance document for the construction and design of residential, business and rural accesses. This is to ensure the plan change and the technical guidance document are consistent with each other. It is anticipated the technical guidance will be completed later this year, after the notification of the transport plan change.

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

Local impacts and local board views

46. The extent of intensification anticipated by NPS-UD and RMA amendments will affect all local boards, except Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke. Hauraki Gulf Islands are excluded from the application of MDRS and lie outside Auckland’s urban environment (where intensification is directed).

47. Workshops were held with local boards on the draft transport plan change in November 2021 and in February 2022. Local boards’ feedback sought to address the access and parking matters by changing the operative AUP standards and/or creating new standards.

48. The draft section 32 report (which is being developed) also concurs that the issues are best addressed through statutory methods (e.g. a plan change). However, some matters could be supported by a non-statutory design guidance (e.g., cycle parking). Other matter such as the access requirements for fire and emergency services are best addressed by additional staff training and amendments to the access Practice and Guidance Note. Attachment C provides a summary of what we heard from local boards during workshops earlier in the year.

49. This report and related briefings provide an opportunity for local board views to inform policy development.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50. Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau is Council’s framework for measuring our performance in delivering on the strategic priorities identified by Māori.

51. Policy 9 of NPS-UD directs the council to particularly involve iwi and hapū in the NPS-UD during the preparation of planning documents. The proposed plan changes to implement the intensification provisions is one planning document.

52. All mana whenua entities recognised by the council receive ongoing invitations to engage and provide feedback on the NPS-UD programme including the supporting draft transport plan change. All representatives (including those electing not to participate in collective meetings or workshops) receive information, updates and hui notes.

53. Relevant common themes identified to date include:

a) Universal access provided in residential design for less able whānau members

b) Safe and connected whānau and communities.

54. Staff provide regular updates on all plan changes to mana whenua and specific briefings are planned for late May and June on these changes and the IPI.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. The local board is not exposed to any financial risk from providing its views on policy development.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

56. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a draft plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

57. Any views provided by the local board will be included in the August 2022 report to the Planning Committee seeking decisions on the IPI plan changes and the IPI-supporting plan changes and variations. Following the close of submissions, local boards will have the opportunity to express views on the notified changes.

58. If resolutions are passed after submissions close, the relevant local boards will be informed of the hearing date and invited to speak at the hearing in support of their views. Planning staff will advise the local board of the decision on the plan change by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Summary of key potential changes to the draft transport plan change	43
b ⇩	Attachment B: Histroic heritage places proposed to be added to Schedule 14	51
c ⇩	Attachment C: Summary of what we heard from local board during workshops	53

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Michele Perwick - Senior Principal Planner

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Teuila Young - Policy Planner

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Regional, North West and Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

Local board feedback on the council’s preliminary response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021

File No.: CP2022/07890

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from the local board on the council’s preliminary response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (RMA amendments).

2. To provide an overview of the feedback on the council’s preliminary response received through the public consultation from 19 April to 9 May 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The council’s preliminary response to the NPS-UD and RMA amendments are set out in the NPS-UD and the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS). Some of these are not optional. Council must change the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) to put these new rules in place.

4. The NPS-UD allows Council to make some limited decisions to help shape the future of our city. Council can determine:

i) the distances of walkable catchments, where buildings of six storeys or more are required. These are the areas around the city centre, rapid transit stops, and the ten metropolitan centres (Albany, Takapuna, Westgate, Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket, Sylvia Park, Manukau, Botany and Papakura)

ii) the building heights and density to enable residential development within and next to other suburban centres – neighbourhoods centres, local centres, and town centres

iii) the “qualifying matters” that will apply in Auckland, or the characteristics within some areas that may allow the council to modify (or limit) the required building heights and density.

5. Central government has already identified a number of qualifying matters. The council is also able to include other ‘qualifying matters’ that are important for Auckland.

6. The elements of the preliminary response that the council is able to determine were open to feedback. A three-week public engagement on the council’s preliminary response to the NPS-UD and RMA amendments was completed on 9 May 2022. This included an independently run survey of 2000 Aucklanders. The feedback has been analysed, and the themes that have emerged from that analysis were presented to local board on Monday, 30 May 2022

7. The feedback summary report is set out in Attachment B to this report and has been published on the AKHaveYourSay website. The feedback responses received have also been published on the website.

8. Local boards are now invited to give feedback on the council’s preliminary response, with particular regard to the matters available to council to make decisions on. A template (Attachment C) has been provided to assist the preparation of that feedback.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) note the council’s preliminary response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 as set out in Attachment A.

b) note the feedback received from Aucklanders on the council’s preliminary response during the three-week public consultation in April and May 2022 as set out in Attachment B.

c) provide feedback on the council’s preliminary response, to be considered by the Planning Committee in preparation of the proposed plan change notification in August 2022.

Horopaki

Context

9. The NPS-UD and the RMA amendments require that a proposed intensification plan change (IPI) must be notified by 20 August 2022. The Planning Committee and local board chairs (or their delegates) have attended numerous workshops and made decisions in 2021 and 2022 on preliminary policy directions to guide how the council will implement the NPS-UD and RMA amendments.

10. At it’s meeting on 31 March 2022 the Planning Committee approved a preliminary response to the NPS-UD (Attachment A), for the purpose of public engagement for three weeks in April and May 2022. The preliminary response was made available to the public on the Auckland “Have Your Say” website from 19 April to 9 May 2022.

11. The preliminary response contained an overall consultation document, more detailed information sheets, and access to the graphical information systems (GIS) map viewer that illustrates zoning proposals that reflected the committee’s resolutions. The maps also illustrated locations where various qualifying matters (mostly existing AUP overlays, endorsed by the committee) would limit the height and/or density that would otherwise be enabled.

12. The GIS viewer was supported by information sheets that described the approach to intensification and the process that the council is following. The AUP text for the new zone provisions was not available for feedback, as this was (and is) still being prepared and tested.

13. Since October 2021, local boards and mana whenua have been involved in helping the council develop its preliminary response. This report summarises the themes emerging from the public engagement. Feedback received from the public, together with the ongoing involvement of local boards and mana whenua, will greatly assist the council in finalising the IPI for notification by 20 August 2022.

14. Feedback was specifically sought on the following matters:

i) the extent of walkable catchments around the city centre, metropolitan centres and rapid transit network stops (as required under Policy 3(c))

ii) the approach to, and extent of, intensification of areas adjacent to the city, metropolitan, town, local and neighbourhood centres (as required under Policy 3(d))

iii) the selection of, and approach to, “any other qualifying matters” that limit the height and density that would otherwise be required as enabled under Policy 4.

15. Feedback was not sought on matters in the NPS-UD and RMA amendments that are mandatory. Mandatory matters include the introduction of walkable catchments into the AUP, the enablement of six storey buildings in all zones in walkable catchments, and the application of medium density residential standards in all residential zones outside walkable catchments.

16. The public engagement (under the heading ‘Government’s new housing rules: what it means for Auckland’) comprised the following:

· an overview of the response and how to give feedback

· a main consultation document (also translated into numerous languages) with the full preliminary response overview

· online feedback form with questions on consultation topics and an opportunity to provide reasons and further explanation

· more detailed information sheets on a range of topics

· frequently asked questions and an explanation video

· special character area assessment survey reports

· the GIS NPS-UD map viewer and user guide

· information and booking links for webinars and events

· access to a planning enquiry service for questions and further information.

17. Hard copies of the main documents including the feedback form were placed in libraries and service centres.

18. Online consultation activities and events were scheduled and undertaken through the engagement period, as follows:

· four online webinars - two covering the whole preliminary response (with a focus on intensification), one on special character areas, and one on other council-identified qualifying matters

four ‘Have Your Say’ events – two for general opportunities for people or groups to present and discuss their feedback to members and staff, one for regional stakeholders, and one for residents’ groups and associations

· two information meetings focussed on the special character areas qualifying matter – one on the North Shore and one in the city centre.

19. In addition to the online and hard-copy feedback opportunity, an independently run sample survey of 2000 Aucklanders was procured from Kantar Public Limited. This was intended to enable a broader public perspective of the aspects of preliminary response, to complement the feedback offered and received from individuals, groups and organisations.

20. All feedback received has been recorded, reviewed and allocated to themes to enable evaluation and assessment by staff and local board members. Summary reports have been prepared for the feedback received via the AKHaveYourSay website and also via the sample survey. All feedback has been published at AKHaveYourSay.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. Most feedback (6,094 items) was provided via our online feedback form, provided in eight languages (English, Te Reo Māori, Samoan, Tongan, Simplified and Traditional Chinese, Korean and Hindi). There were also 1,766 ‘non-feedback form’ items of feedback received via email or through the post. Feedback received after the consultation closing date has not been included in the analysis within the “Summary of Feedback” report (Attachment B). However, feedback received later than the closing date is being considered and will be made available for viewing along with the rest of the feedback received.

22. Local board feedback on the preliminary response is now sought through resolutions at this meeting. This feedback will be considered in (and attached to) a report for the 30 June Planning Committee meeting where further policy directions will be determined towards the preparation of a proposed plan change for reporting to committee on 4 August 2022 for a decision on notification.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. Objective 8 and policy 1 of the NPS-UD set out a policy framework that signals the need for decisions under the RMA to reduce emissions and improve climate resilience.

24. This framework is in line with the ‘built environment’ priority of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which has a goal of achieving “A low carbon, resilient built environment that promotes healthy, low impact lifestyles”. The plan states that:

“To move to a low carbon and resilient region, climate change and hazard risks need to be integral to the planning system that shapes Auckland. Integrating land-use and transport planning is vital to reduce the need for private vehicle travel and to ensure housing and employment growth areas are connected to efficient, low carbon transport systems.”

25. Applying the NPS-UD will enable additional residential intensification to occur in areas where jobs, services and amenities can be easily accessed by active modes and public transport. This will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the more efficient use of land will reduce growth pressures in areas more susceptible to the effects of climate change. In some places, applying the MDRS required under the RMA amendments will also achieve this outcome. However, a key aspect of the council’s submission on the RMA amendments was that enabling three-storey medium density housing across Auckland’s urban environment, is likely to result in a greater number of people living in areas where it is extremely difficult to provide a high level of public transport service. A more detailed analysis of climate impacts will be possible once the mapping work required to implement the NPS-UD and the RMA amendments is more advanced.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. All relevant council departments and Council Controlled Organisations have been involved in preparing the council’s preliminary response to the NPS-UD and the RMA amendments. They will have an ongoing role during the feedback period through to and beyond 20 August 2022. Feedback received on the council’s preliminary response will be reviewed by the relevant departments and CCOs to assist the council in finalising the IPI for public notification.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. Local boards were briefed in October and November 2021 on the implications of the NPS-UD and local board chairs were invited to the series of Planning Committee workshops run in 2021 on the NPS-UD. Local boards also received a detailed briefing on the council’s preliminary response in March and May 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. Auckland Council has obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its Significance and Engagement Policy to take special consideration when engaging with Māori and to enable Māori participation in council decision-making to promote Māori well-being.

29. The NPS-UD provides for the interests of Māori through intensification to increase housing supply, alongside its identification of qualifying matters. The widespread intensification sought by the NPS-UD has the potential to affect Māori both negatively and positively. This includes with respect to culturally significant sites and landscapes, Treaty Settlement redress land, the urban form as it reflects mātauranga Māori and accessibility, and Māori facilities where customs and traditions are observed (such as marae).

30. The relevant qualifying matters set out in the NPS-UD and RMA amendments include matters of national importance that decision-makers are required to recognise and provide for under section 6 of the RMA 1991, and matters necessary to implement, or to ensure consistency with, iwi participation legislation.

31. Policy 9 of the NPS-UD sets out requirements for local authorities as follows:

“Local authorities, in taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) in relation to urban environments, must:

a) involve hapū and iwi in the preparation of RMA planning documents and any FDSs by undertaking effective consultation that is early, meaningful and, as far as practicable, in accordance with tikanga Māori; and

b) when preparing RMA planning documents and FDSs, take into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development; and

c) provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori involvement in decision-making on resource consents, designations, heritage orders, and water conservation orders, including in relation to sites of significance to Māori and issues of cultural significance; and

d) operate in a way that is consistent with iwi participation legislation.”

32. Policy 9 directs the council to involve iwi and hapū in the NPS-UD, during the preparation of planning documents, and to take into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development in the region. In the context of the NPS-UD, the council must involve mana whenua and mataawaka within the region.

33. Individual and collective engagement has raised several key themes relating matters like the protection of scheduled and known cultural heritage and managing potential interface effects from new development with existing marae. This is supported by research undertaken by the council team in advance of these discussions with mana whenua. This has drawn on a wide range of council documents and publicly available information.

34. Common themes that have been identified include:

a) universal access to be provided in residential design for less able whānau members

b) access to open space for health and wellbeing

c) safe and connected whānau and communities

d) avoiding development in areas poorly served by infrastructure

e) access to affordable housing options

f) maintaining access to customary activities e.g. waka launching, kaimoana gathering

g) protection of Māori sites and places of cultural significance. Maintaining precincts that protect cultural values or are otherwise culturally sensitive (such as Ihumātao)

h) avoiding negative effects of intensive residential development on established cultural activities/facilities (such as marae)

i) provisions for Kohanga reo and Kura Kaupapa Māori in urban areas

j) use of Māori design concepts in the development of commercial centres and in large residential developments

k) use of mātauranga and tikanga Māori in the management of resources

l) the support of measures to maintain and improve water quality, ecological areas, volcanic viewshafts, and the coastline

m) avoiding exacerbating natural hazard risks

n) maintaining the cultural significance of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area

o) concern that Future Urban Zone land will be prematurely rezoned.

35. The council’s engagement team continues to actively work with mana whenua representatives on these matters.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. NPS-UD implementation has been progressing within existing budgets. However, the RMA amendments has resulted in a significant increase in the scale and complexity of the project, without any changes to the NPS-UD implementation timeframes. This will require a greater than anticipated level of change to the AUP.

37. The financial impact of these changes will affect the current 2021-2022 and the 2022-2023 financial years, and potentially the following year. While it is expected that additional costs in the current financial year can be met through a re-prioritisation of work programmes within the Chief Planning Office, further costs (primarily relating to operation of an independent hearings panel and engagement of specialists) may require re-prioritisation of other work programmes from across the organisation. Planning for the 2022-2023 financial year is currently underway, however any impacts will be of a scale that will not affect the council’s overall financial position.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. The government has set a deadline of 20 August 2022 for the council to publicly notify the IPI. Given the scale and complexity of the work required to meet this deadline, there is a risk that the quality of engagement on the council’s preliminary response will not meet the expectation of Aucklanders and key stakeholders, and that the council may not receive quality feedback from a wide range of interests. There is also a risk that Aucklanders and key stakeholders are unclear about the mandatory requirements of the NPS-UD and the RMA amendments, and where the council has some discretion.

39. These risks have been mitigated to date by strong, clear communications in the lead-up to and during the engagement period. The responses during the consultation period show a good response from Pasifika, and the general 25-44 age group. The responses were underrepresented in Māori, Asian and the general 15-24 age group. There was over-representation in the responses by New Zealand European / European and those over 45 years old.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. Staff continue to analyse feedback received, and this analysis will be presented to the committee, mana whenua and local boards to inform the completion of the IPI that must be publicly notified by 20 August 2022. Public notification is the beginning of formal submissions and hearings of those submissions.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇩	Consultation document	65
b⇨	NPS-UD Summary of the consultation feedback (Under Separate Cover)
c⇩	Local board feedback template	71

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Regional, North West and Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2022 - Local Board views

File No.: CP2022/07827

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on applications to the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund is a regionally contestable fund allocated through The Long-term Plan 2021 – 2031.

3. The fund supports the development of community sport and recreation facilities across Auckland, looks to address gaps in provision and allows the council to proactively respond to changing trends in sport and recreation.

4. There is $15.3million available in the current funding round.

5. Allocation of the fund will be decided by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee at its meeting in September 2022.

6. Local board views will inform recommendations to the PACE Committee.

7. Applications received from within the Upper Harbour Local Board area are included at Attachment A.

8. Local board views will be included with materials for an independent assessment panel scheduled to sit in July 2022. The recommendations from the assessment panel will be presented to the PACE Committee at the September meeting. If approved, the grant allocations and funding agreements with successful applicants will be developed in late 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) endorse the following applications to be considered for investment through the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2022:

i) Auckland Rugby Union Inc

(on behalf of the) Wider Auckland Rugby Sports Field Project

Windsor Park.

$3,062,125 (across three locations).

ii) East Coast Bays Association Football Club

ECBAFC Facilities Strategic Development

Bay City Park, 54 Anderson Road, Oteha.

$605,000.

iii) Hobsonville Point Marine Sports Recreation Centre Charitable Trust

Upper Harbour Marine and Sports Centre

9 Boundary Road, Hobsonville

$3,000,000

iv) North Shore Rowing Club Incorporated

Rame Road Boathouse Redevelopment

Rame Road, Greenhithe, Auckland

$100,000

b) Provide local board views regarding applications to the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2022 received for the local board area.

Horopaki

Context

Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2022

9. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund was established through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 to support development of sport and recreation facilities in the Auckland region.

10. The regionally contestable fund will invest circa $140 million over the next ten years to proactively address sport and recreation infrastructure shortfalls, respond to changing participation preferences and get more Aucklanders more active, more often.

11. There is $15.3 million available in the current funding round. This funding envelope is a combined allocation from two financial years (2021/2022 and 2022/2023).

12. The fund will be allocated by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee in September 2022.

13. Further information relating to the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund and the current funding round can be found in the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2022 Guidelines.

Communication to local board

14. Memos dated 29 October 2021 and 13 April 2022 were circulated to local boards to provide information on the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2022, outline the approach to local board engagement and provide information on applications to the fund from within the board’s area.

15. In workshops during May/June 2022 local boards were provided with further information on application(s) to the fund from within their areas where they had the opportunity to ask questions for clarification and provide local insights.

16. Applications received from within the Upper Harbour Local Board area are included at Attachment A.

17. Local board views will inform consideration of applications by an independent assessment panel whose recommendations will go to the PACE Committee in September 2022.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. Local boards may endorse an application to be considered for investment through the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2022 or decline to endorse and instead raise concerns about the application.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. Local board endorsement of the application(s) is not in itself considered to carry a climate impact.

20. Mitigation of potential environmental impacts arising from individual projects will be examined as one of the assessment criteria for the fund.

21. Should an application to the fund be successful, potential emissions and environmental impacts (e.g.: through construction) will be further considered in land-owner approval and resource consent processes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. Decision-making on the fund sits with the PACE Committee.

23. Local board views will inform recommendations to the committee.

24. No other council group impacts are identified as arising from the local board expressing views on applications to the fund.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. Workshops were held with local boards during May and early June 2022 where applications(s) have been received from their area.

26. During those workshops, local boards had the opportunity to:

i) learn more about the application(s) and ask questions

ii) provide their views supporting or opposing the applications.

27. Local board directions taken from the workshops inform the recommendations in this report

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. Māori outcomes are a priority criteria for the fund in the social and community theme. The social and community criteria are weighted to align with the equity focus in the Increasing Aucklanders Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2018-2038. Scoring will reflect applications displaying strong Māori outcomes.

29. An initial presentation on the fund was provided to the Mana Whenua Forum in October 2021. In response to Mana Whenua feedback, staff have ensured that the independent assessment panel assessing applications in July 2022 will include a specialist with a Māori outcomes perspective.

30. Applications to the fund will be presented to Mana Whenua Forum in June 2022. Mana Whenua views will be sought to inform the assessment panel and recommendations to the PACE Committee. Where it is desired by Mana Whenua, fund recipients will be required to engage with iwi about their projects.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. The Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund is a regional budget established through The Long-term Plan 2018-2028. The PACE Committee allocates budget following a regionally contestable process.

32. Local board views on applications will inform discussions with the assessment panel and ultimately recommendations to the PACE Committee.

33. Local board endorsement of the application(s) will have no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. The following risks and mitigations have been identified:

Risk	Mitigation
Applicants may consider the endorsement by the local board to be an indication that a grant will be forthcoming.		The applicant will be advised by staff that any endorsement at this stage is an endorsement to progress their application for further consideration.
Applicants may consider the endorsement by the local board to be an indication that the local board will provide necessary approvals (e.g. land owner approval, agreement to lease)		The applicant will be advised by staff that any local board endorsement at this stage does not affect future local board decisions.
The applicant may not have the capability to lead delivery of a successful project.		The applicant’s ability to deliver a successful project is a key weighting within the criteria to be used by the assessment panel.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. Local board views will be included with materials for an independent assessment panel scheduled to sit in July 2022.

36. Recommendations from the assessment panel will be presented to the PACE Committee at the September meeting.

37. Should the PACE Committee approve grant allocations, funding agreements with successful applicants will be developed in late 2022.

38. Local boards will be advised of the PACE Committee decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Applications received within the Upper Harbour Local Board area.	87

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Nick Harris - Sport & Recreation Team Lead

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants Round One 2021/2022 grant allocations

File No.: CP2022/06988

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Upper Harbour Local Boards Quick Response Round One 2021/2022

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Grants Programme 2021/2022 as presented in Attachment A to the agenda report. The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

3. This report presents applications received in the Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Round One 2021/2022 (Attachment B to the agenda report).

4. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total of $96,133 community grants budget for the 2021/2022 financial year. During the year, the Greenhithe Community Trust returned an amount of $3,900 to Auckland Council for application QR2017-327 as this project did not go ahead.

5. Further, funds were reallocated of $39,400 from the activities identified in resolution number UH/2022/57 clause c) to Activity ID 474 – Upper Harbour Community Grants, bringing the remaining budget available for 2021/2022 to $114,433.

6. At the 19^thMay 2022 business meeting, the local board allocated $69,939.45 for Local Grants Round Two and Multiboard Grants Round Two leaving a total of $44,493.55 to be allocated to this Quick Response Round One.

7. Following Quick Response Round One, if the total remaining funding is not fully allocated to applicants, any balance not allocated will go to organisational savings.

8. Eighteen applications were received for Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Round One, requesting $57,991.20

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund, or decline each application in the Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Round One 2021/2022, listed below:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested
QR221701	Badminton North Harbour Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards shuttlecocks for the North Harbour International 2022 between 19th October 2022 till 23rd October 2022.	$3,500.00
QR221702	NEW ZEALAND AFL INCORPORATED	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire for three days of North Harbour Stadium.	$3,920.00
QR221703	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards clinical counsellors fees between 1st July 2022 and 31st March 2023	$5,000.00
QR221705	Greenhithe Football Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the referee fees	$1,050.00
QR221706	The Upside Downs Education Trust	Community	Towards the fees of three speech and language therapists from 2nd July 2022 till 1st July 2023.	$2,700.00
QR221707	North Harbour Synchronised Swimming Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the coaching fees of the programme.	$1,620.00
QR221708	Tennis Seniors North Harbour under the umbrella of "Mairangi Bay Tennis Club Incorporated"	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire and tennis balls for Tennis Seniors North Harbour Winter Indoor Tournament July 2022.	$2,890.00
QR221709	Soha Mansour	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire and materials expenses for two art workshops between 15th July 2022 till 19th August 2022.	$895.00
QR221710	Hobsonville Point Secondary School	Community	Towards event staff fees for the "The Lil Gay Out: Auckland School's Rainbow Festival 2022"	$2,768.00
QR221711	Waitemata Synchronised Swimming Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards head coach salary, life guard education course fee for three persons, first aid course fee, judges education`s lector salary, printed materials, venue hire for both coaches education and judges education and printed materials for coaches education.	$6,003.35
QR221712	Youth Search and Rescue Trust	Community	Towards purchase of a Drone	$5,000.00
QR221713	East Coast Bays Cricket Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards indoor cricket nets hire.	$4,680.00
QR221715	Art Yoga Partnership under the umbrella of "The Prema Charitable Trust"	Community	Towards wages of facilitator and art supplies for seven week course.	$1,959.85
QR221716	Tread Lightly Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the wages of the educator for eight days at two schools.	$1,951.00
QR221717	Greenhithe Playcentre	Community	Towards partial funding of sandpit cover, shade sail and plants.	$5,000.00
QR221718	North Harbour Synchronised Swimming Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the educators fee.	$1,500.00
QR221719	West Harbour Tennis Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards replacement of steel posts for the fencing of two tennis courts.	$3,390.00
QR221720	Albany Chinese Association Incorporated	Community	Towards venue hire and operational costs of accounting between 1st August 2022 and 31st March 2023.	$4,164.00
Total				$57,991.20

Horopaki

Context

9. The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world-class city.

10. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds, and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

11. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Grants Programme 2021/2022 as presented in Attachment A. The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

12. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, and community networks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. The Local Board Grants Programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action.

15. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts.

16. Examples of projects include local food production and food waste reduction; increasing access to single-occupancy transport options; home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. The focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment, or heritage. Based on the focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department will provide input and advice.

18. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Upper Harbour Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

20. The local board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states:
“We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time”.

21. A summary of each application received through 2021/2022 Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One is provided in Attachments B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. The local board grants programme aims to respond to the council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Māori. Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Grants Programme 2021/2022 as presented in Attachment A. The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

24. This report presents applications received in the Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Round One 2021/2022 (Attachment B).

25. The Upper Harbour Local Board had set a total of $96,133 community grants budget for the 2021/2022 financial year. During the year, the Greenhithe Community Trust returned an amount of $3,900 to Auckland Council for application QR2017-327 as this project did not go ahead.

26. Further, funds were reallocated of $39,400 from the activities identified in resolution number UH/2022/57 clause c) to Activity ID 474 – Upper Harbour Community Grants, bringing the remaining budget available for 2021/2022 to $114,433.

27. At the 19^thMay 2022 business meeting, the local board allocated $69,939.45 for Local Grants Round Two and Multiboard Grants Round Two leaving a total of $44,493.55 to be allocated to this Quick Response Round One.

28. Following Quick Response Round One, if the total remaining funding is not fully allocated to applicants, any balance not allocated will go into organisational savings.

29. Eighteen applications were received for Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Round One, requesting $57,991.20

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocating funding for Round One Local and Multi-Board grants, grants staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Grants Programme 2021 2022	99
b ⇨	Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Round One Applications Summary (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ann Kuruvilla - Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Pierre Fourie - Grants & Incentives Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

Upper Harbour Council-Controlled Orgnisation's work programme 2021/2022 quarter three update and adoption of Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation's (CCO's) Local Board Engagement Plan 2022/2023

File No.: CP2022/08026

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive Upper Harbour Council-Controlled Organisation’s work programme 2021/2022 quarter three update.

2. To adopt the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation’s Local Board Engagement Plan 2022-2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. In 2019 an independent review panel was appointed to consider whether council-controlled organisations were an efficient and effective model for delivering services, and whether the council-controlled organisations decision-making model had enough political oversight, public transparency and accountability.

4. The review panel presented its findings to the Governing Body and local board chairpersons in August 2020. All 64 recommendations presented were adopted.

5. Recommendations 6, 34, and 53 were designated as those that council-controlled organisations would work with local boards to implement. Recommendation 34 (b) of the review recommended the preparation of joint CCO engagement plans for each local board.

6. The local board approved the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation Engagement Plan 2021/2022 at the 19 August 2021 business meeting.

7. The four substantive council-controlled organisations – Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare have provided updates on their work programmes for quarter three 2021/2022 as outlined in the relevant attachments set out in Attachment A.

8. A workshop was held on 7 April 2022 with council-controlled organisation staff and the local board to develop the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023.

9. These discussions have formed the basis of the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 as set out in Attachment A.

10. Once adopted the engagement plan will be in place for two years. The attachments to the plan will be amended throughout the year to ensure the plan is up to date and fit for purpose.

11. Updates will be provided to local boards each quarter to reflect any changes to the plan and to provide updates on the work programme items included in the attachments to the plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation’s work programme 2021/2022 quarter three update as outlined in the relevant work programme attachments set out in Attachment A.

b) adopt the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 as set out in Attachment A.

c) note that the attachments to the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 will be updated as needed, with changes reported to the local board each quarter.

d) authorise the chairperson to sign the Upper Harbour Joint Council Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 on behalf of the local board, alongside representatives from Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare.

Horopaki

Context

Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) Review

12. In 2019 an independent review panel was appointed to consider whether CCOs were an efficient and effective model for delivering services, and whether the CCO decision-making model had enough political oversight, public transparency and accountability.

13. The review panel presented its findings to the Governing Body and local board chairs in August 2020. All 64 recommendations were adopted.

14. Recommendations 6, 34, and 53 were designated as those that CCOs would work with local boards to implement. Recommendation 34 (b) of the review recommended the preparation of joint CCO engagement plans for each local board.

Upper Harbour Joint CCO Local Board Engagement Plan 2021/2022 and quarter three update

15. The local board approved the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2021/2022 at the 19 August 2021 business meeting.

16. At the 9 December 2021 business meeting the local board agreed to amend the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2021/2022 to reduce the engagement levels for specific projects and programmes to a simplified three step model of inform, consult and collaborate rather than the use of five levels of engagement outlined by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). This helps to better distinguish between projects and to clarify the kinds of engagement that are expected at each step.

17. Updates for each quarter have been provided to local boards to reflect any changes to the plan and to provide updates on the work programme items included within the attachments to the plan.

Upper Harbour Joint CCO Local Board Engagement Plan 2022/2023

18. A workshop was held on 7 April 2022 with CCO staff and the local board to develop the Upper Harbour Joint Council Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023.

19. These discussions have formed the basis of the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 as set out in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Upper Harbour Joint CCO Local Board Engagement Plan 2021/2022 and quarter three update

20. The workshop held on 7 April 2022 included an outline and update of each CCO’s work programme within the local board area for 2021/2022.

21. The four substantive CCOs – Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare have provided updates on their work programmes for quarter three 2021/2022 as set out in the attachments which form part of the overall plan in Attachment A.

Auckland Transport

22. Auckland Transport’s work programme update for quarter three 2021/2022 is available under Attachment C within Attachment A of the agenda report.

Tātaki Auckland Unlimited

23. Tātaki Auckland Unlimited work programme update for quarter three 2021/2022 is available under Attachment D within Attachment A of the agenda report.

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

24. Eke Panuku Development Auckland work programme update for quarter three 2021/2022 is available under Attachment E within Attachment A of the agenda report.

Watercare

25. Watercare work programme update for quarter three 2021/2022 is available under Attachment F within Attachment A of the agenda report.

Upper Harbour Joint CCO Local Board Engagement Plan 2022/2023

26. Workshops between local boards and CCO staff have provided local boards with the opportunity to share their views on CCO delivery and engagement in their area. At the workshop held on 7 April 2022 the local board provided their views on the degree of engagement they expect for each project or programme for 2022/2023.

27. The Joint CCO Local Board Engagement Plan 2022-2023 addresses key elements of recommendations made by the CCO Review, including:

· documenting key contacts, including senior CCO representatives of the organisation well placed to quickly respond to and resolve local concerns

· giving local boards the opportunity to highlight projects likely to be most significant to them as governors, contributing to a “no surprises” environment

· ensuring the communication of clear, up-to-date information from CCOs to local boards on projects in their area.

28. Work programme items that will be confirmed with the formal adoption of Annual Budget 2022/2023 will be included as they become available.

29. Once adopted the engagement plan will be in place for two years. In subsequent years, this document is likely to remain in use for three years, following the completion of the local board plan.

30. The attachments to the plan include information that is likely to require updating such as staff contacts and project updates and will be amended throughout the year to ensure the plan is up to date and fit for purpose.

31. Quarterly updates will be provided to each local board to any changes to the plan and provide updates on the work programme items included in the attachments to the plan

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. Receiving Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation’s Work Programme 2021/2022 quarter three update and the adoption of the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 does not have a direct impact on climate, however many of the projects it refers to will.

33. Each CCO must work within Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework and information on climate impacts will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. Receiving Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation’s Work Programme 2021/2022 quarter three update and the adoption of the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 is likely to have a positive impact on other parts of the council as well as between the respective CCOs within each local board area.

35. These plans will be shared with the integration teams that implement local board work programmes and will give council staff greater ongoing visibility of CCO work programmes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. Local board engagement plans and quarterly updates enable local boards to signal to CCOs those projects that are of greatest interest to the local board, and to ensure that engagement between the local board and the four CCOs is focussed on those priority areas.

37. The engagement plans and quarterly updates also give local boards the opportunity to communicate to CCOs which projects they expect to be of most interest to their communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. Receiving Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation’s Work Programme 2021/2022 quarter three update and the adoption of the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 may have a positive impact on local engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka.

39. While both CCOs and local boards have engagement programmes with Māori, the engagement plan will allow a more cohesive and coordinated approach to engagement, with more advance planning of how different parts of the community will be involved.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. Receiving Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation’s Work Programme 2021/2022 quarter three update and the adoption of the Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisations Engagement Plan 2022/2023 does not have financial impacts for local boards.

41. Any financial implications or opportunities will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42. Changes will be made within the attachments of the Joint CCO Engagement Plan to ensure that information is kept up to date. The substantive document will not change until after the development of the next local board plan. This risk is mitigated by ensuring that the document states clearly that it is subject to change and will be re-published on the local board agenda quarterly, to ensure public transparency.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43. The local board will receive Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation’s Work Programme 2021/2022 quarter four updates in September 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Joint Council-Controlled Organisation's Local Board Engagement Plan 2022/2023 and Upper Harbour Council-Controlled Orgnisation's work programme 2021/2022 quarter three update	109

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Heather Skinner - Senior Local Board Advisor

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

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

File No.: CP2022/07498

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive financial and non-financial performance report for the third quarter of the 2021/2022 financial year (1 January to 31 March 2022).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides a retrospective overview of the financial and non-financial performance of Auckland Council against the 2021/2022 Upper Harbour Local Board Agreement for the period beginning 1 January to 31 March 2022 – quarter three.

3. The key activity updates from the 2021/2022 work programme (Attachment A) for the reporting period include:

· Meadowood Community Centre reponed following refurbishment (Activity ID 470)

· Safer Cities were funded to assess the distribution of CCTV and identify gaps and opportunities in Albany Town Centre (Activity ID 462)

· Harbour Sport took over management of the Albany Community Hub (Activity ID 470)

· Ecological volunteers and environmental programme (Activity ID 687) received 778 hours of volunteer work and Restore the Landing carried out their first working bee with 13 new volunteers

· English and Chinese business information packs were completed as part of the business emergency resilience programme (Activity ID 1599)

· North Shore Run Series held one event at Hobsonville Point and one at Albany Lakes (Activity ID 473).

4. Overall, 91 activities within the agreed 2021/2022 work programme are on track, 13 activities have some identified risk or issue which is being managed, and three activities have been cancelled.

5. The financial performance compared to year-to-date budget 2021/2022 is provided (Attachment B). Overall, the net operational financial performance of the local board is tracking above the revised year to date budget (105 percent). Revenue is tracking at 37 percent of budget for the year to date and this has been caused by COVID-19 restrictions.

6. From the local boards’ Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding, the majority of projects are underway and on track to be completed during the year, although some projects may need to have budget carried forward to 2022/23 to ensure completion.

7. Major capital projects completed or underway include the sustainable sports park development at Scott Point, sports field upgrade and new toilet facility at Caribbean Drive, walkway renewal and wayfinding signage at Fernhill Escarpment, and the refurbishment of Meadowood House and Herald Island Domain Hall.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the quarterly performance report for the period corresponding to quarter three of the 2021/2022 financial year (1 January to 31 March 2022).

Horopaki

Context

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

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

· empowered, connected and resilient Upper Harbour communities Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· an efficient and accessible travel network

· healthy and active communities

· a resilient local economy

· our unique natural environment is protected and enhanced.

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

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

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

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

· Auckland Emergency Management (resolution number UH/2021/70)

· Auckland Unlimited (resolution number UH/2021/69).

12.

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

COVID-19 restrictions

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

14. COVID - 19 has impacted contractor capacity and delivery resulting in some delayed activities and underspend.

15. Impacts to individual activities are reported in the work programme update (Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

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

17. Graph 2 provides the percentage of activities by RAG status in quarter three of 2021/2022: 85 per cent of activities were identified to be on track (green); 12 per cent of activities were identified to be in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber); and 3 per cent of activities were identified to be cancelled (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

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

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

Graph 3: Work programme by activity status and department

Key activity updates from quarter three

20. Key highlights in quarter three are as follows:

· Local civic events Upper Harbour (Activity ID 475) – Bluebird Reserve playground opening event was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions

· Activation of community places Upper Harbour (Activity ID 470) – Meadowood Community Centre reopened in February and Albany Community Hub is now being managed by Harbour Sport

· Whai Pumanawa Literacy – we support communities to thrive (Pre-school) – Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1324) - Wriggle and Rhyme has restarted at Hobsonville Point, running in the Sunderland Lounge from March, and was met with positive feedback

· Business emergency resilience programme - Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1599) – The English and Chinese business packs have been completed, and Showcase North Harbour event was cancelled due to COVID-19

· Citizenship ceremonies Upper Harbour (Activity ID 471) – all planned onsite Citizenship ceremonies were cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions, and the activity has an amber RAG status

· Connected and resilient communities – Albany (Activity ID 462) – Safer Cities was funded to assess the distribution of CCTV cameras and identify gaps and opportunities in the Albany Town Centre

· Event partnership fund Upper Harbour (Activity ID 473) – Greenhithe Lunar New Year and the Shore-to-Shore event were cancelled, with funding returned to council; North Shore Run Series held events at Hobsonville Point in February and Albany Lakes in March

· Meadowood House – refurbish building (Activity ID 24280) – all construction work was completed at the end of the quarter

· UH: ecological volunteers and environmental programme (Activity ID 687) – quarter three was planting season with 778 hours of volunteer work carried out and Restore the Landing ran their first working bee and had 13 new volunteers.

Activities with significant issues

21. There are no activities identified by operating departments as having significant issues during quarter three.

Activities on hold

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

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

Activities to watch

23. The following work programme activities have been identified as having developments due following quarter three:

· Business emergency resilience programme – Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1599) – with the cancellation of Showcase North Harbour all related engagement opportunities were put on hold; once Auckland moves to Orange in the COVID-19 protection framework engagement with small business owners will commence

· Upper Harbour indoor court detailed business case (Activity ID 1724) – the local board have approved the release of the projects entire funding and the agreement is expected to be signed and funding to be released in quarter four

· UH: Tennis Charitable Trust facility partnership (Activity ID 3095) – the Tennis New Zealand offices opening was delayed and estimated to be built in May 2022; Following certification and acknowledgments the retained funds ($13,600) will be released

· Continue to monitor lease opportunities for Albany library service provision (Activity ID 1761) – staff are exploring the identified lease opportunity for future library services at Albany metropolitan centre.

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

24. There are no activities identified by operating departments that have been deferred from the current work program during quarter three.

Cancelled activities

25. The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as cancelled during quarter three:

· 44 - 50 Station Street, Hobsonville Point (Activity ID 1073) – this activity has been cancelled at the group’s request due to the community garden not progressing

· Upper Harbour Local Board – fruit tree audit (Activity ID 31037) – this project has been cancelled as the Community Facilities Arboriculture Team is taking over these audits and the LDI Operational (LDI Opex) funding has been transferred to Upper Harbour Local Parks Maintenance.

Activities merged with other activities for delivery

26. There are no activities identified by operating departments that have been merged with other activities during quarter three.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

· Taonga tuku iho – Legacy – we preserve our past, ensure our future. (Environment) – Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1320) - libraries showcase sustainable workplace practices and during this quarter craft packs were available for children informing them how to repurpose recycled household items

· Sustainable Schools Project – our local streams (Activity ID 872) – delivery of this project is underway, and it is expected that quarter four will see the multi-school celebration and planting event and the completion of the project.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for quarter three of 2021/2022 from 1 January to 31 March 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. The local board’s work programme contains several projects aimed at delivering on Māori outcomes for quarter three which include:

· Māori responsiveness Upper Harbour (Activity ID 467) – in collaboration with Te Ohu o Onekiritea a programme of events has been created for Matariki, Waitangi Day and Ti Wiki O Te Reo Maori

· Whakatipu i te reo Māori – grow the Māori language celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori – Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1323) – no programmes were offered during quarter three due to COVID-19 related restrictions

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Financial Performance

34. Operating expenditure relating to Asset Based Services (ABS) is below budget by $977,000 for the year to date, while the LDI operational projects are currently $231,000 below budget. There are a variety of projects yet to draw down on financial allocations but are on track to be delivered by year end.

35. Capital spend of $4.5 million represents investment in the sustainable sports park development at Scott Point, sports field upgrade and new toilet facility at Caribbean Drive, walkway renewal and wayfinding signage at Fernhill Escarpment, and the refurbishment of Meadowood House and Herald Island Domain Hall.

36. The complete Upper Harbour Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in Attachment B.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and is susceptible to market conditions.

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. The local board will receive the next performance report for quarter four (1 April 2022 to 30 June 2021) in the first quarter of 2022/2023.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2021/2022 Q3 Report	155
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Financial Report to March 31 2022	183

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Robert Marshall - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

Local board feedback on draft Auckland Parking Strategy (2022)

File No.: CP2022/07823

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the draft Auckland Parking Strategy (2022).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The parking strategy sets out the objectives, principles and policies relating to Auckland Transport’s management and supply of parking across Auckland and was last updated in 2015.

3. Since 2015, numerous changes in both the central and local government context mean that a review of the parking strategy was required.

4. The review has involved engagement with elected members, mana whenua, key stakeholders and the wider community.

5. In late May 2022, Auckland Transport (AT) provided summaries of public engagement to all local boards as set out in Attachment B on the agenda report.

6. This report is to seek feedback from local boards, having had the opportunity to review feedback from their community, on the draft Auckland Parking Strategy (2022).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft Auckland Parking Strategy (2022) as set out in Attachment A.

Horopaki

Context

7. The current parking strategy was progressive at the time it was introduced, bringing about many changes in Auckland including wider acceptance of priced parking; however, it is no longer fit for purpose. Since it was developed there have been numerous changes to the policy and planning context including:

· adoption of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Development signalled in the Unitary Plan will enable growth that may be difficult to service with public transport, meaning that some new suburbs will rely on car use for access

· changes to travel behaviour, such as the emergence of micromobility (such as electric scooters) and the growth of the delivery economy

· Auckland’s public transport network has matured over time, providing opportunities for further passenger uptake and efficiency related to park and ride management

· market demand is pushing for more housing provision and density. Development is already showing evidence of less carparking provision and more issues with carparking compliance

· the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) which guides direction on urban development through the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). The NPS-UD requires Auckland Council to remove parking minimum requirements from the AUP, which means that developments will not be required to provide onsite parking. This will contribute to society and transport becoming less car-centric over time; however, it will lead to increasing pressure on public parking resources, particularly on-street parking

· both central government and Auckland Council have declared ‘a climate emergency’, prioritising policy initiatives and investment that will reduce carbon emissions. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan and other plans and strategies proposed by central government will require changes to the land transport system, including parking.

8. The draft Auckland Parking Strategy (2022) is an important element of aligning and addressing Auckland’s response to these issues, particularly by managing parking in a way that:

· supports public transport and alternative modes, which will make public transport and active modes such as walking and cycling safer and more convenient

· responds to Auckland’s population growth and land-use intensification

· acknowledges that space for carparking is a limited public resource.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The draft Parking Strategy (2022) (Attachment A) sets out the strategic context and the need to manage the transport system, as well as the strategic objectives and agreed principles for parking management.

10. The proposed approach to planning parking management is set out on pages 26-36 of the strategy. The key elements of this are:

· proactively applying parking management in areas that have land use intensity and good public transport access

· repurposing road space away from parking where this is required to enable delivery of the Strategic Transport Network.

11. The accompanying parking policies (page 38-63 of the strategy) provide more technical detail on how parking is proposed to be managed in order to align to the principles set out in the strategic direction. The policies are grouped by:

· provision and approach

· on-street and off-street

· specific vehicle classes

· specific situations.

12. The strategy also includes a section on advocacy to central government for legislative and/or regulatory reform as there are some areas of parking management that are outside local government control. Including these areas also provides context on the limitations of regulation in areas we would like to effect change and achieve better outcomes. These areas include:

· parking infringement fines

· banning berm parking

· residential parking permit cost-setting

· influencing private parking through parking levies.

13. In December 2021, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council released a Parking Discussion Document to start the conversation with the public on future parking management in Auckland. Auckland Transport received 32 pieces of written feedback. Following this feedback, several areas of the draft strategy and its accompanying policies were updated, including:

· developing the narrative to better link it to the broader transport story, strategic objectives and policy rationale, as well as regulatory areas in need of reform

· focussing on the benefits of parking management to enable and support access, resulting in a more equitable transport system

· articulating the benefits and implications of parking to the community

· acknowledging the costs of parking provision

· emphasising parking diversity to enable mode shift

· emphasising that the roll-out of further parking management will happen over time, starting where there is most readiness for change, and that this is a ten-year plan

· outlining indicators of success

· ensuring that consultation materials acknowledge the existing context and public fatigue.

14. Strategic direction provided by the Planning Committee has also guided development of the draft strategy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) requires planning decisions to contribute to the development of urban environments that support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change.

16. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan outlines the need for Auckland to reduce its transport-related emissions significantly, to meet the target of 64% reduction by 2030. This means that business as usual for transport and land-use project planning and delivery, and management of the transport system, cannot continue.

17. Parking management is a lever in managing the transport network, both in terms of the opportunities that repurposing of road space offers to enabling other modes, and in disincentivising car use.

18. Implementing the parking strategy will include repurposing parking lanes on key roads in Auckland, increasing the diversity of transport options and improving safety and efficiency for people using sustainable modes and for goods and service delivery. This is a key change required to reduce transport-related emissions, meaning the parking strategy is of significant importance as an early step to transport-related climate action.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Auckland Transport has engaged with key stakeholders across the council family, including raising awareness of the review with Auckland Council’s advisory panels.

20. Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited provided feedback during engagement on the Parking Discussion Document. Their feedback was supportive of the proposed approach.

21. Both the need for review and the draft Auckland Parking Strategy (2022) prepared for public consultation have been endorsed by Auckland Council’s Planning Committee (Resolution number PLA/2022/24).

22. Considerable liaison has taken place between Auckland Transport and Auckland Council departments ranging from Planning and Transport Strategy at a strategic level to Community Facilities about management of car parking in or near community parks.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. Since Auckland Council and the Auckland Transport Board approved the review of the strategy in 2021, Auckland Transport has engaged with elected members, mana whenua, key stakeholders and the wider community. The objective of the engagement process has been to ensure that Aucklanders are aware of the review, have had an opportunity to find out more about the proposed changes, and have had an opportunity to provide feedback.

24. The engagement process included the following key activities:

a) in 2021, information about the review was sent to all local boards and presented to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum

b) all local boards were offered a workshop in August 2021, and in September 2021 all were invited to provide feedback that would contribute to the initial thinking around development of an updated draft document

c) in December 2021, a Parking Discussion Document was published, targeted at key stakeholders and calling for initial feedback. 32 pieces of written feedback were received

d) in March 2022, information about upcoming wider public consultation was provided to local boards along with a further workshop with Auckland Transport subject matter experts. The public consultation was again promoted through the Local Board Chairs’ Forum in April 2022

e) public engagement and consultation on the draft strategy has recently closed. Auckland Transport received 943 submissions. Responses from the community have been collated and provided to local boards as area specific reports (Attachment B). Public engagement included:

i) media (OurAuckland, radio) and social media (videos) marketing to let the public know about the engagement

ii) online information

iii) webinars at which Auckland Transport staff were available to discuss the proposal with members of the public

iv) nine open days held in libraries around the region for members of the public to discuss the proposal with Auckland Transport staff

v) discussions with key stakeholders including business associations, industry groups, emergency services, utilities, and other government agencies

vi) a public debate about parking issues.

25. This report provides the opportunity for the local board to give their feedback, based on consideration of their community’s feedback, on the draft parking strategy (2022).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. Parking management is a kaitiakitanga issue, in that it is about managing a limited public resource. Auckland Transport has engaged with the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum to establish how best to incorporate views from mana whenua into the review.

27. Feedback from a series of AT hui with mana whenua representatives reinforced that parking is a topic of considerable concern to Māori. Other points raised include:

· acknowledgement that, as well as the strategic concerns around air quality and resource management, parking enables access

· that parking infringements can contribute to creating a cycle of debt

· that communities are facing compounding pressures - parking management shouldn’t adversely impact people and places even further

· the potential for parking management to further reduce access - particularly for less able-bodied kaumatua and kuia - to the whenua, the moana and to wahi tapu.

28. Other potential impacts of increased parking management for Māori are likely to be similar to those for the wider population. Some members of the community are more reliant on cars for access, particularly if they do not have good access to public transport. Barriers to public transport, such as cost and network coverage, influence access to necessities such as education, healthcare, employment, shopping, and social services.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. Parking management resourcing will be delivered through AT operational budgets. Initial work to understand the resourcing required to implement the strategy indicates that this will require significant resource increases for planning, design, compliance monitoring and enforcement. It is currently expected that the strategy would be at least revenue-neutral overall once compliance monitoring/enforcement revenue is considered.

30. Revenue from parking management helps to offset AT operational costs and therefore reduce reliance on ratepayer funding.

31. There are no financial implications for local boards associated with providing feedback on the draft strategy.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. There are significant risks associated with adopting a new approach to parking management in Auckland – however these must be weighed against the opportunity costs of not having an appropriate framework in place to manage parking. These include:

a) persistent and increasing issues with over-reliance on on-street parking, particularly since the removal of onsite parking requirements in the Unitary Plan

b) reduced ability to support development of the public transport and cycling network (both of which reduce emissions) and less ability to enable place-based improvements within the road corridor

c) not having the ability to take an integrated and strategic approach that supports business when managing parking in town centres using collaborative parking management plans

d) less flexibility with managing the impacts of increased population growth and intensification.

33. Strong, considered feedback from local boards will enable Auckland Transport to make good decisions about the strategy while they balance these risks against the opportunity costs described above.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. Feedback from local boards will be reviewed and taken into account as staff consider any amendments to the draft strategy before recommendations to the Auckland Council Planning Committee are made in August 2022.

35. Following endorsement of the draft strategy by the Auckland Council Planning Committee, approval will be sought from the Auckland Transport Board.

36. Once approved by the Auckland Transport Board, the new strategy will be introduced.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Attachment A - Draft Auckland Parking Strategy (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Attachment B - Draft Auckland Parking Strategy Feedback Report - Upper Harbour Local Board (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Claire Covacich, Principal Transport Planner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Andrew McGill, Head of Integrated Network Planning, Auckland Transport

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

Draft Auckland golf investment plan

File No.: CP2022/08117

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek tautoko / support for the draft Auckland golf investment plan titled Where all Aucklanders benefit from publicly owned golf land.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To increase Aucklander’s access to, and the benefits from, publicly owned golf land, staff have developed a draft investment plan.

3. Staff recommend that you support the draft Auckland golf investment plan titled Where all Aucklanders benefit from publicly owned golf land.

4. There will be increased accountability and transparency from an outcome-focused investment approach and a clear decision-making framework. Implementation of the plan is expected to achieve:

· increased equity, sport and recreation by opening up publicly owned golf land to all Aucklanders

· increased equity and participation by providing a broad range of golf experiences that attract and retain participants and services targeted at low participation groups

· best practice in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation of publicly owned golf land.

5. If adopted, any future investment would need to align with the plan. The main trade-off is between taking a consistent regional approach to future decision-making and one-off decisions as current leases end.

6. The next step is for the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee to consider adoption of the plan in August 2022. Local board feedback will help inform their decision-making.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tautoko / support the draft Auckland golf investment plan titled Where all Aucklanders benefit from publicly owned golf land attached to this report (Attachment A)

b) tautoko / support the three policy objectives set in the draft Auckland golf investment plan:

i) increased equity, sport and recreation by opening up publicly owned golf land to all Aucklanders

ii) increased equity and participation by providing a broad range of golf experiences that attract and retain participants and services targeted at low participation groups

iii) best practice in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation of publicly owned golf land.

c) tautoko / support the decision-making framework set in the draft Auckland golf investment plan, in which future use of publicly owned golf land will be considered in the context of local needs, increased equity, participation and environmental outcomes.

Horopaki

Context

Exclusive use of publicly owned land for golf is not sustainable

Problem definition

7. There are 13 golf courses operating on 535 hectares of council-owned or managed land. This publicly owned land has an estimated value of $2.9 billion in 2018.^{^[2]}

8. Public access to this land, other than to play golf, is limited, which means that some Aucklanders are missing out.

9. There are competing demands to provide open space and community facilities. Housing and business land is also in short supply in urban areas.

10. This makes exclusive use of publicly owned land by a single sports code unsustainable.

The draft investment plan builds on community engagement, research and analysis

11. Development of the draft plan involved community engagement, research and analysis.

12. Work commenced in 2016 with the release of a discussion document for public engagement [PAR/2016/11 refers].

13. The investment approach was supported by a majority of Aucklanders who responded to the consultation in 2016. There was strong feedback for council to maximise the benefits from its investment in golf. This is reflected in the draft plan.

14. Following analysis of submissions on the discussion document, the Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee approved development of a draft plan with the following components [PAR/2016/52 refers]:

· a policy statement setting out the vision, investment principles and the scope of council’s investment

· a decision-making framework that sets how the investment approach will be applied as well as ongoing reporting and monitoring.

15. A range of research was undertaken to support the development of a draft plan, including an analysis of the value of golf to Auckland’s economy and benchmarking to assess the environmental performance of golf courses on publicly owned land.

16. Cost-benefit analyses were undertaken of the 13 golf courses. A tool was developed to assess the costs and benefits of different forms of sport and recreation investment.

17. An intervention logic and decision-making framework were developed and refined following workshops with the Environment and Community Committee and 10 local boards in September and November 2018.

18. Key aspects of the draft plan were workshopped with the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in December 2021.

19. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee considered the draft plan in February 2022 and invited staff to use this document to engage with the community.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Changes are proposed so that all Aucklanders benefit from publicly owned golf land

20. Staff have developed a draft Auckland golf investment plan in order to make publicly owned golf land accessible to Aucklanders and to increase public benefits from this land.

21. It proposes three policy objectives:

· increase equity, sport and recreation by opening up publicly owned golf land to all Aucklanders

· increase equity and participation by providing a broad range of golf experiences that attract and retain participants and services targeted at low participation groups

· best practice in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation of publicly owned golf land.

22. The proposed outcome-focused investment approach, with a clear decision-making framework, would also increase accountability and transparency.

Increasing public value is an accepted public sector approach

23. The draft plan takes a public value approach as it aims to deliver more public value to Aucklanders from council investment.

24. Public value is an accepted approach. It has informed public policy in New Zealand and other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom since the mid-1990s.^{^[3]}

25. It focuses decision-making on how best to manage public assets to benefit all members of society.

26. Alternate approaches, where council does not consider the costs and benefits of allocating publicly owned land to golf or public versus private benefits, have been discounted.

27. These factors cannot be overlooked when there are competing demands for open space or community facilities and land supply constraints.

The investment approach is consistent with council policy

28. In 2019, the Environment and Community Committee adopted the Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039 [ENV/2019/93 refers].

29. The draft plan is consistent with council policy on sport investment.^{^[4]} It has the same investment objective of increasing equity and participation and the same investment principles as the overarching sport investment plan.

30. A separate plan from Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039 was needed because there is more complexity to golf both in terms of costs and benefits. For example, golf courses may operate on marginal land, and they can have other functions such as stormwater management.

31. Increasing environmental benefits were an additional consideration given the large land areas currently allocated to golf.

The draft plan proposes four key shifts to benefit all Aucklanders

32. Four key shifts to the status quo are proposed so that all Aucklanders benefit from increased equity, participation and environmental outcomes.

Figure 1: Four key shifts to deliver increased benefits to Aucklanders

FROM ad hoc historic decisions of legacy councils

Now there is intensive demand for land to accommodate Auckland’s growth

TO a robust investment framework that is focused on increasing benefits to all Aucklanders

Public-owned golf land will be considered in the context of local needs, increased equity, participation and environmental outcomes

DELIVERS increased accountability and transparency

FROM publicly owned land used exclusively by golfers

There is competition over access to open space and some Aucklanders are missing out

TO sport and recreation for all Aucklanders

Opening publicly owned golf land to other users with new play spaces, walking, running and cycling paths and other sport and recreation activities

DELIVERS increased equity and sport and recreation participation rates

FROM asset-based investment in traditional mid-level (development) golf courses

Auckland golf courses meet the needs of a relatively narrow segment of population^{^[5]}

TO a broad golf service offering across the network that appeals to a wider group of people

Providing a broad range of golf experiences and pathways that attract and retain participants with services targeted at low participation groups

DELIVERS increased equity and golf participation rates

FROM variable environmental management of publicly owned golf land

Some golf courses are high users of water, fertilisers, pesticides and energy

TO best practice in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation that meets clearly defined targets

A kaitiakitanga framework ensures publicly owned golf land is environmentally sustainable, energy neutral and carbon positive

DELIVERS increased natural and environmental benefits

33. If the draft plan is adopted, these changes can be implemented as leases end, or by agreement with current leaseholders.

Decision-makers will consider a range of evidence and options before any future investment

34. The draft plan sets out a clear decision-making framework to guide and inform any future investment and leasing decisions. Its sets out clear objectives and expectations about the public benefits sought from publicly owned golf land.

35. Decisions will be informed by an indicative business case with a full range of policy options assessed against the plan’s investment objectives and principles. This will help inform decisions that local boards make about golf leases.

36. Development of the indicative business cases will commence three to five years prior to the end of a current lease for golf courses on publicly owned land. Eight of these leases end before 2028.

Figure 2: Proposed decision-making framework (see page 21 of Attachment A for a larger version)

Timeline

Description automatically generated

Future investment decisions will involve the governing body and local boards

37. If the golf investment plan is adopted, the governing body and local boards will work together to implement the plan. This process will adapt to any changes made to current allocated decision-making responsibilities.

38. Currently the governing body makes strategic decisions concerning asset ownership and future investment to increase sport and recreation opportunities for all Aucklanders. Local boards make decisions on the use of publicly owned land, including leases, and the development of open space to meet community needs.

39. During the development of indicative business cases for individual publicly owned golf land, joint working groups can be set up to consider policy options and implementation requirements. This would ensure close collaboration between decision-makers.

There are some trade-offs associated with adopting the plan and the key shifts

40. Key Shift 1 (a robust investment framework) means taking a consistent regional approach to future decision-making rather than making one-off decisions as current leases end. It also means that a full range of policy options will be considered as part of an indicative business case, rather than simply going through a new lease process.

41. Implementation will require a joint approach involving the governing body and local boards, reflecting and adapting to changing decision-making allocated to local boards.

42. Key Shift 2 (sport and recreation for all Aucklanders) means making space for other sport and recreation activities on publicly owned golf land.

43. In most cases, it is anticipated that these activities can co-exist alongside golf on publicly owned land.

44. Key Shift 3 (a broad golf service offering) could mean making changes to the types of services or facilities available. For example, a driving range and an introductory golf could be provided in place of an existing 18-hole golf course.

45. Any such change would have varied support between new and experienced golfers.

46. Key Shift 4 (sustainable environmental practices) means that all golf courses on publicly owned land will need to meet a minimum environmental benchmark.

47. Six golf courses on publicly owned land would not currently meet this benchmark.

48. Some of them are participating in a pilot run by Auckland Council’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services department to improve environmental practices, but decisions may need to be made as to whether additional council support is provided.

There are strengths and weaknesses to the plan

49. There are strengths and weaknesses to the draft plan as well as some limitations and constraints (see Table 1).

50. A strength of the draft plan is how it has built on public engagement in 2016. The majority of public respondents to a council discussion document sought increased access publicly owned golf land. They supported walking, running and cycling trails. They also supported use of an environmental auditing tool.

51. Other key strengths are the proposed public value approach and strategic alignment with the Auckland and Māori Plans. It also builds on golf sector strategies and plans.

52. The main weakness is that the draft plan relied on publicly available golf participation data (up to and including data from 2020). Golf New Zealand has subsequently provided more up-to-date data, which shows increases in participation over the last two years.

53. Another weakness is that the draft plan does not specify any level of future council investment. Decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis as leases end. This will allow council to make timely decisions based on community needs as participation trends will change over time. This may however create uncertainty for leaseholders and the wider golf sector.

Table 1: High-level analysis of the merits of the draft plan

Strengths
The draft Auckland golf investment plan takes a public value approach. It focuses decision-making on how to manage publicly owned golf land to benefit all Aucklanders. This means carefully considering how council can achieve equity, participation and environmental outcomes.
The draft plan demonstrates how it meaningfully contributes to broader strategy, including the Auckland Plan and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan. It aligns with the five key directions that reflect the overarching goals or aspirations of mana whenua and mataawaka as outlined in the Māori Plan. It also supports the vision of the Auckland regional golf strategy and draws upon Golf New Zealand strategies and programmes, including Golf for Life and OnCourse New Zealand.
Weaknesses
The draft plan relied on publicly available golf participation data (up to and including data from 2020). Golf New Zealand has subsequently provided more up-to-date data, which shows increases in participation over the last two years. The plan does not specify any level of future council investment in golf. Decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis as leases end. This will allow council to make decisions based on community needs at the time as participation trends will change over time. This may create uncertainty for current leaseholders and the wider golf sector. However, the plan does clearly indicate what council will invest in and how it will invest.
Constraints
Implementation is constrained by long-term leases granted by legacy councils. As leases end council can consider options to increase the benefits from publicly owned golf land. Service level agreements with agreed participation and environmental targets can be included in any future lease terms and conditions if this option is taken. Staff can provide support to golf courses if they agree to implement the plan before the end of their leases.
Implementation would require complementary decisions of the governing body and local boards in accordance with their allocated decision-making responsibilities. Joint working parties can ensure that indicative business cases take both governing body and local boards views into consideration.
Limitations
There is a lack of up-to-date and statistically significant sport and recreation participation data across demographic groups, including ethnicity, gender and age. Publicly available golf participation data is limited. Staff will look at ways to fill this data gap in order to support ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the plan. Data sharing by leaseholders and the golf sector will be critical to understand participation trends and to inform needs assessments as part of the indicative business cases.

We are engaging again with Aucklanders to get their views

54. Staff are engaging with Aucklanders, the sport and recreation sector as well as golf clubs and leaseholders to get their views on the draft plan.

55. A range of mechanisms were used to engage the public, including the People’s Panel survey and public submissions to the Have Your Say consultation, with a cross section of Aucklanders providing feedback.

· Have Your Say engagement ran from 23 March to 20 April 2022. A total of 1,076 people provided feedback on the draft plan. A broad range of ages, ethnicities and locations were represented. However, a large proportion was older, male Pākeha/New Zealand European respondents, or from the Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna and Ōrākei local board areas.

· The People’s Panel ran from 7 to 12 April 2022. A total of 1,070 people completed the survey. A broad range of ages, ethnicities and locations were represented in the feedback.

56. Consultation with the sport and recreation sector as well as golf clubs and leaseholders through a series of virtual meetings ran until 27 May 2022.

57. A memo outlining a summary of the feedback to the draft plan will be provided to the local boards prior to their June business meeting.

The views of Aucklanders in 2022 varied on the draft plan

58. Feedback from the Peoples Panel and Have Your Say varied (see Figure 3):

· 51 per cent of the Peoples Panel ‘support’ the overall goal to ensure that all Aucklanders benefit from publicly owned golf land. A further 28 per cent ‘partially support’ this goal.

· 59 per cent of Have Your Say respondents ‘don’t support’ the plan.

Figure 3: Summary of public feedback

People’s Panel: Goal to ensure all Aucklanders benefit

Chart type: Clustered Bar. 'Field1': 1 Support has noticeably higher 'Field2'.

Description automatically generated

Have Your Say: Overall opinion on the draft plan

Chart type: Pie. 'Field2' by 'Field1'

Description automatically generated

People’s Panel

62% Support

19% Partially support

15% Don’t support

44% Support

30% Partially support

20% Don’t support

72% Support

16% Partially support

9% Don’t support

54% Support

24% Partially support

14% Don’t support

62% Support

20% Partially support

15% Don’t support

40% Support

32% Partially support

20% Don’t support

70% Support

18% Partially support

9% Don’t support

Policy Objective 1 (increasing public access)

Policy Objective 2 (a broad range of golf experiences)

Policy Objective 3 (ecosystem management and biodiversity)

Key Shift 1 (a robust investment framework)

Key Shift 2 (sport and recreation for all Aucklanders)

Key Shift 3 (a broad golf service offering)

Key Shift 4 (sustainable environmental practices)

Have Your Say

21% Support

19% Partially support

59% Don’t support

28% Support

32% Partially support

36% Don’t support

53% Support

21% Partially support

22% Don’t support

26% Support

24% Partially support

44% Don’t support

20% Support

16% Partially support

63% Don’t support

21% Support

25% Partially support

47% Don’t support

45% Support

21% Partially support

29% Don’t support

59. There is support across both groups of respondents for the environmental aspects of the plan, in particular Policy Objective 3 (best practice in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation).

60. On most other aspects of the plan there were opposing views between respondents to the Peoples Panel’s survey and the Have Your Say consultation.

The sport and recreation sector supports the focus on increasing equity and participation

61. Initial feedback from the sport and recreation sector supports the focus on increasing equity and participation in sport and recreation for all Aucklanders as well as golf.

62. They also welcome opportunities for new play spaces, walking, jogging and cycling paths.

The golf sector opposes the draft plan in its current form

63. The golf sector has indicated that they oppose the draft plan in its current form. They are concerned that the draft plan does not reflect the current situation.

64. Golf New Zealand provided evidence that participation rates have increased in recent years and suggested that further investment is required to meet the needs for golf in the future.

To date golf leaseholders have told us that the draft plan gives them more certainty and they are doing many of the things it seeks to achieve

65. Golf leaseholders that staff have spoken with to date think that the draft plan gives them more certainty as to what council would invest in and transparency over future decision-making processes.

66. They also noted that they were already doing many of the things outlined in the plan, including growing participation among young people and women, broadening their golf service offering and increasing environmental benefits.

Staff will analyse all the submissions and will look at what changes need to be made

67. Staff will analyse all the submissions made on the draft plan and will look at what changes need to be made to the document. This includes updating golf participation data.

Staff recommend that local boards support the draft plan

68. Staff recommend that you support the adoption of this plan.

69. There will be increased accountability and transparency from an outcome-focused investment approach and a clear decision-making framework.

70. If adopted, the plan will help increase Aucklander’s access to publicly owned land.

71. It will also help increase equity and participation in sport and recreation, including golf.

72. Increased natural and environmental benefits will come from a kaitiakitanga framework with ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

The draft plan aligns with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan

73. Getting better environmental outcomes from the 535 hectares of open space currently allocated to golf is critical to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan.

74. A kaitiakitanga framework will ensure golf courses employ best practice in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation.

75. If the draft plan is adopted, leaseholders will need to meet a minimum benchmark covering:

· ecology

· landscape and cultural heritage

· energy consumption and waste reduction

· water resource

· climate change

· pollution prevention.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

76. Eke Panuku Development Auckland will need to ensure that decision-making on any leases is made in accordance with the plan if it is adopted.

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

Local impacts and local board views

There is inequity across age, gender and ethnic groups and people living with disabilities

77. Not all Aucklanders have the same opportunities to participate in sport and recreation or to play golf:

· there is inequity for people living with disabilities

· Asian and Pacific Aucklanders have lower sport and recreation participation rates

· women and young people have lower golf participation rates.

Local boards have been briefed on the draft plan and their views are now sought

78. The draft plan sets out a clear decision-making framework to guide and inform any future investment and leasing decisions. Its sets out clear objectives and expectations about the public benefits sought from publicly owned golf land.

79. If the draft plan is adopted, the governing body and local board allocated decision-making responsibilities will work together to implement the plan. This process will adapt to any changes made to current allocated decision-making responsibilities.

80. Currently the governing body makes strategic decisions concerning asset ownership and future investment to increase sport and recreation opportunities for all Aucklanders. Local boards make decisions on the use of publicly owned land, including leases, and the development of open space to meet community needs.

81. Joint working groups to consider policy options and implementation requirements as part of the development of indicative business cases can ensure close collaboration between investment and lease decisions.

82. Staff held a local board member briefing on 4 April 2022, providing an overview of the draft plan and responded to questions.

83. This report provides an overview of the draft plan as well as a high-level summary of public feedback. It seeks a formal view on the draft plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

84. The draft plan aligns with the five key directions that reflect the overarching goals or aspirations of mana whenua and mataawaka as set-out in the Māori Plan:

· Whanaungatanga / Access to public facilities

· Rangatiratanga / Māori are actively involved in decision-making and management of natural resources

· Manaakitanga / Access to clean parks and reserves

· Wairuatanga / Indigenous flora and fauna

· Kaitiakitanga / Māori are kaitiaki of the environment.

85. Mana whenua have been provided with a summary of the draft plan and public feedback to assist with their decision-making process about providing feedback.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

86. There are no financial implications to the local board for any decision to support the draft plan, its policy objectives and the decision-making framework it outlines.

87. If the draft plan is adopted, the costs of undertaking indicative business cases would be funded within existing department budget.

88. The financial implications of any decisions recommended through individual indicative business cases would be outlined at the relevant time.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

89. Adoption of a plan for future council investment in golf manages risk as well as increasing transparency and accountability.

90. If the governing body and local boards follow the indicative business case process and decision-making framework, then there would be a low risk of legal challenge.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

91. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee to consider adoption of the plan in August 2022. The agenda report will include local board feedback.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Auckland golf investment plan	207

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager, Community and Social Policy

Kataraina Maki - General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

16 June 2022

Community Facilities Network Plan revised Action Plan (2022)

File No.: CP2022/05506

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To present the revised Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan (2022) including progress and completion of actions since 2015 and prioritisation of actions over the next three years.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Community Facilities Network Plan (CFNP) is a strategic document outlining how Auckland Council will invest in community facilities. It was approved by Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in August 2015.

3. The accompanying Action Plan prioritises actions and projects that will be undertaken to implement the CFNP. The CFNP contains criteria for identifying and prioritising actions.

4. Every three years the Action Plan is reviewed and updated to recognise progress, revise priorities of existing actions and assess potential new actions. The Action Plan was last updated in 2019.

5. The Action Plan has been revised for 2022 using the methodology outlined in the CFNP. It contains 33 new actions.

6. There are now 155 total actions in the Action Plan including:

· 65 completed actions

· 36 actions underway

· 50 actions to start

· 4 actions on hold.

7. Implementation of priority actions within the revised Action Plan will initially focus on:

· completing 36 actions that are already underway

· starting four new area-based actions located in Investment Priority Areas

· starting two network-wide strategic improvement actions.

8. Feedback from local boards will be part of the report to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in August 2022 (when considering the adoption of the Action Plan).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) support the revised Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan (2022), provided in Attachment A.

Horopaki

Context

What is the Community Facilities Network Plan and Action Plan?

9. The Community Facilities Network Plan and its companion Action Plan were approved in 2015 by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (REG/2015/57).

10. The Community Facilities Network Plan (CFNP) guides the council’s investment in the provision of community facilities and services. It provides direction on the development of new facilities, major upgrades of existing facilities, optimisation, and potential divestment of facilities no longer meeting community needs.

11. The CFNP addresses provision for:

· arts and culture facilities

· community centres

· libraries

· pools and leisure facilities

· venues for hire (community or rural halls).

12. The CFNP’s accompanying Action Plan prioritises projects to:

· ensure existing facilities are fit for purpose

· address gaps or duplication in provision and needs for community facilities

· meet future demand arising from population growth and changing users’ expectations.

13. Together the CFNP and its companion Action Plan support council’s goal to focus community service investment on:

· quality over quantity

· addressing service gaps where growth is significant

· improving portfolio performance.

The Action Plan is revised every three years

14. Every three years the Action Plan is reviewed and updated to recognise progress, revise priorities of existing actions and assess potential new actions.

15. The Action Plan was last reviewed in 2018 and adopted by the Environment and Community Committee in April 2019 (ENV/2019/47).

16. Progress on the Action Plan is reported annually to the relevant committees. The last update was provided to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in November 2021 (PAC/2021/58).

17. A summary of progress on the revised 2022 Action Plan is provided in Attachment B. It shows that 65 actions are completed, 36 actions are underway, 50 actions have not started, and 4 actions are on hold.

Actions are structured by category, theme and progress

18. There are three categories and two themes of actions in the Action Plan (refer Table 1).

Table 1: CFNP Action Plan categories

19. The 2022 Action Plan presents actions in two parts.

· Part A – new actions (identified since the last review) and actions carried over from the previous review which have not been started.

· Part B – actions underway at the time of the review and previously completed actions.

Departments work together to identify business and strategic improvement actions

20. The development of new business and strategic improvements involved Community & Social Policy, Community Facilities, and Regional Service Planning, Investment & Partnerships. These departments worked together to support quality advice and to improve the way we plan and prioritise delivery of community services.

The identification of area-based actions follows a set process

21. The process for the development of area-based actions in Part A of the 2022 Action Plan is set by the CFNP and shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Review process for 2022 CFNP Action Plan

Text

Description automatically generated

22. Potential area-based actions for Part A were identified from a range of sources:

· political resolutions requesting the addition of items to the Action Plan

· work arising from completed actions in the Action Plan 2019

· the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

· local board plan initiatives and work programmes

· input from business intelligence and across the Auckland Council organisation

· actions not started in the Action Plan 2019.

Area-based actions are prioritised through the weighting of network, community, and building criteria

23. Once identified, the master list of area-based actions was assessed based on the prioritisation criteria outlined in section 5.2 of the CFNP (refer Table 2).

Table 2: Prioritisation criteria for area-based actions as defined by the CFNP

24. The tools used to conduct the assessment included population data, geospatial information, asset condition information, and in some instances needs assessments and business cases.

The priorities in the CFNP Action Plan guide the focus of our resources

25. The impact of Covid-19 and the resulting economic slow-down has had a significant impact on the council’s revenue and borrowing capacity. The 10-year Budget (Recovery Budget), adopted 29 June 2021, highlights:

· a tight fiscal environment for the immediate future

· the need to reduce capital expenditure across the council family

· reprioritisation of projects

· the unsustainability of maintaining the current community facility network while meeting the needs of growing and changing communities.

26. The ‘focused investment’ approach for community investment, adopted as part of the 10-year Budget, means we must focus on renewing priority assets, reducing our asset portfolio, expanding provision of tailored/alternative service delivery models and exploring partnership opportunities.

27. The approach for community investment supports the direction of the CFNP and in this constrained environment, priority actions determined by the criteria in the CFNP are guiding the focus of our resources.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The revised CFNP Action Plan 2022

28. The revised Action Plan 2022 is provided in Attachment A.

29. Table 3 shows the distribution of all actions in the Action Plan 2022 and progress of actions since the Community Facilities Network Plan was adopted in 2015.

Table 3: Summary of the 2022 CFNP Action Plan

30. Attachment B shows the progress status of the revised 2022 Action Plan, as well as the distribution of actions across local boards, service type and priority status.

31. The progress being made on actions demonstrates staff’s commitment to focusing resources on a collectively agreed and mandated programme of work, as well as the commitment to delivering agreed priorities in a constrained environment.

The focus of the CFNP Action Plan work programme 2022/2023

32. The focus of next year’s work will be towards completing priority actions that; are already in progress, are located in Investment Priority Areas (identified in the 10-year Budget) or are strategic improvements with a network-wide reach (refer Table 4).

33. This focus ensures our effort is scalable and our advice about investment in community facilities is more effective. The efficiency created will allow us to concentrate on the priority actions that have not yet been started.

Table 4: Summary of proposed work programme for 2022/2023

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34. Consideration of climate impact happens at a project level. There are no direct climate impacts arising from this report on the action plan.

35. Future detailed business cases will include application of the Community Facilities – Sustainable Asset Policy. The regional policy, the first of three phases under the council’s Sustainable Asset Standard (SAS), commits council to:

· achieve carbon neutrality in operations for new asset development

· achieve a minimum 5-Star Green Star rating (or equivalent certification) on the development of all new assets with a budget over $10 million

· incorporate decarbonisation principles into guideline documents for renewals and new asset development of all community assets.

36. The assessment of climate impacts in investigations and business cases will improve by applying learnings from across the organisation in its responsiveness to climate change. Staff will also seek to understand the allowances that need to be made to meet climate impact targets for Action Plan projects related to the development of new facilities, or the improvement of existing facilities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. During the development of the Action Plan 2022 input has been sought from the following departments:

· Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships

· Local Board Services

· Parks Sports and Recreation

· Financial and Business Performance

· Connected Communities

· Community Facilities

· Community and Social Policy.

38. Delivery of the Action Plan 2022 is resourced by council’s Community & Social Policy and Regional Service Planning, Investment & Partnerships teams subject to capacity. Individual actions are delivered with participation from other departments and, where relevant, Eke Panuku Development Auckland.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. Local boards provided feedback on direction and specific content during the development of the Community Facilities Network Plan and Action Plan prior to adoption in 2015.

40. Key initiatives from local board plans (2020) were an input of the review process for the development of the 2022 CFNP Action Plan (refer Figure 1).

41. The CFNP’s prioritisation criteria applies the highest weighting of 15 per cent to local board priority to ensure local board’s views influence the overall assessment of actions.

42. Progressing area-based actions are reflected in relevant local board work programmes. Local boards provide feedback and input throughout the investigations and have decision making responsibilities as per schedule the 10-year Budget 2021-31

43. Decision-making for service provision and location sits with local boards within funding parameters set by the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. The Community Facilities Network Plan outlines, in Section 2.2, how it will deliver on Māori outcomes. These outcomes include:

· engage with Māori organisations to understand Māori expectations and investigate the community needs of Māori groups, and factor this into decision-making for community facilities

· actively engage and consult to ensure the planning, development, and operations of facilities consider Māori needs and aspirations

· work closely with Māori groups and key stakeholders, including local iwi, to develop appropriate cultural programmes to be delivered through facilities

· investigate Māori demographic participation and usage trends, identifying opportunities to increase the attendance and use of facilities by Māori and developing appropriate business responses

· provide visual representations of commitment to Māori to tell stories of their connections to the place (such as signage) and honouring tikanga

· ensure that, in any exploration of potential future sites for facilities, Māori concerns about wāhi tapu are incorporated.

45. Engagement with Māori is included as part of investigations and continues through the planning and delivery of responses. Examples include:

· interviews and hui with mana whenua

· interviews and hui with mataawaka in local settings to understand community needs

· workshops and focus groups with local marae

· intercept surveys with representative samples of the Māori population base

· kanohi ki te kanohi interviews conducted in Te Reo Māori.

46. Feedback provided from Māori is specific to the nature of the investigation for which the engagement occurred. This feedback is used to inform the delivery of options and responses.

47. Staff will work with other relevant parts of the council to ensure effective engagement with Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. There are currently no identified financial implications for the delivery of the Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan 2022 as work is delivered utilising existing resources.

49. Investment decisions and associated funding implications are reported separately to the relevant decision-maker(s).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50. There is a risk that development of the Action Plan 2022 may not match local board priorities, as implementation of the Action Plan involves understanding service needs and taking a network view. This risk is mitigated by:

· continuing to socialise and reinforce the strategic objectives of the CFNP to elected members, key staff, and through all deliverables

· clarifying local board plans were reviewed and any potential community service-related content was considered for potential inclusion as an action

· including One Local Initiative projects into the Action Plan 2022.

51. There is financial risk that:

· budget allocated in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 may be insufficient to deliver some of the action findings

· the need for significant new investment identified from actions will be challenging due to the impact Covid-19 has had on the council’s revenue and borrowing capacity

· some investigations may require changes to the funding identified in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

52. This financial risk is mitigated by:

· ensuring investigations include looking at options for funding other than rates or debt

· ensuring findings of investigations that require new investment are supported by indicative business cases

· managing expectations by acknowledging budget constraints

· managing expectations by acknowledging the delegation for decision-making on investment in new facilities is held by the Governing Body and is considered as part of long-term planning (decision-making for service provision and location sits with local boards within parameters set by the Governing Body).

53. There is a timing risk that delivery of actions may take longer because of reduced operational capacity and may not align with elected members and/or local communities’ expectations. This risk is mitigated by driving delivery to meet targeted timeframes for priority actions and managing expectations based on the principles and direction set by the CFNP.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. Local board resolutions will be included in the report to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee when they consider adoption of the Action Plan in August 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Community Facilities Network Plan (CFNP)	243
b ⇩	Attachment B - Focus of Community Facilities Action Plan 2022	259