I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning, Environment and Parks will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 8 December 2022

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti mō te Whakarite Mahere, te Taiao, me ngā Papa Rēhia / Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Richard Hills

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Angela Dalton

 

Members

IMSB Member Edward Ashby

Cr Mike Lee

 

Cr Andrew Baker

Cr Kerrin Leoni

 

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Mayor Wayne Brown

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Chris Darby

Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Julie Fairey

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM

Cr Ken Turner

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Lotu Fuli

Cr Maurice Williamson

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sandra Gordon

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

5 December 2022

 

Contact Telephone: +64 9 890 8150

Email: Sandra.Gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies                                                                            5

2          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest         5

3          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes                                        5

4          Ngā Petihana | Petitions                                                                5  

5          Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input                                           5

6          Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input         5

7          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business                               5

8          Resource management reform: Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill                                 7

9          Auckland Unitary Plan - delegating authority to confirm the council's position through the hearings process for Proposed Plan Changes 78 to 83                                                                 15

10        To make Private Plan Change 59 - Albany 10 Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Operative              23

11        To make Private Plan Changes 48, 49, 50, 51 and 61 in Drury East and Drury West to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative                                                                          29

12        To make Private Plan Change 63 – 911-975 New North Road, Mount Albert operative                                                                37

13        To make Private Plan Change 64 - 953 New North Road, Mt Albert to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative.                                                                                       41

14        Auckland Unitary Plan - Approval for plan change for filming on public land scheduled as Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua                                                                           45

15        Auckland Unitary Plan – Consideration of private plan change request – Beachlands South Limited Partnership                   53

16        Updating membership of the Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) Governance and Oversight Group following the 2022 election                                                                                          81

17        Allocation of the 2022/2023 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant                                                                 83

18        Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2022/2023                                                                                       95

19        Establishment of the Waste Political Advisory Group          105

20        Te Whakaaro ki ngā Take Pūtea e Autaia ana | Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

21        Te Mōtini ā-Tukanga hei Kaupare i te Marea | Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                                        111

C1       CONFIDENTIAL: Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2022/2023                                                       111


1          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

 

2          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

 

 

3          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

There are no minutes for confirmation.

 

 

4          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

 

5          Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input

 

 

6          Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input

 

 

7          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Resource management reform: Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill

File No.: CP2022/16123

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To seek approval for and delegation to approve an Auckland Council submission on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill to the Environment Select Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Government’s comprehensive reform of the resource management system will repeal the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and replace it with three new pieces of legislation:

·   the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA)

·   the Spatial Planning Act (SPA)

·   Climate Adaptation Act (CAA).

3.      The Natural and Built Environment Bill (NBE Bill) and Spatial Planning Bill (SP Bill) were introduced to Parliament on 15 November 2022 and have been referred to the Environment Select Committee. Submissions on both bills close on 30 January 2023. The chair of this committee has requested an extension for Auckland Council. The select committee will report back to Parliament by 22 May 2023.

4.      The NBE Bill will replace the RMA. The SP Bill replaces the current requirements for a spatial plan for Auckland and will work in tandem with the NBE Bill. The scale of reform is substantial and will have significant impacts on Auckland Council.

5.      A delegated authority to approve the council’s submission is required because the deadline for submissions falls between Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meetings.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve staff drafting a submission on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill.

b)      whakarite / provide initial feedback, by 16 December 2022, to inform the submission.

c)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that council’s submission will be informed by council’s previous submissions.

d)      tautapa / delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve the submission on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill.

Horopaki

Context

Resource management system reform

6.      Central Government is reforming the resource management system.

7.      In February 2021, the council submitted on the Resource Management Review Panel’s proposed future resource management system [PLA/2020/21 refers].

8.      Cabinet largely modelled the system reform on the Panel’s recommendations. The objectives for reform adopted by Cabinet are shown in Attachment A.

9.      In February 2021, Cabinet agreed to repeal and replace the RMA with the the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA), the Strategic Planning Act (SPA), and the Climate Adaptation Act (CAA).

10.    An exposure draft of the NBA was released in June 2021. While the council submitted on this exposure draft [PLA/2021/75 refers], there are many matters in the NBE Bill that were not included, and council has an opportunity to submit on these now.

11.    These matters include the process to develop the National Planning Framework (NPF), consenting, compliance and enforcement, urban tree cover, subdivision, designations, the functions and roles of Ministers and agencies, and regional councils and territorial authorities, in the system.

12.    The council submitted on key components of both bills in March 2022 in its response to Our Future Resource Management System Discussion Document [PLA/2022/3 refers].

13.    The council also submitted on the direction of the Climate Adaptation Act in mid-2022, alongside consultation on the National Adaptation Plan under the Climate Change Response Act 2002.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice: Overview of the proposed system

SP Bill and NBE Bill to work in tandem

14.    The SP Bill and NBE bill will work in tandem. The NBA requires the development of a national planning framework (NPF) and a NBE plan. The SPA creates regional spatial strategies (RSS). Both the NBE plan and RSS must be consistent with the NPF and give effect to it where directed. In addition, the NBE plan must be consistent with the RSS (Figure 1). In essence, the reformed system will create one NBE plan and one RSS for each region. Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Key components of the new resource management system

15.    The national planning framework (NPF) will provide direction on the integrated management of the environment for matters of national significance or where consistency nationally or across parts of New Zealand would be desirable. It will consolidate all existing national direction instruments under the RMA and some new functions.

16.    Both the NBE and SP Bills require those exercising powers and functions to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is stronger than the current RMA equivalent, which requires the principles to be ‘taken into account’.

17.    The RSS and NBE plans will be prepared and notified by regional planning committees (RPC). The RPC will be made up of local government representatives and Māori (and will include a central government representative for matters relating to the RSS). The RPC will be supported by a secretariat.

18.    The council strongly opposed the RPC mechanism in previous submissions on the basis that the separation of plan-making from other decision-making, such as long-term plans or infrastructure strategies, will lose integration between planning, funding and financing.

19.    Overall, this new system increases costs to central government and Auckland Council while system users benefit from large cost savings. The largest cost increase falls on local government (Auckland Council).

Spatial Planning Bill

20.    The SP Bill provides for Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs).

21.    RSSs are intended to coordinate and integrate the performance of functions across different legislation associated with the management of the natural and built environment, including the NBE Bill, the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and the Local Government Act 2002 (Figure 2).

22.    RSSs assist in achieving the purpose of the NBE Bill, including recognising and upholding te Oranga o te Taiao, and the system outcomes outlined in the NBE Bill. Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Regional spatial strategy integration across different legislation

23.    The RPC will identify big issues and opportunities facing the region (including infrastructure, and infrastructure investment and funding) and develop an RSS and implementation plans to respond to them.

24.    The RSS will set out a vision and objectives for a region’s development and change over a 30-year plus timeframe. It is reviewed every nine years. Implementation plans set out priority actions that delivery partners will take to implement the RSS and must be reviewed every three years.

25.    Auckland Council is required to implement and administer the RSS while having a limited role in its preparation. When an RSS comes into effect (made operative), it will replace the Auckland Plan 2050.

26.    The funding and financing of infrastructure to implement the RSS is an area of concern. The council previously submitted that all partners in the RSS deliver investment within local government funding constraints. It is therefore imperative that the cumulative effects of growth, and how to apportion the cost of meeting this growth, are addressed through implementation plans. A range of funding and financing mechanisms is required to support implementation. This is not currently addressed in the Bill.

27.    For more detailed information on the SP Bill, see Attachment B.

Natural and Built Environment Bill

28.    The NBE Bill provides an integrated framework for regulating both environmental management and land use planning. It enables the use and development of the environment within environmental limits and requires positive outcomes to be achieved and adverse effects to be managed. The outcomes are listed in Attachment C.

29.    The purpose of the bill is to:

(a)  enable the use, development and protection of the environment in a way that:

·    supports the wellbeing of present generations without compromising the wellbeing of future generations

·    promotes outcomes for the benefit of the environment

·    complies with environmental limits and their associated targets

·    manages adverse effects

(b)  recognise and uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.[1]

30.    The NBE Bill will require the Auckland region to have a Natural and Built Environment plan (NBE plan) to provide for the integrated management of the natural and built environment.  When a NBE plan comes into effect (made operative), it will replace the Auckland Unitary Plan. 

31.    The NBE plan will be prepared and developed by an RPC and Auckland Council is required to participate and collaborate in the process. The RPC will be funded by Auckland Council.

32.    In the new system, Auckland Council will continue to be the consenting authority.

33.    For more detailed information on the NBE Bill, see Appendix B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34.    For central government, a key objective for the new resource management programme is to better prepare for adapting to climate change and risks from natural hazards, and better mitigate emissions.

35.    The importance of climate change is recognised in the NBE Bill at the system outcome level (Part 1 of the Bill). This outcome states “in relation to climate change and natural hazards, achieve the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reduction of risks arising from – and better resilience of the environment to – natural hazards and effects of climate change”.

36.    Under the SP Bill, the RSS must identify areas that are vulnerable to significant risks from natural hazards and areas impacted by climate change. It must also identify measures for reducing those risks, addressing effects and increasing resilience.

37.    Under Part 2 of the NBE Bill (Duties and restrictions), NBE plans can make rules that will affect existing rights and land use consents when there are risks associated with natural hazards and climate change.

38.    The resource management reform programme also includes the Climate Adaptation Bill.  This will be released in 2023 and will address issues associated with managed retreat.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39.    The proposals will have significant impacts across the Auckland Council group.

40.    A technical team, made up of experts from across the council group, will prepare a first draft of the council’s submission. 

41.    The Water Services Entity Bill, under the Three Waters Reform programme, establishes the Northern Water Services Entity for the Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland and Northland regions.  It is important that council’s submission addresses the role of this new entity as a significant delivery partner in the legislation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42.    Local boards will be invited to provide input to the council’s submission.

43.    No specific role for local boards is identified in the NBE or SP Bills. The NBE Bill contains proposals for Statements of Community Outcomes (SCOs). These are voluntary instruments to provide local authorities with a mechanism to directly input local voice into RSSs and NBE plans. SCOs will be prepared by territorial authorities and will express the views of a district or local communities.

44.    It is critical that there is a strong voice for local communities and local boards, and consideration of local issues, in the development of strategies and plans. The council previously submitted that community input leads to better plans through the sharing of local knowledge, and identification of local priorities. The council also supported an approach where appropriate engagement outcomes are prescribed in legislation to ensure that this reflects local boards’ statutory functions. This is not currently addressed in the Bills.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45.    A key Government objective for the new resource management system is to “give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori, including mātauranga Māori”. This has been provided for throughout the NBE and SP Bills starting with the purpose statement, which includes recognising and upholding te Oranga o te Taiao.

46.    There are a number of positive outcomes or impacts for Māori that include:

·   a new requirement to ‘give effect to’ the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi

·   three system outcomes that cover 1) the relationship of iwi and hapū (and their kawa, tikanga, and mātauranga) in relation to their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna and other taonga, 2) protection of protected customary rights and recognition of statutory acknowledgement, and 3) the conservation of cultural heritage

·   mana whenua representation on RPCs (a minimum of two persons)

·   iwi and hapū can provide te Oranga o te Taiao statements to RPCs

·   establishment of an independent National Māori Entity to provide independent monitoring of decisions and

·   Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and engagement agreements.

47.    The Supplementary Analysis Report (SAR) states that central government will provide funding for Māori participation during the establishment and transition phase for the NBE and SP Bills. This will support development of the NPF, Kaupapa Māori selection processes and the National Māori Entity.

48.    The SAR report also states central government will provide a funding contribution to local government to support areas such as iwi / hapū management plans, negotiation of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, Māori governance, and technical capability and capacity building.

49.    Local government will fund Māori participation in the performance of local government functions and duties and powers under the NBE bill (e.g. consenting, compliance and monitoring etc).

50.    A communication on the NBE and SP Bills has been sent to all iwi entities and their feedback sought. IMSB secretariat staff will work with the council’s technical team throughout the development of the submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

51.    The submission will be developed within existing resources.

52.    The SAR report states that the costs of the new resource management system will increase for councils. These costs will be driven by the transition and establishment costs, development of new plans, strategies and instruments, and enhanced compliance and enforcement duties.

53.    The estimated increase in total costs spread across all regional, territorial and unitary councils is $43 million per year. The estimated increased costs are not calculated on a per council basis. 

54.    The intent of the new system is for most costs to fall on central and local government which, in turn, delivers decreased costs for system users.

55.    There is a lack of detail on central government funding to support local government with transition and implementation of the new system.

56.    Auckland Council will be required to fund the RPC and the associated secretariat. The council currently performs similar functions at a governance and operational level. However, the RPC will be made up of local government and mana whenua representatives.

57.    The NBE Bill states that, in the case of a region with a unitary authority, that authority must determine the amount of funding to be provided to the RPC. The RPC must prepare and make publicly available a statement of intent each financial year that reflects the budget agreed for the RPC. If any disputes arise, the RPC or local authority may apply to the Minister of the Environment to resolve the dispute. Decisions are binding on the local authorities. 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58.    Financial and legal expertise will be sought in the development of the submission to identify possible financial, legal and reputational risks to the council associated with the new resource management system.

59.    Risks identified to date include:

·    the separation of the planning function from funding and financing decisions (such as the long-term plan process)

·    insufficient coordination and alignment with the Three Waters Reform (the removal of water infrastructure from council control impacts planning and funding decisions)

·    lack of detail on central government funding to support local government with transition and implementation of the new system

·    lack of opportunities or clear avenues for local democratic input in the system.

60.    The new system has a long transition period of 10 years for establishment, transformation, and consolidation phases. In that time, the NPF will be developed through a Board of Inquiry process to enable development of the RSS and NBE Plan. 

61.    The NPF will be rolled out in stages after the Bills are enacted. The first version will integrate existing national direction to inform RSS development and future iterations will inform NBE plan development.

62.    The details of the NPF are vitally important for the new system and remain unknown currently.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63.    Technical experts from the Council Group will prepare a draft submission. Council officers will have provided a summary of key points for all elected members prior to this meeting taking place.  Committee members who wish to provide feedback to the team preparing the draft submission are invited to do so to report authors by 16 December 2022.

64.    The chair has requested an extension from 30 January to 10 February 2023 to enable the council to fully consider the proposals and any implications. If an extension is granted, a committee workshop will be held on 1 February 2023 to consider the submission. This will be followed by a report to this committee on 2 February.

65.    The delegated group will sign off council’s submission. They may be requested to attend a select committee hearing after the submission has been lodged.

66.    Once the select committee report is released on 22 May 2023, staff will provide the Committee with a memo summarising the select committee conclusions.

67.    Auckland Council will have an opportunity to submit on the Climate Adaptation Bill when it is introduced to Parliament in mid-2023.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Government's objectives for resource management reform

 

b

Detailed Analysis and Advice on the new Resource Management System

 

c

Resource management system outcomes

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Karryn Kirk - Principal Strategic Adviser Auckland Plan Implementation

Amber Dunn - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Auckland Unitary Plan - delegating authority to confirm the council's position through the hearings process for Proposed Plan Changes 78 to 83

File No.: CP2022/16223

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To request delegated authority to a political sub-group (for policy matters) and the General Manager Plans and Places (for technical matters) to confirm the council position through the hearings process for Proposed Plan Changes 78 to 83 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The council was required to notify an intensification planning instrument (IPI) on or before 20 August 2022, that incorporated the medium density residential standards (MDRS) in Schedule 3A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) into relevant residential zones, and which gave effect to Policy 3 and Policy 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD). 

3.      Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification (the council’s IPI) was publicly notified on 18 August 2022. Proposed Plan Change 78 incorporated the MDRS in Schedule 3A of the RMA into relevant residential zones and gives effect to Policy 3 (intensification) and Policy 4 (qualifying matters to limit intensification) of the NPS-UD. 

4.      The closing date for submissions on Proposed Plan Change 78 was 29 September 2022. Staff have prepared a report on the summary of decisions requested which will be notified for further submissions on 5 December 2022.

5.      In addition to notifying Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification on 18 August 2022, the council notified the following proposed plan changes and variations: 

·      Proposed Plan Change 79 – Amendments to the transport provisions: amends the AUP transport provisions to manage effects of intensification on the transport network.   

·      Proposed Plan Change 80 – Regional Policy Statement – Well-Functioning Urban Environment, Resilience to the Effects of Climate Change and Qualifying Matters: amends the AUP’s Regional Policy Statement to align it with the changes proposed through Proposed Plan Change 78 to give effect to the NPS-UD 

·      Proposed Plan Change 81 – Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule: adds new buildings to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule of the AUP.   

·      Proposed Plan Change 82 – Amendments to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule: amends Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps and the planning maps to update the category status and/or other information for 99 historic heritage places that are already identified in the historic heritage schedule.

·      Proposed Plan Change 83 – Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule: adds 24 new notable trees and four groups of trees in Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule of the AUP, introduces an automatic update clause, and addresses inaccuracies/inconsistencies in Schedule 10

·      Variation 4 to Proposed Plan Change 60 – Open Space and Other Rezoning matters: incorporates the MDRS into the relevant residential zones in Plan Change 60

·      Variation 5 to Private Plan Change 66 – 57 and 57A Schnapper Rock Road: incorporates the MDRS into the relevant residential zones in Private Plan Change 66.

6.      An Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) has been appointed to hear the submissions on Proposed Plan Change 78 and to make recommendations to the council.  The council is required to publicly notify its decisions on IHP recommendations by 31 March 2024.

7.      There will be mediations and hearings before the IHP in 2023 and there will be a need for decisions to be made urgently to determine the council position in advance of and during mediations and the hearing.  This requires there to be a delegation to a sub-group to make urgent policy decisions as required for the purposes of mediation and/or the preparation of evidence for the hearings on Proposed Plan Change 78.  It is also proposed that there be a delegation to the General Manager Plans and Places to confirm the council position in respect of technical matters (as opposed to policy matters) at mediation sessions and/or at the hearings.

8.      There will also likely be mediations and hearings before hearing commissioners[2] on Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83, where there will be a need for decisions to be made urgently to determine the council position in advance of and during mediation and hearings. As with Proposed Plan Change 78, this requires there to be a delegation to a sub-group to make urgent policy decisions as required for the purposes of mediation and/or the preparation of evidence for Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83.  It is also proposed that there be a delegation to the General Manager Plans and Places to confirm the council position in respect of technical matters (as opposed to policy matters) at mediation sessions and/or at the hearings for Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      tautapa / delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, two councillors and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to make decisions on the council policy position for mediation sessions and/or the hearings for Proposed Plan Changes 78 to 83 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

b)      whakaae / agree that at least three of the members identified in clause a) above are required to be in agreement for a decision to be made on the council’s policy position

c)      tautapa / delegate to the General Manager Plans and Places the authority to confirm the council position in respect of technical matters (as opposed to policy matters) at mediation sessions and/or at the hearings for Proposed Plan Changes 78 to 83 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Horopaki

Context

Plan-making

Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification

9.      The council was required to notify an intensification planning instrument (IPI) on or before 20 August 2022, that:

(a)  incorporated the medium density residential standards (MDRS) in Schedule 3A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) into relevant residential zones; and

(b)  gives effect to Policy 3 (intensification) and Policy 4 (qualifying matters to limit intensification) of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD). See: https://environment.govt.nz/publications/national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-2020-updated-may-2022/

10.    In Proposed Plan Change 78, the MDRS have been incorporated into the relevant residential zones in the AUP.  The MDRS enable development of three-storey dwellings as a permitted activity on each site and more than three dwellings via a non-notified resource consent. Proposed Plan Change 78 only makes MDRS less enabling of development in relation to an area within a relevant residential zone to the extent necessary to accommodate one or more of the qualifying matters in section 77I of the RMA.

11.    In Proposed Plan Change 78, Policy 3 (intensification) and Policy 4 (qualifying matters to limit intensification) of the NPS-UD have been given effect to. 

12.    The Planning Committee of the previous council term and local board chairs (or their delegates) attended numerous workshops and made decisions during 2021 and 2022 to guide the development of Proposed Plan Change 78. The Planning Committee approved all qualifying matters that apply to make MDRS less enabling of development, or to make the relevant building height or density requirements under Policy 3 of the NPS-UD less enabling of development.

13.    The council notified Proposed Plan Changes 78 to 83, Variations 4 and 5 on 18 August 2022.  The closing date for submissions on the proposed plan changes and variations was 29 September 2022. The council has prepared a summary of decisions requested report in respect of Proposed Plan Change 78, which is to be notified for further submissions on 5 December 2022. The closing date for further submissions will be 13 January 2023. The table below shows the number of submissions received and spatial extent of all the proposed plan changes and variations.

Table 1 Number of Submissions received on PC 78 to 83, Variations 4 and 5

Plan change number

Plan change name

Number of submissions received

Spatial application of the plan change

78

Intensification

2398

All Auckland except Hauraki Gulf Islands

79

Amendments to the Transport Provisions

128

All Auckland except Hauraki Gulf Islands

80

Regional Policy Statement Well-Functioning Urban Environment, Resilience to the Effects of Climate Change and Qualifying Matters

88

All Auckland

81

Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule

53

Various locations, see https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/pc-81-proposed-plan-change.pdf

82

Amendments to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule

33

Various locations, see https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/pc-82-proposed-plan-change.pdf

83

Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule

25

Various locations, see

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/pc-83-proposed-plan-change-reduced.pdf

Variation 4 to PC60

Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters

12

Various locations, see

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/var-4-proposed-map-changes-to-pc60.pdf

Variation 5 to PC66 (Private)

57 and 57a Schnapper Rock Road

5

Greenhithe, see

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/var-5-schnapper-rock-road-zoning-changes.pdf

Upper Harbour Local Board

14.    The council has appointed an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) to hear submissions on Proposed Plan Change 78, and to make recommendations to the council.  The IHP members that have been appointed are:

·    Greg Hill (Chair)

·    Sheena Tepania (Deputy Chair)

·    Kitt Littlejohn

·    Karyn Kurzeja

·    Richard Knott

·    Juliane Chetham

Additional Tikanga Māori commissioners, Reginald Proffit and James Whetu were also appointed by the committee delegation.

15.    On receipt of the IHP recommendations, the council is required to notify decisions on the independent hearings panel’s recommendations in accordance with clause 102 of Schedule 1 of the RMA by 31 March 2024. The IHP has been created by statute specifically to consider Proposed Plan Change 78, the council’s Intensification Planning Instrument.

Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83

16.    In addition to notifying Proposed Plan Change 78 on 18 August 2022, the council notified the following proposed plan changes and variations:

·        PC 79 – Amendments to the transport provisions: amends the AUP transport provisions to manage effects of intensification on the transport network.  It includes provisions for pedestrian safety, lighting and electric vehicle re-charging stations for multi-unit development 

·        PC 80 - RPS Well-Functioning Urban Environment, Resilience to the Effects of Climate Change and Qualifying Matters: amends the AUP’s Regional Policy Statement to align it with the changes proposed through PC78 to give effect to the NPS-UD 

·        PC 81 - Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule: adds new buildings to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule of the AUP.   The plan change aims to recognise the historic heritage values of eleven historic heritage places (seven individual historic heritage places and four historic heritage area) by adding them to Schedule 14 and the planning maps, thereby making them subject to the provisions of the Historic Heritage Overlay.

·        PC 82 - Amendments to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule: amends Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps and the planning maps to update the category status and/or other information for 99 historic heritage places that are already identified in the historic heritage schedule. The proposed amendments include the deletion of some historic heritage places.

·        PC 83 - Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule: adds 24 new notable trees and four groups of trees in Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule of the AUP, introduces an automatic update clause, and addresses inaccuracies/inconsistencies in Schedule 10

·        Variation 4 to Plan Change 60 – Open Space and Other Rezoning matters: incorporates the medium density residential standards into the relevant residential zones in Plan Change 60

·        Variation 5 to Plan Change 66 - 57 and 57A Schnapper Rock Road: incorporates the medium density residential standards into the relevant residential zones in Plan Change 66

17.    The council has appointed the same hearing commissioners that were appointed to hear submissions on Proposed Plan Change 78 to hear submissions on Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83. The hearing commissioners will be required to make decisions on Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83 within two years of 18 August 2022 (when the proposed plan changes were publicly notified).  The decisions on Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83 will be publicly notified and will be subject to normal RMA rights of appeal to the Environment Court.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18.    There will be mediations and hearings before an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) in 2023 in relation to Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification, and there will be a need for decisions to be made urgently to determine the council position in advance of and during mediations and the hearing. This requires there to be a delegation to a sub-group to make urgent policy decisions as required for the purposes of mediation and/or the preparation of evidence for the hearings before the Independent Hearings Panel that is hearing submissions (and making recommendations to the council) on the proposed plan change. 

19.    It is also proposed that there be a delegation to the General Manager Plans and Places to confirm the council position in respect of technical matters (as opposed to policy matters) at mediation sessions and/or at the hearings, as there will be limited time available in the mediation and hearing processes.

20.    There will also likely be mediations and council hearings before Hearing Commissioners on Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83, where there will be a need for decisions to be made urgently to determine the council position in advance of and during mediation and hearings.  As with Proposed Plan Change 78, this requires there to be a delegation to a sub-group to make urgent policy decisions as required for the purposes of mediation and/or the preparation of evidence for the proposed plan changes. 

21.    It is also proposed that there be a delegation to the General Manager Plans and Places to confirm the council position in respect of technical matters (as opposed to policy matters) at mediation sessions and/or at the hearings for Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83, as there will be limited time available in the mediation and hearing processes.

22.    Given that there will need to be decisions made urgently to determine the council position in advance of mediations and hearings, there is a need for authority to be delegated to a sub-group, and to the General Manager Plans and Places, as set out in the recommendations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23.    This report does not seek any decisions that would impact climate or would be impacted by climate change.

24.    However, it is noted that the requirement to incorporate MDRS and to give effect to Policy 3 and Policy 4 of the NPS-UD will, in some locations, provide for 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.

25.    However, enabling three-storey medium density housing across Auckland’s urban environment (through the widespread incorporation of MDRS), 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, which will likely contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to people being reliant on private vehicles for transport.

26.    Proposed Plan Change 80 provides for recognition of climate change and urban heat island effects brought about by greenhouse gas emissions. This provides a linkage to controls on landscaping (deep soil) and electric vehicle charging stations for developments of more than 10 dwellings.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27.    All relevant council departments and some Council Controlled Organisations contributed to preparing Proposed Plan Changes 78 to 83. Auckland Transport and Watercare will have an ongoing role during the hearings, contributing to the council’s evidence presented to the hearings panels on the proposed plan changes. Eke Panuku is a submitter, and so is not part of the council team that will prepare and present evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel on Proposed Plan Change 78. Council staff will meet with staff and consultants from Eke Panuku and other relevant submitters early in the new year.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Plan-making

28.    Local boards were briefed in October and November 2021 on the implications of the NPS-UD and the plan change required to be prepared by the council to give effect to Policy 3 and Policy 4 of the NPS-UD.  Local board chairs were also invited to the series of Planning Committee workshops run in 2022 on the NPS-UD.  Local boards received a detailed briefing on the council’s preliminary response to the government’s intensification requirements in March and May 2022 and presented their views at the 4 August 2022 Planning Committee meeting where Proposed Plan Change 78, and Proposed Plan Changes 79-83 were approved for notification.

29.    Local boards received presentations in November 2022 and reports in December 2022 on Proposed Plan Change 78, and on Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83 and Variation 4 to Proposed Plan Change 60 and Variation 5 to Proposed Plan Change 66 seeking their views.  At the time of writing this report, some boards are still finalising their feedback.

Hearing processes

30.    Local boards that pass resolutions expressing their feedback on the proposed plan changes and variations will have those views included in the information package provided to the hearings panels. Local boards will be invited to speak to those views at the hearings.

31.    Local boards have a statutory role in expressing feedback on Auckland Council policies including the AUP, and changes to it. It is the role of the Governing Body, and any committee it authorises, to set the council’s position and to consider local board views. The resolutions of local boards will be able to be considered by the delegated political sub-group.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32.    This report does not seek any policy decisions that would impact Māori. However, when confirming the council’s position prior to and during mediation and the hearings on the proposed plan changes, it is important to ensure that impacts on Māori are carefully considered. Including a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board in the political sub-group recommended in this report will assist in ensuring this occurs.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.    This report does not seek any decisions that have financial implications beyond the budget set aside for this process.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34.    There are no risks associated with the recommendations made in this report. The delegations sought from the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee will ensure the council is able to confirm its position prior to and during mediation and the hearings on the proposed plan changes. In turn, this will ensure the IHP is able to make its recommendations to the council in time for the council to publicly notify its decisions by the statutory deadline of 31 March 2024.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35.    Staff will analyse the submissions on the proposed plan changes and variations and seek direction from the delegated political sub-group on the council’s position on policy matters, and the General Manager Plans and Places on technical matters raised in the submissions. The decisions made by the political sub-group will be reported to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee as an information item.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alina Wimmer - Lead Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

To make Private Plan Change 59 - Albany 10 Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Operative

File No.: CP2022/16127

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To make Private Plan Change 59 – Albany 10 Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) fully operative in accordance with the Environment Court Consent Order Decision [2022] NZEnvC 212, dated 20 October 2022 and to vary Plan Change 78 – Intensification to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards into the relevant residential zones within the area of land covered by Private Plan Change 59.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Plan Change 59 (PC 59) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) is a private plan change request from BEI Group Limited (the requestor) which sought to rezone 13.72 hectares of land located at 461 - 473 Albany Highway, from Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone.

3.      In addition, the private plan change sought to include a new precinct that includes specific development controls for the private plan change area into the AUP.  This is entitled the - Albany 10 Precinct. The following amendments were also sought to be made to the AUP:

a)   Removal of the Albany 9 Precinct – sub-precinct C within the AUP maps

b)   Amendment of the I501 Albany 9 Precinct provisions to remove references to ‘sub-precinct C’.

4.      The hearing of submissions on PC 59 was in November 2021 and the Council decision approving (with modifications) PC 59 (Decision) was issued on 28 February 2022. Auckland Council notified the decision on 11 March 2022.

5.      Kristin School Charitable Trust (Kristin School) appealed part of the Council’s decision. The appeal sought a limited number of amendments to transport related matters, including consideration of the existing transport environment when assessing applications for resource consent and other provisions connected to traffic generation.  Auckland Transport joined the appeal as a Section 274 (s274) party.

6.      Despite the unresolved appeal, the Council was required to notify Variation 3 to PC 59 to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) into the relevant residential zones of the plan change in accordance with clause 34(2) of Part 5 of Schedule 12 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).  Variation 3 was required to be notified on the same date that the Council notified its intensification planning instrument (Plan Change 78 – Intensification).

7.      Council staff subsequently determined that the Variation 3 to PC59 was required to be withdrawn, to allow for the Environment Court to be in a position to approve a consent order to resolve the Kristin School appeal.  On 13 October 2022, Variation 3 to PC 59 was withdrawn under Chief Executive delegation.

8.      On 20 October 2022, the Environment Court issued a consent order allowing the appeal to the extent that the transport-related matters in the Council’s decision on PC 59 be amended to reflect the provisions that all of the parties have agreed to. The consent order resolves the Kristin appeal in its entirety.


 

 

9.      The provisions within the Albany 10 Precinct (I552 Albany 10) and Albany 9 Precinct (I501 Albany 9) and the maps in the AUP can now be amended in accordance with Appendix A of the Environment Court consent order (provided as Appendix 1 to this report) and be made operative in full.  Once PC59 is operative in the AUP, this will enable a further variation to Plan Change 78 – Intensification (IPI), to be prepared, to incorporate the MDRS into the relevant residential zones within the area of land covered by Private Plan Change 59. This variation will be considered at a subsequent meeting of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 59 to the AUP under clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

b)      tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Private Plan Change 59 becomes operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

c)      tono / request staff to prepare a variation to Plan Change 78 - Intensification (PC78) to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards into the relevant residential zones within the area of land covered by Private Plan Change 59.

d)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note a draft variation and section 32 report will be referred to a subsequent meeting of the committee to seek approval to notify the variation for submissions.

Horopaki

Context

Background

10.    PC 59 – Albany 10 precinct seeks to:

·        rezone the land located at 461 - 473 Albany Highway from Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone

·        include a new precinct into the AUP entitled - Albany 10 Precinct. The following are also proposed to amend the AUP:

o   Removal of the Albany 9 Precinct – sub-precinct C within the AUP maps

o   Amendment of the I501 Albany 9 Precinct provisions to remove references to ‘sub-precinct C’.

11.    PC 59 was notified on 28 January 2021 and 142 submissions were received, and 29 further submissions received during the further submission period.

12.    The Council hearing for PC 59 was held on 1 November 2021 and took place over three days. The hearing was conducted by Independent Hearing Commissioners who were given full delegation to make a decision on PC59. The Council decision to approve (with modifications) PC59 was issued on 28 February 2022 and notified on 11 March 2022.

Appeal

13.    Kristin School lodged an appeal with the Environment Court on 27 April 2022 in relation to the Council decision:

·    ENV-2022-AKL-000107 Kristin School Charitable Trust vs Auckland Council

14.    The appeal sought a limited number of amendments to transport related matters, with a focus on the Precinct description, amendments to the transport assessment, roading upgrade thresholds and minor consequential amendments to the Precinct’s matters of discretion and assessment criteria.

15.    Auckland Transport joined the appeal under s274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Agreement reached

16.    Following informal discussions between all parties, the parties agreed to resolve the entire appeal by way of consent. A joint memorandum, together with a draft consent order, was filed with the Environment Court setting out the agreed transport related provisions.

Environment Court Consent Order  

17.    On 20 October 2022, the Environment Court issued a consent order that:

·   The plan change be approved subject to the Albany 10 Precinct provisions as set out in Appendix A

·   The appeal is otherwise dismissed. This order resolves the appeal in its entirety.

18.    PC59 and the Albany 10 Precinct and Albany 9 precinct and the maps can now be amended in accordance with the consent order (Appendix 1 - 2022 NZEnvC 212 Kristin School Charitable Trust v Auckland Council as attachment A of this report) and made fully operative.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19.    Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.  Clause 17(1) states that “A local authority shall approve a proposed policy statement or plan (other than a regional coastal plan) once it has made amendments under clause 16 or variations under clause 16A (if any).”  Now that the Kristin appeal has been resolved, the Council can approve PC 59 under clause 17 of Schedule 1. 

20.    Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the process that is required to be undertaken by the Council to make PC 59 operative. 

21.    Auckland Council was required to notify variations (including Variation 3 to PC59) on 18 August 2022, being the same date that the Council notified its intensification planning instrument, in accordance with clause 34(2) of Part 5 of Schedule 12 of the RMA:

The specified territorial authority must notify a variation to the plan change at the same time that it notifies the IPI to incorporate the MDRS as required by section 77G(3).

22.    As the wording in clause 34(2) contains the word ‘must’, the Council had no discretion and was required to notify Variation 3 to PC59.

23.    The PC 59 provisions will now meet the requirements of sections 77G(1) and (3) of the RMA through a new variation to the IPI (Plan Change 78 – Intensification). Therefore, a future variation will be required after PC 59 has been made operative.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24.    As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.


 

 

 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.    As a procedural request, no views are being sought from any council departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.    Local board views were not sought for this report as making PC 59 fully operative is a procedural matter. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27.    As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of PC 59, and it being made operative.

28.    It is noted that all the Mana Whenua groups identified on Auckland Council’s mapping whose rohe includes the PC 59 area were notified of the plan change.

29.    During the preparation of the Variation to PC 78, the draft variation will be provided to Mana Whenua for consultation. Mana Whenua will also be directly notified when the future variation is publicly notified for submissions.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30.    There are no financial implications associated with making PC 59 operative in full. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP is a statutory requirement and is a budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31.    There are no risks associated with making PC 59 fully operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32.    The final step in making PC59 operative in full is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative in full, and to update the AUP.  This will occur following the Council committee making the resolutions set out in this report.

33.    Following the Council committee making the resolutions set out in this report, Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make PC 59 operative in full.

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2022 NZEnvC 212 Kristin School Charitable Trust v Auckland Council

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Todd Elder - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

To make Private Plan Changes 48, 49, 50, 51 and 61 in Drury East and Drury West to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative

File No.: CP2022/16111

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      The purpose of this report is:

·    to make Plan Change 48 (Private): Drury Centre Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative;

·    to make Plan Change 49 (Private): Drury East Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative;

·    to make Plan Change 50 (Private): Waihoehoe Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative;

·    to direct staff to prepare a variation to vary Plan Change 78 – Intensification to incorporate the medium density residential standards into the relevant residential zones within the area of land covered by Plan Changes 49 and 50;

·    to make the remainder of Plan Change 51 (Private): Drury 2 Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative;

·    to make the remainder of Plan Change 61 (Private): Waipupuke to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Environment Court Appeals to the Council decisions on Plan Changes 48 (“PC48”), 49 (“PC49”), 50 (“PC50”), 51 (“PC51”) and 61 (“PC61”) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (“AUP OP”) have been resolved in full.

3.      Plan Changes 48 - 50 to the AUP OP can be made operative in accordance with the Environment Court Consent Order [2022] NZEnvC 218, dated 1 November 2022.

4.      PC51 and PC61 to the AUP OP are currently operative in part. PC51 was made partly operative on 12 August 2022 and PC61 on 8 July 2022. The outstanding matter of road noise attenuation has now been resolved and PC51 and PC61 can now be made operative in full.  PC51 can be made operative in full in accordance with the Environment Court Consent Order [2022] NZEnvC 177, dated 27 September 2022, as confirmed by Environment Court Consent Order [2022] NZEnvC 218, dated 1 November 2022. PC61 can be made operative in full in accordance with the Environment Court Consent Order [2022] NZEnvC 178, dated 27 September 2022, as confirmed by Environment Court Consent Order [2022] NZEnvC 218, dated 1 November 2022.

5.      With respect to PC49 and PC50, council notified Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50 on the same day council notified its intensification planning instrument (Plan Change 78 (“PC78”)) to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (“MDRS”) into the relevant residential zones of the plan changes as required by the RMA.  Both variations were later withdrawn to allow for the Environment Court to be in a position to approve a consent order to resolve the appeals on PC49 and PC50.

6.      Once PC49 and PC50 are operative in the AUP OP, this will enable further variations to PC78, to be prepared, to incorporate the MDRS into the relevant residential zones within the area of land covered by PC49 and PC50.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks:

a)      whakaae / approve Private Plan Changes 48, 49 and 50 to the AUP OP under clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).

b)      whakaae / approve the outstanding parts of Private Plan Changes 51 and 61 to the AUP OP under clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

c)      tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Private Plan Changes 48, 49 and 50 become operative and Private Plan Changes 51 and 61 become operative in full as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

d)      tono / request staff to prepare variation(s) to PC78 to incorporate the MDRS into the relevant residential zones within the areas of land covered by PC49 and PC50.

e)      tono / request draft variations and section 32 reports to a subsequent meeting of the committee to seek approval to notify the variation for submissions.

Horopaki

Context

Background to PC51 and PC61 (the Drury West Private Plan Changes)

7.      PC51 and PC61 areas are both located north of State Highway 22 and west of State Highway 1 within the Auckland Council Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan (“Structure Plan”) area and fall within the Drury West Stage 1 area of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (“FULSS”). The FULSS anticipates that Stage 1 is to be ‘development ready’ by 2022. 

PC51 – Drury 2 Precinct

8.      PC51 to the AUP OP is a private plan change request from Karaka and Drury Limited which sought to rezone 33.65 hectares of land located around Burberry Road, Drury, from the Future Urban Zone (“FUZ”) to a combination of:

·    Business: Town Centre (“BTC”) zone;

·    Residential: Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (“THAB”) zone; and

·    Residential: Mixed Housing Urban (“MHU”) zone.

9.      The Council hearing for PC51 was held on 4, 5, 8 – 9 November 2021 and 2 December 2021.

10.    The Council decision to approve (with modifications) PC51 was notified on 24 February 2022. The Council decision was appealed (in part) to the Environment Court by Waka Kotahi.

PC61 – Waipupuke Precinct

11.    PC61 to the AUP OP is a private plan change request from Lomai Properties Limited which sought to rezone a 56ha block of land to the north of Karaka Road (State Highway 22) (“SH22”), west of Jesmond Road and east of Oira Road from the current FUZ to a combination of:

·    THAB zone;

·    MHU zone;

·    Business – Neighbourhood Centre (“BNC”) zone; and

·    Open Space – Informal Recreation (“OSIR”) zone.

12.    The Council hearing for PC61 was held on 6 – 8 October 2021 and 12 – 13 October 2021. 

13.    The Council decision to decline PC61 was notified on 16 December 2021. While the decision declined the plan change, the decision clearly set out what would need to be changed in the precinct provisions if PC61 were to be approved.  The Council’s decision was appealed to the Environment Court by Lomai Properties Limited (the private plan change applicant).

Background to PC48, PC49 and PC50 (the Drury East Private Plan Changes)

14.    PC48 - 50 areas are located east of State Highway 1 within the Structure Plan area and fall within the Opāheke-Drury area (otherwise known as Drury East) of the FULSS. The FULSS anticipates that Drury East is to be ‘development ready’ by 2028 - 2032.

PC48 – Drury Centre Precinct

15.    PC48 to the AUP OP is a private plan change request from Kiwi Property no.2 Limited which sought to rezone approximately 95 hectares of FUZ land in Drury East generally in the area bounded by Great South Road, Waihoehoe Road, Fitzgerald Road and the Hingaia Stream to a combination of:

·    Business - Metropolitan Centre (“BMC”) zone

·    Business - Mixed Use (“MU”) zone; and

·    OSIR zone.

16.    The first tranche of the Council hearing for PC48 was held on 28 - 30 July 2021 and 1 – 3 August 2021. The second tranche of the hearing was a combined hearing for PC48 – 50 and was held on 6 – 10 and 16 December 2021.

17.    The Council decision to approve (with modifications) PC48 was notified on 5 May 2022. The Council decision was appealed to the Environment Court by 4 parties, including the Auckland Council (as submitter). 

PC49 – Drury East Precinct

18.    PC49 to the AUP OP is a private plan change request from Fulton Hogan Land Developments Limited which sought to rezone approximately 184 hectares of FUZ land in Drury East generally in the area generally bounded by Waihoehoe Road, Drury Hills Road and Fitzgerald Road to a combination of:

·    THAB zone;

·    MHU zone;

·    Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone (“MHS”); and

·    BNC zone.

19.    The first tranche of the Council hearing for PC49 was held on 11 – 13 August 2021. The second tranche of the hearing was a combined hearing for PC48 – 50 and was held on 6 – 10 and 16 December 2021.

20.    The Council decision to approve (with modifications) PC49 was notified on 5 May 2022.  The Council decision was appealed to the Environment Court by 3 parties, including the Auckland Council (as submitter). 

PC50 – Waihoehoe Precinct

21.    PC50 to the AUP OP is a private plan change request from Oyster Capital Limited which sought to rezone approximately 48.9 hectares of FUZ land located to the north of Waihoehoe Road to THAB. The PC50 area is bound by Waihoehoe Road to the south, North Island Main Trunk Railway Network to the west, Waihoihoi stream to the north-east and farmland to the north and east.

22.    The first tranche of the Council hearing for PC50 was held on 29 - 30 November 2021. The second tranche of the hearing was a combined hearing for PC48 – 50 and was held on 6 – 10 and 16 December 2021.

23.    The Council decision to approve (with modifications) PC50 was notified on 5 May 2022. The Council decision was appealed to the Environment Court by 5 parties, including the Auckland Council (as submitter). 

Appeals

24.    As outlined above, the Council’s decisions on PC48 – 50, and PC51 and PC61 were appealed to the Environment Court. All the appeals have now been resolved in full.

Appeal to PC51

25.    Following notification of council’s decision to approve PC51 with modifications, Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (“Waka Kotahi”) appealed part of the decision. The appeal sought a limited number of amendments to noise related provisions to ensure appropriate management of traffic noise effects between SH22 and adjacent sensitive land use along the state highway corridor.

26.    Waka Kotahi was the only appellant to council’s decision to approve (with modifications) PC51.

27.    As the appeal related to one discrete matter, the balance of PC51, excluding the noise-related provisions, was made operative in part on 12 August 2022.

28.    Following discussions between all the parties to the appeal, a joint memorandum with a draft consent order was filed with the Environment Court on 6 September 2022 setting out the agreement reached on the noise attenuation provisions. 

29.    On 27 September 2022, the Environment Court issued a consent order allowing the appeal to the extent that the noise attenuation provisions in the Council’s decision on PC51 be amended to reflect the provisions that the parties have agreed to. This resolves the appeal in its entirety.

30.    The partly operative Drury 2 Precinct (I448 Drury 2) in the AUP OP can now be amended in accordance with Appendix 1 of the Environment Court consent order [2022] NZEnvC 177, dated 27 September 2022 (and included in Attachment A to this report) and made operative in full.

Appeals to PC61

31.    Following notification of council’s decision to decline PC61, the applicant, Lomai Properties Limited appealed the entirety of the decision.

32.    While the plan change was declined, the decision clearly set out the reasons for declining PC61. The parties to the appeal worked to address each of the reasons through informal discussions and later Environment Court assisted mediation.

33.    The parties reached an agreement to resolve the majority of the appeal by way of Consent Order.

34.    One matter remained outstanding between the parties – this being settling on attenuation provisions to protect land use activities sensitive to noise from adverse noise effects arising from the arterial road traffic associated with the operation of SH22 and Jesmond Road.  This issue remained subject to appeal.

35.    As the outstanding issue related to one discrete matter, the balance of PC61, excluding the noise-related provisions, was made operative in part on 8 July 2022.

36.    Following further discussions between the parties, an agreement was reached on the noise attenuation provisions.

37.    On 27 September 2022, the Environment Court issued a consent order allowing the appeal to the extent that the noise attenuation provisions in the Council’s decision on PC61 be amended to reflect the provisions that the parties have agreed to. This resolves the appeal in its entirety.

38.    The partly operative Waipupuke Precinct (I447 Waipupuke) in the AUP OP can now be amended in accordance with Appendix A of the Environment Court consent order [2022] NZEnvC 178, dated 27 September 2022 (and included in Attachment B to this report) and made operative in full.

Appeals to PC48 – PC50

39.    Following notification of council’s decision to approve PC48 with modifications, appeals were lodged with the Environment Court by:

·    Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities;

·    Auckland Council (as submitter);

·    Auckland Transport; and

·    KiwiRail Holdings Limited.

40.    Following notification of council’s decision to approve PC49 with modification, appeals were lodged with the Environment Court by:

·    Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities;

·    Auckland Council (as submitter); and

·    Auckland Transport.

41.    Following notification of council’s decision to approve PC50 with modification, appeals were lodged with the Environment Court by:

·    Auckland Council (as submitter);

·    Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities;

·    Francisca Josephine Kleinsman;

·    KiwiRail Holdings Limited; and

·    Auckland Transport.

42.    The Appeals lodged on the Council decisions on PC48, PC49 and PC50 raised largely the same or very similar concerns. The Appeals variously concerned:

a)   broadly, issues relating to the timing of urbanisation, the extent of transport infrastructure required to support development and the integration and coordination of urban subdivision and development with infrastructure;

b)   activities in close proximity to the North Island Main Trunk rail corridor;

c)   activities sensitive to noise within an existing or future arterial road;

d)   provisions addressing infrastructure including indicative notations on Precinct Plan 1, and rules and criteria relevant to three waters infrastructure; and

e)   details of open space provisions / tenure arrangements.

43.    Following informal discussions and Court-assisted mediation, the parties to each of the appeals reached agreement on a proposal to resolve the Appeals in full.

44.    The relevant parts of the AUP OP can now be amended to make PC48 – 50 operative as set out in Appendix 2 (PC48), Appendix 3 (PC49) and Appendix 4 (PC50) of the Environment Court consent order [2022] NZEnvC 218, dated 1 November 2022 (and included in Attachment C of the agenda report).


 

Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50

45.    In the case of PC49 and PC50, the Council was required to notify Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50 to incorporate the MDRS into the relevant residential zones of the plan change in accordance with clause 34(2) of Part 5 of Schedule 12 of the RMA.  Variation 1 and 2 were required to be notified on the same date that the Council notified its intensification planning instrument (PC78). Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50 were notified on 18 August 2022, the same date that the Council notified PC78.

46.    Council Officers subsequently determined that the Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50 were required to be withdrawn, to allow for the Environment Court to be able to approve a consent order to resolve the appeals on PC49 and PC50. On 6 October 2022, Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50 were withdrawn.

47.    Once PC49 and PC50 are operative in the AUP OP, this will enable further variations to PC78 to be prepared, to incorporate the MDRS into the relevant residential zones within the area of land covered by PC49 and PC50, as required by section 77G of the RMA.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

48.    Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.  Clause 17(1) states that “A local authority shall approve a proposed policy statement or plan (other than a regional coastal plan) once it has made amendments under clause 16 or variations under clause 16A (if any).”  Now that the appeals on PC48 – 50, and PC51 and PC61 have been resolved, the Council can approve the plan changes (or the remaining parts of the plan changes) under clause 17 of Schedule 1. 

49.    Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the process that is required to be undertaken by the Council to make PC48 – 50, and PC51 and PC61 operative.

50.    Auckland Council was required to notify variations (including Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50) on 18 August 2022, being the same date that the Council notified its intensification planning instrument (PC78), in accordance with clause 34(2) of Part 5 of Schedule 12 of the RMA:

The specified territorial authority must notify a variation to the plan change at the same time that it notifies the IPI to incorporate the MDRS as required by section 77G(3).

51.    As the wording in clause 34(2) contains the word ‘must’, the Council had no discretion and was required to notify Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50.

52.    The Council was able to withdraw Variation 1 to PC49 and Variation 2 to PC50 as the PC49 and PC50 provisions will now meet the requirements of sections 77G(1) and (3) of the RMA through a new variation to the intensification planning instrument (PC78). Therefore, a future variation will be required to PC78 after PC49 and PC50 have been made operative.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

53.    As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

54.    As a procedural request, no views are being sought from any council departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

55.    Local board views were not sought for this report as making plan changes operative is a procedural matter. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56.    As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with making PC48 – 50 and PC51 and PC61 operative.

57.    The consultation undertaken as part of the plan change process, and the opportunity to submit on the fully notified plan changes has provided opportunities for Mana Whenua groups to address any matters they had an interest in. The areas of interest to Mana Whenua were addressed in the plan change hearings and recorded as part of the Council Decision and in the Environment Court Consent Determinations.

58.    During the preparation of the Variation to PC78, to incorporate the MDRS into the relevant residential zones for the areas of land covered by PC49 and PC50, the draft variation will be provided to Mana Whenua for consultation and comment. Mana Whenua will also be directly notified when the future variation is publicly notified for submissions. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

59.    Approving plan changes and amending the AUP OP is a statutory requirement and is a budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places department.

60.    At the time of the provisions being made operative for PC48-50 there is insufficient council family or central government funding available for transport and other infrastructure to support the full build-out of the plan change areas, which may affect the speed at which land can be developed. PC48 - 50 may have implications for Council's Long-Term Plan in terms of expenditure relating to infrastructure depending on how the infrastructure to support the plan changes' development stages is funded.  Notwithstanding this, given that the appeals on PC48 - 50 have now been resolved, the Council is now required under the RMA to approve these plan changes and make them operative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

61.    There are no risks associated with making PC48 – 50 operative and PC51 and PC61 operative in full.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

62.    The final step in making PC48 – 50 operative and PC51 and PC61 operative in full is to publicly notify the date on which the plan changes will become operative/operative in full, and to update the AUP OP.  This will occur following the Council committee making the resolutions set out in this report.

63.    Following the Council committee making the resolutions set out in this report, Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make PC48 – 50 operative and PC51 and PC61 operative in full.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consent Determination for PC51

 

b

Consent Determination for PC61

 

c

Consent Determinations for PC48, PC49 and PC50

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Craig Cairncross - Lead Planner

Celia Davison - Manager Planning - Central/South

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

To make Private Plan Change 63 – 911-975 New North Road, Mount Albert operative

File No.: CP2022/16195

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To make Private Plan Change 63 – 911-975 New North Road, Mount Albert to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Plan Change 63 (PC63) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) comprises a private plan change request that seeks to increase the Height Variation Control that applies to 911-953 New North Road from 18m to 24m and apply a Height Variation Control to 955-975 New North Road to enable building heights up to 24m.

3.      The hearing on PC63 was held in May 2022 and the decision approving PC63 (Decision) was issued on 3 August 2022. No appeals were lodged to the decision. 

4.      The Decision clearly sets out the reasons for approving PC63.

5.      The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can now be amended to make PC63 operative as notified (and included in Attachment A of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 63 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative in part as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Background

6.      PC63 – 911-975 New North Road, Mount Albert seeks to:

·    Increase the Height Variation Control that applies to 911- 953 New North Road from 18m to 24m (22m occupiable and additional 2m for roof form)

·    Apply a Height Variation Control to 955-975 New North Road to enable buildings up to 24m (22m occupiable and additional 2m for roof form); and

·    Consequential amendments are required to Table H10.6.1.1 and Table H13.6.1.2.”

7.      PC63 was notified on 22 July 2021 with 18 submissions received, and four further submissions received during the further submission period.

8.      The Council hearing for PC63 was held on 23 May 2022 and lasted 2 days. The hearing was conducted by Independent Hearing Commissioners who were given full delegation to decide upon the plan change.

9.      The Council decision was notified on 9 September 2022, with the decision approving the plan change. 

Appeal

10.    No appeals have been lodged and the 30 working day appeal period has now ended.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.    Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes. Clause 17(2) enables the council to approve part of the plan change if all appeals relating to that part have been disposed of. The entirety of PC63 can be approved, with no matters subject to appeal.

12.    Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Staff within the Plans and Places department will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning, Environment & Parks Committee resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13.    As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14.    As a procedural request, no views are being sought from any council departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

15.    The views of the Albert-Eden Local Board were sought on the private plan change following lodgement of the request.

16.    Local board views were not sought for this report as making a plan change operative is a procedural matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17.    The applicant’s plan change request noted that all Mana Whenua groups with a registered interest in the Plan Change area were notified.

18.    The hearing panel in their decision, acknowledged that Auckland iwi authorities were specifically notified of PC63 in accordance with clause 5(4)(f) of Schedule 1 of the RMA on 22 July 2021. No submission was received from any mana whenua group except the Tūpuna Maunga Authority who requested that the Height Variation Control for land subject to the plan change not intrude into the Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshaft to Owairaka (Mt Albert).  The Authority has been assured that the general plan rules in chapters C1.6 and C1.10, together with the Volcanic Viewshaft provisions within Chapter D14 will ensure protection of the views to the maunga.

19.    The hearing panel was satisfied, based on the information and evidence before them that PC63 would give effect to the RPS and Part 2 in relation to Mana Whenua interests and values.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

20.    There are no financial implications associated with making PC63 operative in part. Approving plan changes and amending the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is a statutory requirement and is a budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

21.    There are no risks associated with making PC63 operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

22.    The final step in making the plan change operative in part is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative in part, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

23.    Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make PC63 operative.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

PC63 Notified Plan Change Provisions

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Clare Wall Shaw - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

To make Private Plan Change 64 - 953 New North Road, Mt Albert to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative.

File No.: CP2022/16192

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To make Private Plan Change 64 - 953 New North Road, Mount Albert to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Plan Change 64 (PC64) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) comprises a private plan change request that seeks to rezone a 2,387m2 site at 953 New North Road, Mount Albert from Business - Town Centre to Business - Mixed Use and remove the Building Frontage Control - General Commercial Frontage from the site.

3.      The hearing on PC64 was held in May 2022 and the decision approving PC64 (Decision) was notified on 9 September 2022. There were no appeals to this decision. 

4.      The hearing of this plan change (PPC 64) was heard in conjunction with Private Plan Change 63 (PPC63), a separate Plan Change concerning the same site, seeking to increase the Height Variation Control.

5.      The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can now be amended to make PC64 operative as notified (and included in Attachment A of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 64 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

6.      PC64 – 953 New North Road, Mount Albert seeks to:

·   Apply Business – Mixed Use zone to the property at 953 New North Road

·   Remove the Building Frontage Control – General Commercial Frontage

7.      The hearing of this plan change (PPC 64) was heard in conjunction with Private Plan Change 63, which involves the same site.  A separate decision was issued for each plan change.

8.      The Council decision was notified on 9 September 2022, with the decision approving the plan change.

9.      No appeals have been lodged and the 30 working day appeal period has now ended.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.    Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

11.    Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’. No appeals have been received and the council can now approve the plan change.

12.    Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Staff within the Plans and Places department will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning, Environment & Parks Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13.    As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14.    As a procedural request, no views are being sought from any council departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

15.    The views of the Albert-Eden Local Board were sought on the private plan change following lodgement of the request.

16.    Local board views were not sought for this report as making a plan change operative is a procedural matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17.    The hearing panel in their decision, acknowledged that Auckland iwi authorities were specifically notified of PC64 in accordance with clause 5(4)(f) of Schedule 1 of the RMA on 22 July 2021. No submission was received from any mana whenua group.

18.    The hearing panel was satisfied, based on the information and evidence before them that PC64 would give effect to the RPS and Part 2 in relation to Mana Whenua interests and values.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19.    There are no financial implications associated with making PC64 operative. Approving plan changes and amending the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is a statutory requirement and is a budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20.    There are no risks associated with making PC64 operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21.    The final step in making the plan change operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

22.    Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make PC64 operative.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Decision on Plan Change 64

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Clare Wall Shaw - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Auckland Unitary Plan - Approval for plan change for filming on public land scheduled as Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua

File No.: CP2022/16088

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To endorse the preparation of a plan change to Chapter 21 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua of the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part to enable filming as a permitted activity on public places where a permit is required under the Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Filming in public places in the Auckland region is regulated by the Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022. Screen Auckland manages this process and issues permits under this bylaw. Where filming is to occur in locations of historic and archaeological heritage the permit process also requires production companies (facilitated through Screen Auckland) to engage with relevant Iwi stakeholders.

3.      Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua (‘Sites of Significance’) is an Overlay (and schedule of sites) in the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part (‘AUP:OP’) and applies to sites and places in the Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland region that are protected for their significance to Mana Whenua. It acknowledges that sites and places have tangible and intangible cultural values in association with historic events, occupation, and cultural activities.

4.      Filming on Sites of Significance requires a resource consent as a restricted discretionary activity resulting in significant additional costs and time delays. An alternative is to make filming a permitted activity under the AUP:OIP and to rely on the permit process facilitated by Screen Auckland in collaboration with Mana Whenua.

5.      Overall, Mana Whenua that have responded to date support the plan change in principle subject to co-design of the supporting permit process.  Ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua will occur through the development of the plan change and supporting permit process ensuring a role in decision-making

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      ohia / endorse the approach to undertake a plan change to make filming activities a permitted activity on public land that is scheduled as Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua based on in-principal support by mana whenua.

b)      tautapa / delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve the plan change for notification.

c)      tono / request staff to develop the plan change with mana whenua and continue to work with them during the submission and hearing process.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.      Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua (‘Sites of Significance’) is an Overlay (and schedule of sites) in the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part (‘AUP:OP’) and applies to sites and places in the Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland region that are protected for their significance to Mana Whenua. It acknowledges that sites and places have tangible and intangible cultural values in association with historic events, occupation, and cultural activities.

7.      In 2014, Auckland Council (‘Council’) began working in partnership with Mana Whenua to develop a Māori Cultural Heritage programme to identify, map and protect sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua. Sites that had been recognised as places of significance by Auckland’s pre-amalgamation legacy councils were made operative by Council in 2016. In 2021, additional sites were added to the schedule of sites and more are anticipated through future plan changes as Council continues to work with Mana Whenua on further sites and places nominated through the Māori Cultural Heritage programme.

8.      Filming comes under the definition of temporary activity in the AUP:OP. Temporary activities are primarily managed as Auckland-wide provisions.[3] Filming is identified as a specific temporary activity, whereby filming activities up to and including 30 consecutive days is permitted within the coastal marine area and on land.[4] Resource consent can also be triggered for other reasons including: noise, earthworks, lighting, hours of operation, loading bay requirements, traffic generation, proximity to residential zones and coast/waterbodies, heritage/cultural issues and removal of protected vegetation. However, in general the majority of filming activities can work within the confines of a permitted activity status under the AUP:OP.

9.      On Sites of Significance all temporary activities require a restricted discretionary resource consent for the consideration of effects on the values and associations of Mana Whenua.[5]

10.    Filming in public places in the Auckland region is regulated by the Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022. Screen Auckland manages this process and issues permits under this bylaw. Where filming is to occur in locations of historic and archaeological heritage the permit process also requires production companies (facilitated through Screen Auckland) to engage with relevant Iwi .

11.    The film industry brings both direct and indirect employment and economic benefits to the Auckland region and has been a steadily growing industry for many years. The local screen industry employs more than 7,800 people with over 2,000 film related business based in Auckland, contributing $1.2 billion to the region’s GDP.[6] Production and post-production grew by 19% per annum in the years ending March 2019 and 2020, and another 9% in the year ending March 2021 despite the impacts of Covid-19.[7] Indirect employment and economic benefits include the need for catering, security, rental equipment, construction etc. to support film activities.

12.    At the 5 May 2022 Planning Committee, the Screen Industry Sites of Significance Working Group presented an update on the impact of the resource consent requirements on the screen industry. The minutes of that meeting resolved [PLA/2022/39] that the Planning Committee:

a)      thank Kristian Eek from the Screen Industry's Sites of Significance Working Group for the presentation regarding filming on the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

b)      acknowledge the importance of these sites to Mana Whenua.

c)       acknowledge the concerns raised by the screen industry.

d)      note that Screen Auckland (part of Auckland Unlimited) and staff within the council’s Plans and Places department are aware of the issues and are looking to engage with all Mana Whenua entities and the Screen Industry as soon as practicable to identify potential solutions to the concerns raised by the Screen Industry.

e)      request that staff report back to the Planning Committee on this matter once discussions with all Mana Whenua entities have taken place.

13.    Tātaki Auckland Unlimited has been progressing this work to develop options to address the issue of filming on Sites of Significance including development of an issues and options paper, and engagement with Mana Whenua and the Screen Industry to develop an agreed option. The finding of this work is a proposal to develop a plan change in collaboration with Mana Whenua and Screen Auckland to make filming on Sites of Significance a permitted activity and to rely on an enhanced permit process under the Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.    An issues and options report was prepared by Hill Young Cooper Ltd to understand the issues relating to obtaining resource consents for filming on Sites of Significance, and to identify suitable options that would ensure that the relationships of Mana Whenua with their sites and the values of the site is recognized and protected. A copy of the Sites of Significance Issues and Options Report is attached to this report (Attachment A).

15.    The issues and options report provides the context and background to both the Sites of Significance and the issues for the Screen Industry.  Sites of Significance hold important values for Mana Whenua and it is appropriate for there to be a process to ensure that filming activities do not impact on the tangible and intangible values that contribute to the relationship of Mana Whenua with these sites.

16.    Filming is a $billion industry and brings wider social and economic benefits to the Auckland-region. Council, through the Auckland Film Protocol, is committed to supporting growth in the film industry by providing certainty and being film-friendly.

17.    There is currently a duplication of process where the need for a permit under the bylaw is required as well as a resource consent on a Site of Significance. The film industry sees that the uncertainty and additional compliance costs may impact on the desirability of Auckland for some activities.

18.    Resource consent processes can be costly and timely for the vast majority of film productions which occur on short time frames and very small budgets. Although resource consent timeframes have a statutory process of 20 working days the timeframes can be extended or simply be exceeded. Lodgement fees begin at $4,500 with additional staff/expert costs potentially required. Production companies may also have to engage their own planner and other specialists where required in order to prepare suitable applications for lodgement (estimated at up to $40,000).

19.    Remaining competitive in the global film market is critical. Prior to the AUP:OIP and specifically the Sites of Significance, no more than 1 or 2 filming activities per year in the Auckland region triggered resource consent.

20.    Four options were assessed to outline, describe, and identify key risks and benefits of each option. The following four options were considered:

1.   Global Resource Consent – enables temporary filming on all current Sites of Significance subject to conditions;

2.   Multi-Site Resource Consent – enables temporary filming on selected Sites of Significance subject to conditions;

3.   Plan Change for Sites of Significance on Public Places – temporary filming permitted on Sites of Significance on public places (roads, reserves, open spaces etc); and

4.   Multi-Site Plan Change – temporary filming permitted on a selection of key Sites of Significance similar to option 2 above.

21.    Option 3 has been recommended as the most appropriate option recognizing that the majority of the Sites of Significance utilized for filming are on public places and a permit is already required under the Bylaw. A Memorandum of Understanding (or similar) with Mana Whenua and update to the Auckland Screen Protocol would also be required to support this option. Option 3 provides a high-level of future proofing as it will also apply to any additional Sites of Significance scheduled on public places. Engagement with Mana Whenua will be required through the permit process ensuring a role in decision-making.

22.    Option 3 would continue to protect the values associated with Sites of Significance. It enables iwi to determine how this is best achieved through a Memorandum of Understanding (or similar mechanism) and the permit process, and utilises a more efficient (in terms of cost and time) process than the current one, to determine if and how filming can take place.

Engagement with Mana Whenua

23.    In September and October 2022, a series of engagements were had with iwi and hapu of Tāmaki Makaurau to start building enduring working relationships with Tātaki Auckland Unlimited / Screen Auckland and to discuss the proposal for a plan change to Sites of Significance and to co-design a film permitting process under the Bylaw. A summary of engagement with iwi and hapu is attached to this report (Attachment B).

24.    Contact was made with the Iwi me Ngā Hapū o Tāmaki Makaurau (20 Mana Whenua groups) through the Māori Outcomes team of Tātaki Auckland Unlimited to arrange hui. To date hui have been held with 13 iwi and hapū and the team is continuing to engage with remaining iwi and hapū to find times to meet and discuss the proposed plan change. The summary of engagement records the Mana Whenua Authority, iwi representatives contacted, date of hui, and general feedback received. Formal feedback has only been received from four Mana Whenua Authorities, noting that before this can be provided it must go back to the governance for approval. The process of engagement is ongoing.  

25.    Feedback from Mana Whenua included:

a)      Some were unaware that resource consents were required for filming on Sites of Significance.

b)      Concerns about compliance with enforcement of requirements.

c)       Acknowledge the multiple processes including the Screen Auckland permit process, resource consents, and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority permit process and a need to understand the differences.

d)      Further consideration required around film content and use of Mana Whenua stories, images, whakapapa, historical events without written consent.

26.    Overall, engagement with iwi and hapū indicate no opposition to a plan change in principle subject to co-design of the supporting permit process and relationship agreement.  Ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua will occur through the development of the plan change and supporting permit process ensuring a role in decision-making.

27.    Outcomes from the hui included:

a)      Mutual agreement between Mana Whenua, Screen Auckland, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and Screen Industry representatives that there are existing protocols and good will between our sectors to build upon.

b)      Not all iwi have provided feedback on the issue and a proposed plan change so their current position is unknown. Approval that has been given to date reflects agreement in principle to progress the plan change option further. One Mana Whenua authority (Ngāti Whātua ki Kaipara) noted that they prefer the option of pursuing a transfer of power over Sites of Significance under the RMA, which will be included as an option for evaluation the proposed plan change.

c)       That Tātaki Auckland Unlimited / Screen Auckland has requested formal written feedback from iwi to indicate whether they support the proposed plan change or an alternative option, before 28 October.

d)      Several Mana Whenua followed up the engagement hui with trust board meetings to discuss and consider the proposal. Letters and messages of support for the Plan Change were received from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Ngāti Te Ata.

e)      That Tātaki Auckland Unlimited / Screen Auckland will start developing options for an alternative tikanga based permit process, which would involve closer involvement of iwi and hapu, and would replace the current Resource Consent process. This proposed process would then be presented to Screen Industry / Mana Whenua groups for further feedback, to refine, and gain consensus on.

f)       To explore how costings and resourcing for Mana Whenua groups would work, whenever cultural assessment / operations are required for film permits on Sites of Significance on public land.

g)      A larger body and timeline of work would need to be scoped, and would require Tātaki Auckland Unlimited / Screen Auckland to be resourced for relationship building, work scoping, and work implementation, including engagement with Local Boards

28.    Next steps conveyed for Tātaki Auckland Unlimited / Screen Auckland is to start designing a draft permitting process for Sites of Significance that could replace the resource consent requirement in collaboration with the Screen Industry and Mana Whenua.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.    The proposed plan change does not have any impacts on climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30.    Filming in regional parks requires approval from Parks and Community Facilities in accordance with Parks Plans. This process is facilitated by Screen Auckland through the existing permit process. In local parks, landowner approval is required from local boards and this is also obtained through the existing permit process. The proposed plan change has no implications for these existing requirements or the process.

31.    Filming in roads requires Corridor Access Request approval from Auckland Transport, which is also facilitated by Screen Auckland through the permit process. The proposed plan change has no implications for these existing requirements of the process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32.    A briefing memo was sent on 15 November 2022 to local boards where public places are identified within their area that would be affected by the plan change. Ongoing engagement with local boards will occur through the development of the plan change to receive feedback and endorsement prior to notification.

33.    A total of 18 out of the 21 local boards have Sites of Significance on public places that would be covered by the proposed plan change.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.    The council has legal obligations to consult with Māori on matters that may affect them. This is a specific requirement under the RMA, and also more broadly in accordance with the council’s Māori Outcomes Framework, Significance and Engagement Policy and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. The council must also comply with Clause 3(1)(d) and 3B (of Schedule 1) of the RMA, and the clause 4A (of Schedule 1) pre-notification requirements concerning iwi authorities.

35.    Screen Auckland’s relationship with Mana Whenua is paramount to the process of developing the proposed plan change. Ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua will ensure that the intangible and tangible values of Sites of Significance will continue to be protected where filming occurs.

36.    It is noted that the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Tūpuna Maunga Authority) has an additional approval process for filming activities on the 14 co-governed tūpuna maunga which is facilitated by Screen Auckland. Information requirements include description of scenes/shots, plans of facilities, and the potential benefits of the activity to the iwi/hapū, Tūpuna Maunga Authority, and/or the maunga. The Tūpuna Maunga Authority approval process and requirements demonstrates a practical alternative to the resource consent process that effectively manages potential adverse effects on the values and associations of Mana Whenua with maunga. However, where a maunga is also a Site of Significance resource consent is also required under the AUP:OIP.

37.    A presentation on the proposed plan change and engagement with iwi and hapu was made to the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum and also to the forum’s Pou Taiao subcommittee. Feedback has identified opportunities to build on existing relationships with iwi and the Screen industry. There have also been regular updates to the Secretariat of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and an update to the board was provided at the 6 December 2022 board meeting

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38.    As a council-initiated plan change there are costs associated with the preparation of the plan change, notification and the hearings process. Tātaki Auckland Unlimited is funding the technical planning expertise for development of the plan change as well and all engagement with Mana Whenua, the Screen Industry and other stakeholders.

39.    There are no ongoing financial implications as the film permit process will be developed and managed by Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and is cost recoverable from those seeking approvals.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40.    Mana Whenua endorsement of the plan change is the key risk for the plan change and will be mitigated through co-design of the supporting processes that will apply in the place of the resource consenting process. The relationship between Screen Auckland and Mana Whenua is critical to the success of the plan change and ongoing management of potential effects on Sites of Significance.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41.    Once endorsed, staff will prepare the plan change documentation including a section 32 evaluation report. The section 32 evaluation report will consider alternatives, costs and benefits to identify the most appropriate method for enabling filming on public places that are Sites of Significance as a permitted activity. The plan change will be developed with Mana Whenua and the Screen Industry.

42.    When agreement is reached on the form of the plan change and relevant supporting processes delegated approval for notification will be sought.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Sites and Places of Significance Issues and Options Report

 

b

Summary of engagement wtih Iwi and Hapu of Tamaki Makaurau

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Chloe Trenouth –Planning Consultant

Marie Jenkins – Screen Facilitation Manager, Auckland Unlimited

Tony Reidy – Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Auckland Unitary Plan – Consideration of private plan change request – Beachlands South Limited Partnership

File No.: CP2022/16163

 

  

 

 

 

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To decide under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act (‘RMA’) how to process a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (‘AUP’) from Beachlands South Limited Partnership in relation to a proposal to rezone approximately 307 hectares of land at Beachlands South.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      This report considers a private plan change request received on 31 March 2022 from Beachlands South Limited Partnership (‘the applicant’) in relation to approximately 307 hectares at 110 Jack Lachlan Drive; and 620, 680, 682, 702, 712, 722, 732, 740, 746, 758 and 770 Whitford-Maraetai Road, Beachlands. The request seeks to rezone the land from Rural – Countryside Living zone to a mix of business, residential, open space and Future Urban (FUZ) zones. A new precinct is proposed to replace the existing Whitford precinct (and sub-precinct) provisions. The request also seeks to extend the Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 control over the plan change area.

3.      The plan change request seeks to expand the existing Beachlands coastal town. The northern portion of the land (159.54 hectares) is proposed to be “live” zoned to a mix of Residential – Mixed Housing Urban, Business - Local Centre, Business – Light Industry; Business – Mixed Use; and Open Space zones. The southern portion of land (147.5761 hectares) is proposed to be zoned FUZ, requiring future plan changes to “live” zone the land for future development.

4.      The plan change has a potential residential yield of approximately 3,000 dwellings over the “live” zoned area and 900 in the FUZ. This growth is not specifically anticipated by the Auckland Plan 2050 (Auckland Plan) because the area is not identified as a future urban area; it is not zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan and therefore it is not identified in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. However, the Auckland Plan anticipates approximately 6% of growth will occur within rural areas including in and around settlements such as Beachlands.

5.      Key issues with the private plan change request are quality compact urban form and alignment with council’s growth strategy, the proposed change in character of Beachlands by doubling the scale and population, transport constraints, water and wastewater infrastructure, and climate change.

6.      The 3,000 dwellings proposed in the “live” zoned area equates to approximately 12.2% of the anticipated growth in the rural areas across Auckland over the next 20-30 years, with additional future growth provided in the proposed FUZ. The future population of Beachlands would increase to over 10,000 people which is equivalent to current day Waiuku. Further consideration of the proposal in terms of whether it achieves a quality compact urban form and well-functioning urban environment is needed to understand whether the expanded town can function in a largely self-sufficient manner or whether the expanded town is predominantly reliant on the wider Auckland area.

 

 

 

7.      The AUP enables some growth in rural and coastal towns and villages where it maintains or enhances the character of the town, and incorporates adequate provision of infrastructure. The scale of growth will change the character of Beachlands as the plan change has a more intensive residential character focused in and around the new centre and a walkable distance to the ferry. However, the plan change is primarily residentially focused and provides amenities and services for the wider community, including identifying zoning that would enable a proposed secondary school, employment opportunities, and recreation opportunities. While the existing character will not be maintained a further merits assessment is required to determine whether the character will be enhanced by the plan change.

8.      Transport constraints relate to the existing safety issues along Whitford-Maraetai Road and limited public transport. Several intersections are proposed to be upgraded by the applicant at the applicant’s cost as well as the applicant providing a contribution towards increasing the capacity of the Pine Harbour ferry service.[8] However, the applicant is not proposing any contribution for widening Whitford-Maraetai Road to 4-lanes or the Whitford bypass which are both designated but not currently funded. Transport upgrades proposed may improve some elements of the road network, but further compromise others and further consideration is required to understand the benefits to the wider community alongside the impacts and what further mitigation may be appropriate. Auckland Transport has raised significant funding issues in relation to the existing Pine Harbour Ferry and for the upgrades that are required for the widening of Whitford-Maraetai Road to four lanes and the Whitford bypass, and there are some concerns that reliance on the ferry service is resulting in an undercounting of potential traffic movements as a result of the plan change and therefore impacts.

9.      There is no existing capacity within the wastewater network at Beachlands and no public water supply. The applicant proposes to fully fund wastewater and water supply to service the plan change area. Several options are identified for the disposal of wastewater, including to land, water and the Beachlands-Maraetai Wastewater Treatment Plant. Water supply is proposed be provided by groundwater bores and will would be treated.  Resource consents would be required for water supply and the disposal of wastewater and have not been obtained at this point in time. The applicant has identified options for water and wastewater servicing that do not require any public funding. Watercare Services Ltd (‘Watercare’) has raised some concerns about the proposal. This will require further consideration as part of the merits assessment of the plan change.

10.    In terms of climate change the potential adverse impacts of future development including the use of additional private vehicles are proposed to be offset by forest sequestration and sustainable building including energy efficiency and rain tanks for potable water. While the proposed precinct policies encourage the development of energy efficient buildings including on-site energy generation, there are no rules in the precinct that require it. Additional capacity would support increased ferry usage but currently most people in Beachlands travel to East/South Auckland for work and will still be reliant on private vehicles. At this coarse level of assessment, it is not possible to determine whether there would be a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but it is anticipated that an ongoing reliance on private vehicles would have an impact on council’s goals to reduce Vehicle Kilometres Travelled and greenhouse gas emissions.

11.    The decision that is required at this time is whether to accept, adopt or reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, or to treat it as a resource consent application. Consideration of the detailed merits of the change request is not relevant at this stage of the process.

12.    While there may be a potential ground of rejection available under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, having regard to the relevant caselaw and the requirements of this clause at this point in the process, it is recommended that the Council exercise its discretion and not reject the private plan change request.  Therefore it is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted for processing under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the RMA and publicly notified for submissions on the basis that it is more appropriate to accept the request than to adopt it or treat it as a resource consent.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      not reject the private plan change request under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA, on the basis that:

i)        the grounds to reject a private plan change request under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 are limited and, having regard to relevant case law:

A)      the request is not frivolous. The applicant has provided supporting technical information and the private plan change has a resource management purpose.

B)      the request is not vexatious and the applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging the private plan change request.

C)      the substance of the request has not been considered within the last two years.

D)      due to the lack of funding available for the transport infrastructure required to support development in the Beachlands area, a coarse-grain assessment of the request indicates this aspect of the private plan change may not be in accordance with sound resource management practice. However, as more detailed information relating to the impact of development on the transport network (positive and negative) and the cost of transport upgrades needed becomes available, there remains a prospect that a funding solution can be found.  The Council could reject the private plan change request for processing under this ground, but it does not have to, and it is recommended that the Council exercise its discretion not to reject the private plan change request under this ground.

E)      a coarse-grain assessment does not indicate that the private plan change would make the Auckland Unitary Plan contrary to Part 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

F)      the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan subject to the private plan change request have been operative for at least two years.

b)      whakaae / accept the private plan change request by Beachlands South Limited Partnership in relation to approximately 307 hectares at 110 Jack Lachlan Drive; and 620, 680, 682, 702, 712, 722, 732, 740, 746, 758 and 770 Whitford-Maraetai Road, Beachlands, included as Attachment A to the agenda report, pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the RMA for the following reasons:

i)        accepting the private plan change request for notification will enable a range of matters (in particular, infrastructure funding) to be considered on their merits during a public participatory process.

ii)       it is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change. The private plan change proposal is not identified as a location for future growth in the Auckland Plan and there is currently no provision for funding the full costs of water and wastewater infrastructure required, or the necessary transport upgrades, including the widening of Whitford-Maraetai Road to four lanes.

 

 

 

iii)      it is not appropriate to deal with the private plan change as if it was a resource consent application as the request seeks to rezone a substantial area of land for development over a period of time rather than undertake a single development project.

c)      tautapa / delegate authority to the Manager Central and South Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by Beachlands South Partnership Limited pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Site and Surrounding Area

13.    The land subject to the plan change request (‘the plan change area) is immediately south of the urban extent of Beachlands coastal town, located in the south-east of Auckland on the Hauraki Gulf approximately 35 kilometres from the central business district of Auckland city centre. Beachlands (including Pine Harbour) had an estimated population of 7480 in 2021.[9] Beachlands is an established coastal town and currently accommodates a range of land uses including residential, business, industrial and provides some social infrastructure such as sports fields, Formosa Golf Club, Pine Harbour Marina, primary school, local retail shops and a supermarket.

14.    The plan change area is approximately 307 hectares bounded by Jack Lachlan Drive in the north, Whitford-Maraetai Road to the east, and the coastal margin forms the western boundary. The southern property boundary of the plan change adjoins 600 Whitford-Maraetai Road, which is zoned Rural-Countryside Living. There are a total of 13 separate parcels of land within the plan change area, three of which are owned by the applicant being approximately 83% of the land area (255.17 hectares). The plan change area includes 110 Jack Lachlan Drive; 620, 680, 682, 702, 712, 722, 732, 740, 746, 758 and 770 Whitford-Maraetai Road (refer to Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Plan change area Context

Map

Description automatically generated

15.    Currently the existing Rydges Formosa Golf Course and Resort occupies the northern portion of the plan change area. Approximately 17% of the land is occupied by 11 rural lifestyle properties fronting onto Whitford-Maraetai Road, which each contain a large residence. The remainder of the land is largely undeveloped and covered in pasture with an undulating landform with dramatic falls along the coastal margins.

16.    Land immediately to the north and opposite the plan change area along Jack Lachlan Drive is zoned Residential – Single House, which has been recently developed and contains several sites that are either still under development or yet to be developed. Properties to the west of the plan change area are zoned Rural-Countryside Living, which is subject to the Whitford Precinct and comprise rural lifestyle properties and pasture.

17.    The transport environment includes:

·    Whitford-Maraetai Road is the key vehicle transport connection to Beachlands South from the wider Auckland region, it is a two-lane arterial road.

·    Jack Lachlan Drive is a two-lane road that is partially formed to an urban standard, with a footpath along part of the northern side only.

·    Pine Harbour Ferry Terminal is located approximately 150m from the northern end of the plan change area, with a weekday ferry service to Auckland’s CBD every 20 mins at peak times and with a journey time of approximately 35 mins.

·    Public bus service (No. 739) connects Maraetai Drive and Whitford-Maraetai Road to Botany Town Centre every hour weekdays and weekends.

18.    Within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 (‘AUP’), the plan change area is zoned Rural – Countryside Living and is subject to the Whitford Precinct – Sub-precinct B. Sub-precinct B includes specific provisions addressing landscape character and environmental considerations and provides for an average site size of 5ha.

19.    The following overlays, controls and designations apply to the plan change area:

a)    Natural Resources: Significant Ecological Area Overlays – SEA-M1-43c, Marine 1, SEA-M1-43w4, Significant wading bird area, Marine 1; SEA-M2-43a, Marine 2

b)    Natural Resources: Significant Ecological Area Overlays – SEA_T_4556, Terrestrial, SEA_T_1141, Terrestrial; and SEA_T_1140, Terrestrial

c)    Controls: Coastal Inundation 1 per cent AEP Plus 1m Control – 1m sea level rise

d)    Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index – Exotic, Native, Rural, and Urban

e)    Designations: 1806 Road widening – Beachlands Road

Plan Change Request

20.    The private plan change request (‘the request’) to the AUP was lodged by Beachlands South Limited Partnership on 31 March 2022 and seeks to expand the existing Beachlands coastal town and to rezone the plan change area from Rural - Countryside Living to a variety of AUP zones including business, residential, open space and Future Urban zones (see Figure 2).


 

Figure 2: Proposed rezoning

Map

Description automatically generated

24.    The northern portion of the land (159.54 hectares) is proposed to be “live” zoned to a mixture of urban zones including medium density residential, low density residential, local centre, mixed use, light industrial, and open space. The southern portion of land (147.58 hectares) is proposed to be zoned Future Urban (‘FUZ’), requiring future plan changes to “live” zone the land for future development.  The request also seeks to extend the Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 control over the plan change area.

25.    The plan change proposes to remove the existing Whitford precinct (and sub-precinct B) from the plan change area.  Sub-precinct B includes specific provisions addressing landscape character and environmental considerations and provides for an average site size of 5ha.

26.    A new precinct is proposed to replace the existing Whitford precinct (and sub-precinct B) provisions which will enable and guide development to achieve residential, commercial, recreational and educational development. The applicant advises that residential development capacity enabled through the new precinct is approximately 3,000 dwellings and approximately 960 jobs will be created.

27.    Six sub-precincts are proposed for the “live” zoned area to identify specific character or activity outcomes for each part of the plan change area being the Marina, Village Centre, Community, Coastal, Golf and Employment. The Community sub-precinct provides for both a primary and secondary school, and the Golf sub-precinct maintains a 9-hole golf course. Employment opportunities are provided for in the Village Centre, Community, and Employment sub-precincts including through mixed use.

28.    The applicant identifies that the precinct provisions provide for development to occur in a way that achieves the following outcomes:

      A well-functioning urban environment, that has strong pedestrian, cycle and road connections within the precinct and to the existing network.

      Acknowledgement and provision for Mana Whenua values to be recognised and provided for.

      Recognition and protection of ecological values, sustainability initiatives and low carbon outcomes.

      Development coordinated with transport upgrades including intersections within the wider transport network and ferry capacity.

      A variety of housing outcomes that enable diversity in housing types and choices.

      Higher density development either side of the Fairway Reserve and connections to the Pine Harbour ferry in the Marina Point sub-precinct

      A compact Village Centre that provides for commercial, residential, employment and community activities.

      Opportunities for the development of schools, community activities and open space combined with a variety of residential, conference and visitor accommodation activities.

      Coastal living opportunities while minimising modifications to the coastal edges of the precinct.

      Retains a 9-hole golf course as well as other opportunities for organised sport and recreation activities for the community.

29.    A series of precinct plans are included as part of the proposed precinct to help guide development by identifying key elements and features that must be provided for as described by associated rules and standards in the precinct:

1.   Additional Controls and Overlays Plan - reserve areas, landscape buffers, subdivision and height variation controls, and Golf Course Overlay.

2.   Natural Features – ecological protection area network (EPAN), indicative native regeneration, indicative natural wetlands, indicative constructed wetlands, high value terrestrial planting, and streams.

3.   Structuring Elements – indicative elements including EPAN, road network, coastal pathway, parks, linkages to open space, school, centre and employment areas.

4.   Cultural Landscape – spiritual connections, EPAN, pā site, indicative archaeological sites, key outlook point and key views.

5.   Movement Network – EPAN, existing connections to coast and ferry, indicative road network, indicative coastal pathway, indicative future connections.

6.   Transport Staging and Upgrades – road intersection upgrades, Pine Harbour Ferry Terminal.

7.   Earthworks Catchments – 5 catchments where bulk earthworks will be limited to minimise sediment runoff.

30.    Rules provide for up to 3 residential units per site as a permitted activity consistent with the Medium Density Residential Standards, and more than 3 residential units per site is a restricted discretionary activity. Integration of development and infrastructure is managed by rules and standards that require certain infrastructure upgrades to be in place otherwise the development must be considered as a discretionary activity.


 

31.    The applicant has provided an assessment of effects on the environment and a section 32 evaluation report and the following supporting technical reports:

·    Masterplan Design Report

·    Urban Design Assessment

·    Beachlands South Sustainability Strategy

·    Landscape and Visual Assessment (including visual simulations)

·    Economic Assessment

·    Integrated Transport Assessment

·    Water Supply Concept Report

·    Wastewater Assessment

·    Draft Stormwater Management Plan

·    Ecology Assessments – Freshwater, Terrestrial, Wetland, Marine

·    Coastal Water Quality and Sedimentation Assessment

·    Coastal Hazards Report

·    Earthworks Assessment

·    Geotechnical Report

·    Contaminated Land Detailed Site Investigation

·    Land Use Capability Assessment

·    Archaeological Assessment

·    Cultural Values Assessment of Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

32.    The section 32 report in support of the private plan change states that “all infrastructure will be funded by the applicant and no public funds are required to service the proposed growth”. This statement applies to the delivery of between 2,500 and 4,000 dwellings overall and approximately 6ha of commercial land, noting that initially the plan change will enable capacity for up to approximately 3,000 dwellings. The remainder of the plan change area is identified as FUZ and will require a future plan change to apply “live” zones enabling urban development.

33.    Additional information provided in response to further information requested on infrastructure funding include:

         a letter from the Crown Infrastructure Partnership confirming that estimated infrastructure costs of $75 million (excluding GST) would result in a levy per apartment and house that appears reasonable.

      a draft funding plan that identifies $75 million contribution by the applicant to transport infrastructure upgrades including several intersections, and $16 million contribution to ferry services and infrastructure (Figure 3).


 

Figure 3 BSLP Draft Funding Plan

Table

Description automatically generated

Policy context

34.    The Auckland Plan 2050 seeks that most of Auckland's anticipated population and dwelling growth over the next 30 years be within the existing urban area. This is reflected in the AUP, which seeks a quality compact urban form for growth where urban growth is primarily accommodated within the urban area 2016, providing sufficient development capacity that is integrated with the provision of appropriate infrastructure.[10]

35.    Both the Auckland Plan and AUP anticipate some growth occurring in coastal towns and villages. The AUP seeks that “growth and development of existing or new rural and coastal towns and villages is enabled[11] subject to particular criteria being met, whilst the Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy outlines that “residential growth in rural Auckland will be focused mainly in the towns which provide services for the wider rural area particularly the rural nodes of Pukekohe and Warkworth.[12] Growth in Beachlands therefore has a potential policy basis in the Auckland Plan and the AUP. However, neither the Auckland Plan nor the AUP specifically identify Beachlands as a location for growth/the extent of growth proposed by the private plan change.

36.    The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (‘FULSS’), sets out the sequencing of future urban land for development within Auckland. However, as there is no future urban land identified in or around Beachlands either in the Auckland Plan or AUP, Beachlands is not included in the FULSS. Sequencing in the FULSS supports planning and funding for the infrastructure required to support growth. As the plan change area is not identified in the Auckland Plan, AUP or FULSS it represents additional growth that is not anticipated in terms of strategic planning or infrastructure funding within the next 30 years.

37.    Within the Franklin Local Board area in South Auckland, future urban growth has been identified in the FUZ areas of Takānini, Drury-Ōpaheke and Pukekohe-Paerātā, and small areas around Maraetai, Glenbrook, Clarks Beach and Patumahoe. These areas are identified within the FULSS as being development ready at various stages between now and 2032, with the exact sequence of urbanisation depending on contextual considerations and constraints. The larger areas of Drury-Ōpaheke and Pukekohe-Paerātā are subject to structure plans prepared by the Council in 2019[13] to determine how future urban growth will be provided for at a strategic level. Most growth is identified to occur in the southern part of Franklin Local Board area, and the eastern edge is bounded by Rural - Countryside Living zone.

38.    Several private plan change requests have been, or are being, considered by Council to enable the development of particular landholdings within the Franklin Local Board area including at Drury, Waiuku, Patumahoe, and Pukekohe. There are no private plan change requests in Future Urban zoned areas at Maraetai currently and it is sequenced in the FULSS to be development ready in 2028-2032.

39.    Land within the private plan change area does not contain any elite soils (LUC 1) but does include approximately 57.7 ha of prime soils (LUC 2 and 3). The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL) came into force on 17 October 2022. NPS-HPL Objective 1 requires highly productive land to be protected for use in land-based primary production both now and for future generations. Policy 5 requires that urban rezoning of highly productive land is avoided, except as provided by the NPS. Until such time as the Council has mapped highly productive land and amended the AUP RPS, Land Use Capability classification in the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory is to be relied upon to identify and protect land that is zoned general rural or rural production and LUC 1, 2 and 3. The subject land is zoned Rural - Countryside Living and therefore does not meet the definition of highly productive land regardless of the presence of LUC 2 and 3 soils. Therefore, the NPS-HPL is not relevant.

40.    There are several indicative natural wetlands identified within the plan change area, as well as permanent and intermittent streams. Therefore, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) and the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (NES-F) apply to the plan change. Most significant features are located within the area identified to be rezoned as FUZ and those within the “live” zone area would need to be addressed at the time of development. There is currently some uncertainty as to the status of several constructed wetlands associated with the existing golf course, and whether these can be reclaimed. Reclamation of natural wetlands is a prohibited activity under the NPS-F and reclamation of streams is a non-complying activity. Any reclamation proposed would need to obtain the necessary resource consents under the AUP and NES-F, provided that the proposed reclamation activity is not prohibited (for which no consent can be applied for or obtained).

41.    In December 2021 Central Government enacted the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021. As a Tier 1 territorial authority, the RMA as amended by the Amendment Act required the Council to notify an intensification planning instrument (IPI) by 20 August 2022, which incorporates Medium Density Housing Standards (‘MDRS’) to enable up to three dwellings of up to three storeys per site in relevant residential zones, subject to any qualifying matters applying.

42.    Council notified Plan Change 78 - Intensification on 18 August 2022 as its Intensification Planning Instrument incorporating the MDRS into relevant residential zones and giving effect to the intensification requirements of Policy 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. Plan Change 78 – Intensification includes a qualifying matter for Beachlands, which is the ‘Infrastructure – Beachlands Transport Constraints Control’.  The Council’s s32 report states:

… the purpose of the qualifying matter is to provide for an appropriate level of intensification within the constrained area, while achieving outcomes relating to well-functioning urban environments and quality compact urban form. In particular, intensification beyond that which can be met by the constrained transport network within and connecting to the identified Beachlands area is likely to generate adverse effects including: 

·    further exacerbation of the existing accessibility issues to employment, education and community services in the local area; and 

·    without support from sufficient transport infrastructure and significant roading network upgrades, increased traffic congestion and air pollution as a result on reliance on private vehicle trips. 

43.    The Council’s s32 report also states that Beachlands is predominantly a car-reliant coastal settlement positioned on a peninsula. Although there are ferry and bus options these are limited and infrequent with capacity constraints. The Whitford-Maraetai Road is the only road connection to the wider regional destinations to the west and has limited capacity to accommodate additional traffic. Significant investment (including acquisitions) would be required to upgrade the road and the surrounding rural roading network. As the private plan change area is zoned Rural – Countryside Living, it is identified on the Plan Change 78 maps as ‘Outside Urban Environment – Excluded from PC78’.

44.    The private plan change request predominantly applies the Residential - MHU zone and proposes to incorporate the MDRS consistent with section 77G of the RMA. Although Plan Change 78 proposes to rezone most of the existing urban area of Beachlands as Residential - MHU zone it proposes an Infrastructure – Beachlands Transport Constraints Control as a qualifying matter under section 77I(j) of the RMA, which restricts development to two dwellings per site as a permitted activity. The submissions period for Plan Change 78 closed on 19 September 2022 and hearings are expected in mid-2023 with the Council to publicly notify its decisions on recommendations by the Independent Hearings Panel by 31 March 2024. The request is inconsistent with Plan Change 78 because it provides additional development capacity in an area that Council has identified has significant transport constraints, which requires significant investment (including acquisitions) to upgrade the road and the surrounding rural roading network. However, the qualifying matter is yet to be tested through the hearings process and is only proposed at this stage.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Character

45.    In 2018 Beachlands had a population of approximately 6200 people and 2000 occupied dwellings, resulting in an average household size of 3 people per dwelling.[14] Between 2018 and 2022 there was approximately 476 building consents issued for new dwellings,[15] increasing the total number of existing dwellings at Beachlands to approximately 2500.

46.    The Council’s recent Section 32 for Plan Change 78 estimates residential development capacity for approximately 430 additional dwellings under the Infrastructure – Beachlands Transport Constraints Control. There is also some additional development capacity at Beachlands within Pine Harbour, which is excluded from the qualifying matter control. The proposed “live” zoned area in the proposed private plan change would enable approximately 3,000 dwellings which would double the number of existing dwellings as well as the population.

47.    Demand for housing at Beachlands is determined by the applicant to be high based on current growth rates and the expectation that the plan change will drive demand and provide additional growth in the area. The applicant identifies a shortfall of 530 dwellings over the medium-term and 6,930 dwellings over the longer term in the local catchment which includes Howick Local Board and nearby FUZ within East Auckland.[16] However, the calculation doesn’t include the additional development capacity enabled by Plan Change 78 through MDRS in the Howick Local Board.

48.    Approximately half of the Beachlands settlement comprises the earlier 1950s/1960s bach settlement with expansions in 1995 at Pine Harbour and Spinnaker Bay. The Formosa Golf Resort was consented in 1996 and included a convention centre and hotel with 50 visitor accommodation units which was beyond the original settlement. Plan changes in 2011 expanded the existing settlement further southwards towards the Formosa Golf Resort.

49.    The older established part of Beachlands adjoins the coast to the north and centres around a Neighbourhood Centre at Wakelin Road. Most recent expansion south occurred approximately 10 years ago and included a new centre at the intersection of Whitford-Maraetai Road and Beachlands Road which is zoned Business - Local Centre and includes a supermarket and a range of retail and commercial activities. There is a small area of light industrial land within the older part of the town on Third View Avenue close to the Neighbourhood Centre. Pine Harbour Marina also provides for a range of commercial activities including a café. There is a library and community hall within the older part of Beachlands, and a community centre at Spinnaker Bay. Beachlands Primary School is located centrally within the existing township.

50.    The request proposes a new Business - Local Centre within the precinct and a new mixed use/light industrial business area at the corner of Whitford-Maraetai Road and Jack Lachlan Drive. The size of the Local Centre is proposed to be approximately 2.5ha to provide an estimated 6,375m2 GFA retail and commercial services (including a metro supermarket) and 5,095m2 of office floorspace. An additional business area would provide for approximately 18,000m2 GFA of light industry and mixed use. Additional activities provided for include a conference centre, hotel, primary school and secondary school. Employment activities enabled within the precinct are anticipated to provide for a total of 960 jobs within the plan change area.

51.    A key issue to consider is the impact of the development that would be enabled by the private plan change on the existing character of Beachlands, which was once a seaside bach community that has more recently developed into a coastal township with a more suburban character. However, there are limited amenities and services within the township, with only a primary school and limited employment opportunities. There is no secondary school, with the closest secondary school being Howick, and only two small centres.

52.    Initial comments from the Council urban design and landscape design expert Rebecca Skidmore considers the private plan change request would fundamentally change the character of Beachlands, effectively moving the centre of the settlement to within the plan change area. However, Ms Skidmore notes that this does not necessarily represent a poor outcome as there would be both positive and negative impacts from growth. Increased growth would enable the establishment of a range of services, amenities and employment opportunities that are currently limited in the area, together with a critical mass and range of housing typologies to support these.

53.    Ms Skidmore identifies that there are a range of matters that require detailed consideration, particularly around how key outcomes described in the structure plan, masterplan and urban design and landscape analysis would be achieved. Overall, there are no fundamental urban design or landscape matters that would preclude further consideration of the request.

Water and wastewater

54.    Infrastructure servicing is a key issue because there is no capacity for water supply or wastewater at Beachlands. Existing Beachlands is served by the Beachlands-Maraetai Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is identified to have no capacity to service the proposed private plan change request and no existing plans for expansion. There is no public water supply, current supply is by tank or private bore.

55.    The proposed precinct provisions require that subdivision and development comply with Standard 1.7.4 Water Supply and Wastewater or it becomes a discretionary activity (Rules A11 and A24). Standard 1.7.4 requires that adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure must be provided at the time of subdivision and development. The precinct objectives and policies require subdivision and development to be coordinated with the provision of sufficient wastewater and water supply. As a discretionary activity an application for resource consent would need to be considered against all relevant objectives and policies in the AUP and could be declined.


 

Water supply

56.    A water supply technical report is provided in support of the private plan change request, which identifies that water supply would be provided by groundwater bores, including existing bores providing water to Pine Harbour Living Limited (PHLL) and Formosa Golf Resort. The applicant has an agreement with PHLL to supply water to Beachlands South and the existing Formosa bore water will be transferred from golf course purposes to water supply to service the plan change area. Additional potable water supply will be provided from bores on 620 Whitford Maraetai Road for both the live zoned and FUZ areas. At the time of development if there was no adequate water supply a building consent could not be issued.

57.    Resource consents are required to permit the new bores and to vary conditions of any existing permits. The applicant proposes to seek these during the processing of the plan change. The applicant does not have consents in place at this time.

58.    Demand for water supply to service the proposed live zone area is 1,424m3 per day, which will be provided by the existing bores and proposed new bores. Sufficient water supply is available from the existing bores for the first 8 years of anticipated development (250 dwellings per year) plus fire-fighting supply. A reservoir volume of approximately 4,500m3 would be required to provide 72 hours of storage. The FUZ area is calculated to have a demand of 482m3 – 563m3 per day, which will be met by the proposed new bores and a 2,000m3 reservoir for 72 hours storage. Water demand is anticipated by the applicant to be lower than calculated because the precinct requires that all new dwellings install rainwater harvesting tanks for non-potable water use and water efficient fixtures. However, this reduction is not factored into the calculated demand required for a water permit.

59.    Treatment of bore water is required to meet the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2021. Existing bores will need to be upgraded to treat additional capacity for live zone.

Wastewater

60.    Wastewater treatment is proposed to be provided through a private on-site treatment facility. The proposed system would reticulate wastewater through the plan change area via a Low-Pressure Sewer System and treat wastewater via a Membrane Bioreactor Plant (MBR Plant).

61.    The application indicates that the MBR Plant provides a high degree of contaminant removal and maintains a small footprint. A high-level assessment of wastewater disposal options has been undertaken determining several feasible options including:

         Disposal of treated wastewater to land within the FUZ combined with tertiary polishing wetland/pond on the golf course and disposal over the 9-hole golf course land (50ha of disposal fields plus 33-50% reserve disposal area).

         Tertiary polishing wetland at the head of the western gully and discharge to permanent stream in the western gully and subsequent discharge to the coastal marine area.

         Treating wastewater through an expanded Beachlands-Maraetai Wastewater Treatment Plant at 100 Okaroro Road may become a potential option in discussions with Watercare Services Ltd.

62.    The applicant proposes to fund water and wastewater requirements to service the plan change area and no public funding is required. Further consideration is required around the wastewater disposal options, including whether an upgrade to the Beachlands-Maraetai Wastewater Treatment Plan is feasible. Resource consents would be required for water and wastewater servicing.

63.    Initial comments from Watercare raise concerns about the certainty of wastewater solutions in terms of resource consenting and what if any implications there will be for Watercare. However, Watercare is satisfied at this coarse level of assessment that feasible options have been identified by the applicant and discussions are ongoing to determine what reliance if any will be on Watercare services and assets.

64.    Watercare is not concerned with water supply because any risk remains with the applicant if an adequate water supply cannot be provided. Subject to resource consents water supply options appear to be available at this coast level of assessment. 

Transport

65.    The request is supported by an Integrated Transport Assessment that identifies the current transport options for Beachlands offers limited bus services and walking and cycling, and Whitford-Maraetai Road is at or near capacity with existing road safety issues. The Pine Harbour Ferry terminal is within walking distance to the northern extent of the plan change area.

66.    Travel to and from Beachlands is predominantly by private vehicle along Whitford-Maraetai Road, a two-lane rural road with a poor safety record. A local bus service between Maraetai and Botany (hourly) with a journey time of 40 minutes, and the Pine Harbour to Downtown ferry service (20-minute intervals at peak times) with a journey time of 35 minutes. The Pine Harbour ferry is supported by a park and ride parking area and currently serviced by four vessels, two with a capacity of 50 passengers and two that can carry 99 passengers each.

67.    An Auckland Transport designation is in place for the Whitford Bypass and widening of Whitford-Maraetai Road to four-lanes, but there is no funding for either project identified in the Regional Land Transport Plan.  The private plan change applicant does not propose to provide any funding towards the Whitford Bypass and/or the widening of Whitford-Maraetai Road to four-lanes.

68.    Journey to work data (2018 Census) for Beachlands indicates that approximately 10% of all employees work from home, 80% travel by private vehicle, 6% travel by ferry, and less than 1% travel to work by bus.  Trips to education are more likely to use a bus (2% public bus, 23% school bus).  Trips for other purposes were not captured by the census.

69.    The 2018 Census data shows that three-quarters (74%) of employment for Beachlands residents is outside the area.  The most popular destinations for employment are shown below in Table 1.

Table 1 Census 2018 Employment Travel Destinations

Text

Description automatically generated

70.    Precinct provisions include thresholds for subdivision and development within the live zoned area to coordinate development with the provision of transport infrastructure. Development is therefore restricted until identified transport upgrades are implemented including specified intersection and increased ferry capacity during the two-hour peak period:

         No development can occur without first upgrading the Whitford Maraetai Road / Jack Lachlan Drive and Whitford Park Road / Whitford Road / Whitford Maraetai Road intersections;

         Additional capacity of 100 ferry passengers (600 total) is required when development exceeds 250 dwellings and 3,500m2 light industrial GFA;

         Additional capacity of 200 ferry passengers (700 total) and upgrade to the Whitford Park Road / Saleyard Road / Sandstone Road intersection is required for development of 551-820 dwellings, 3,501m2 – 5,700m2 light industrial GFA, and up to 1,100m2 commercial GFA;


 

         Additional capacity of 400 ferry passengers (900 total) and upgrade to Trig Road (South) intersection is required for development of 821 – 1,900 dwellings, 5,701m2 – 12,300m2 light industrial GFA, 401m2 - 2,100m2 retail GFA, and 1,101m2 – 3,300m2 commercial GFA;

         Additional capacity of 650 ferry passengers (1150 total) is required for development of 1,901 – 2,918 dwellings, 12,301m2 18,000m2 light industrial GFA, 2,101m2 – 5,700m2 retail GFA, and 3,301m2 – 5,100m2 commercial GFA.

71.    Initial comments from the Council’s transport expert Wes Edwards, identifies that the majority of the land to be rezoned by the private plan change area is located beyond a walkable distance (800m) of the ferry terminal, and a significant proportion of the land to be rezoned for high-density development is not located in an area with good public transport (Figure 4 below).

Figure 4 Walking isochrones overlaid with zoning pattern

72.    Mr Edwards identifies that the applicant’s transport assessment relies heavily on a large proportion of travel remaining within the Beachlands settlement, and on the proportion of travel carried by the ferry doubling to reduce the traffic on Whitford-Maraetai Road. Mr Edwards considers the transport assumptions to be overly optimistic about the internal capture and ferry transport assumptions resulting in the volume of traffic on the Whitford-Maraetai Road being significantly under-estimated.

73.    Several transport upgrades are identified by the applicant and included in the precinct, including intersection upgrades that are proposed to be funded by the applicant. However, Mr Edwards considers that due to the under-estimation of traffic volumes these upgrades may be insufficient to deal with all the adverse effects generated on the road network if the private plan change request were to be approved. Additional upgrades including widening of Whitford-Maraetai Road, implementation of the Whitford Bypass, and potentially others, are likely to be required as a result of developing the land as proposed. Comments from Auckland Transport also raises concerns around the underestimation of trips in the transport assessment and resulting implications on requirements for transport upgrades.

74.    Comments were sought from Auckland Transport to understand the costs of transport upgrades required to support the request. A coarse minimum ‘per kilometre’ upgrade figure was used by Auckland Transport to assess the cost of transport infrastructure required, identifying that this would be in the order of $200 million.

75.    The Council’s Section 32 for Plan Change 78 on the Infrastructure – Beachlands Transport Constraints Control Evaluation Report identified significant investment (including acquisition of private land) and major upgrades/improvement projects to the Whitford-Maraetai Road corridor would be required to accommodate potential growth from MDRS.[17] However, it is also noted that upgrades to Whitford-Maraetai Road and the Whiford Bypass Road have been identified as necessary to address existing safety issues for several years with existing designations in place, but the projects are not funded. Therefore, while upgrades to Whitford-Maraetai Road and the Whitford Bypass are not solely required in response to the request the increase in traffic within an already compromised traffic environment would require these projects to be implemented.

76.    Auckland Transport advise that to increase the ferry capacity would require new larger vessels, a new ferry terminal and dredging. Subject to detailed investigations, Auckland Transport anticipate costs of between $79-$87 million to increase the ferry service excluding operating costs and associated dredging or supporting local transport network upgrades. This estimate is made up of the following costs:

         a new ferry terminal is estimated to cost a minimum of $35 million.

         OPEX ferry service operations cost range between $2.5 and $4.0 million per annum (current prices). This would involve 15-minute frequency (peak times) and 30 minutes (off-peak).

         To operate the above service, 4 additional vessels will be required at a cost of $11 million.

77.    High level transport infrastructure upgrade costs provided by Auckland Transport are estimated to be up to $290 million dollars. The applicant’s draft funding plan proposes to contribute $75 million towards these upgrades. Additional contributions may be required as development contributions, but this will require projects to be identified in the Regional Land Transport Plan and Development Contributions Policy.

78.    There is a significant funding gap between the applicant’s draft funding plan ($75 million) and the estimated costs of transport upgrades ($290 million). Funding of necessary transport infrastructure upgrades is an issue that is not fully resolved by the request at this stage. Therefore, transport effects are a significant issue to be considered for this request including funding and implementation.

Options available to the council

79.    The next section of this report assesses the various options available to the council under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, when it is considering a private plan change request.

Option 1 – Reject the request, in whole or in part

80.    Council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, only in reliance on one (or more) of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. The Council does not have to reject the private plan change request if one (or more) of the limited grounds is present. The Council has a discretion as to whether (or not) it rejects a private plan change request if one (or more) of the grounds in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA are present.   If the private plan change request is rejected by the council, the applicant has the ability to appeal that decision to the Environment Court under clause 27 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.


 

81.    The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA are as follows:

a)   the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

b)   within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request:

i)        has been considered, and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or

ii)       has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

c)   the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

b)      the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

c)       in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

82.    Frivolous means not having any serious purpose or value. Vexatious means denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance.

83.    The objective of the plan change is to enable and facilitate the use of the land for residential purposes to support the growth of Beachlands. While the proposed growth is unanticipated, the request includes a section 32 evaluation report and accompanying specialist assessments on relevant matters which support the plan change request. Extensive analysis has been carried out to assess the adverse local effects of the plan change, and the proposal attempts to address these.

84.    The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request.

85.    It is therefore concluded that this ground of rejection is not available and the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.

Has the substance of the request been considered and been given effect, or rejected by the council within the last two years?

86.    These provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and the community. The AUP became operative in part on 15 November 2016 and the subject plan change area was zoned Rural - Countryside Living. The substance of the request has not been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council in the last two years.

87.    It is therefore concluded that this ground of rejection is not available and the council cannot reject the request on this basis.

Has the substance of the request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?

88.    Section 360A relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The plan change area is not within the coastal marine area and does not involve aquaculture activities, and therefore section 360A regulations are not relevant.

89.    It is therefore concluded that this ground of rejection is not available and the council cannot reject the request on the basis that the substance of the request has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A of the RMA.

Is the request not in accordance with sound resource management practice?

90.    The term ‘sound resource management practice’ is not defined in the RMA. However, relevant case law indicates Part 2 of the RMA provides an important starting point to developing criteria as to whether sound resource management practice has been followed. Other aspects are also relevant. The following matters may be relevant:

 

Will the plan change undermine sustainable management of natural and physical resources?

The plan change area adjoins the existing township of Beachlands and is partially within 800m of the Pine Harbour Ferry Terminal supporting opportunities for walking and cycling to public transport. The proposal includes provisions to achieve sustainable development outcomes including protected ecological corridors, coastal setbacks, water sensitive design, energy efficient and water efficient buildings. Further detailed assessment is required to test the information and determine the actual effects of the proposal. An assessment of environmental effects provided by the applicant indicates that any actual and potential adverse effects can be adequately mitigated. Therefore, at this coarse level of assessment there is insufficient evidence to determine that the plan change undermines sustainable management of natural and physical resources in the area.

Will the plan change enable people and communities across the region to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing?

If approved, the plan change request would provide additional housing to meet demand for housing in the Beachlands catchment. Provision is enabled for local employment of approximately 960 jobs, and it is anticipated that working-from-home may increase above the current 10% identified for Beachlands in 2018 due to the increased acceptance of remote working experienced since the start of the Covid-19 Pandemic, potentially reducing the need to commute for jobs. A new local centre and community area will provide additional services and amenities including social infrastructure such as schools that would support growth and provide for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the future population of the plan change area as well as the existing community.

Integrating urban development with the funding, financing and delivery of infrastructure is a fundamental element of good planning and ‘sound resource management’. It is therefore important to understand how the plan change request integrates with the provision of infrastructure. Water and wastewater services are intended to be funded and delivered by the applicant to service the proposed development. There is a need for the applicant to obtain resource consents, which the applicant intends to seek at the same time as the plan change is being considered by Council.  Consent applications have not yet been lodged and will need to be assessed against the Unitary Plan requirements. Further detailed assessment is required to understand the implications of water and wastewater servicing, but the options proposed appear to be feasible. Proposed upgrades by the applicant to the local road network address existing safety issues and increased ferry capacity would support an improved ferry service that would benefit the wider community. Some concerns remain with regard to the extent of transport upgrades required and whether the funding committed by the applicant will be sufficient. However, the precinct provisions seek to integrate urban development with infrastructure.

The existing character of Beachlands will fundamentally change but it is unclear whether this will be positive or negative overall, whether the additional growth could support economic growth and improve provision of social infrastructure including the ferry service, schools and other facilities. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are a partner to the development and have been involved in the development of a cultural landscape map to recognise and provide for cultural values. At a coarse level of assessment there is insufficient evidence to determine that the plan change would not enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.


 

 

Section 32 is another important aspect of sound practice is there sufficient justification of the proposed provisions, at a coarse level?

The applicant has provided a section 32 evaluation that assesses the options for achieving the objective of the plan change, determining that the MHU zone is the most appropriate zone for the area to be live zoned for residential, and that FUZ is the most appropriate zone for the remainder of the private plan change area. In addition, precinct provisions enable integrated development of a new residential community, while recognising the landscape and amenity values of the plan change area to achieve sustainable management. However, the section 32 evaluation does not consider all the infrastructure costs associated with increased transport demand. Further assessment is required to determine the full costs of infrastructure upgrades, which Auckland Transport have estimated to be approximately $290 million. At a coarse level this aspect of the private plan change may not be in accordance with sound resource management.  However, there remains a prospect that a funding solution can be found.

Plan change preparation process and the nature and extent of consultation expected under Schedule 1 is important. Has best practice been followed?

91.    The applicant has consulted with iwi and continues to engage with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki as a partner. A presentation was given to the Franklin Local Board outlining the proposal as well as the Plans and Places team. Consultation with Watercare and Auckland Transport is ongoing to resolve infrastructure issues, including the infrastructure upgrades required and the likely costs of these upgrades.

92.    In the 2019 Environment Court decision Orakei Point Trustee v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117, the Court stated:

“[13] What not in accordance with sound resource management practice means has been discussed by both the Environment Court and High Court in cases such as Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010), Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC)) and Kerikeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council (KeriKeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council, Decision No. A068/2009)

[14] Priestley J said in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95) that the words sound resource management practice should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the Act’s purpose and principles. He agreed with the Environment Court’s observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the Act’s purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95)

[15] Where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at para 22).”

93.    Consideration of this ground should involve a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request – “at a threshold level” – and take into account the RMA’s purpose and principles – noting that if the request is accepted or adopted, a full merits assessment will be undertaken if the request is accepted.


 

 

94.    The courts have also accepted that “sound resource management practice” can include issues of timing and process. For example, the Environment Court in Malory Corporation v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 stated:

“[60] We conclude that the question of sound resource management practice goes well beyond questions of planning merit to include fundamental issues as to appropriate process, timing and the like. It can include non-planning matters such as engineering, cultural, and other issues.”

95.    At a coarse level, some aspects of the private plan change including with regard to unfunded transport infrastructure may not be in accordance with sound resource management. There are no issues that relate to matters of national importance and regard has been had to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi through engagement with iwi. The key unresolved issues relate to the change in character, transport infrastructure funding to address the transport upgrades that are estimated by Auckland Transport to cost approximately $290 million, and climate change which are best considered as a merits based assessment through the plan change process.

96.    In the Orakei Point Trustee Limited decision, the Environment Court considered that where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change.

97.    Based on the above reasoning, while some aspects of the private plan change (including with regard to unfunded transport infrastructure) may not be in accordance with sound resource management, it is recommended that the Council exercise its discretion and that the plan change not be rejected on the grounds that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.

Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

98.    Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Regional and district plan provisions must give effect to the regional policy statement and higher order RMA documents, plus not be inconsistent with any (other) regional plan.

99.    The primary consideration in terms of Part 5 RMA is whether the request gives effect to the Regional Policy Statement component of the AUP, with a further consideration being the Auckland Plan. These are addressed in the following paragraphs.

Other considerations

100.  With respect to the remaining matters relevant to rural and coastal towns and villages under AUP RPS Policy B2.6.2(1) and (2):

a)   While residential in nature and therefore somewhat consistent with the existing character of Beachlands, the proposal will fundamentally change the area’s character in terms of scale. Further consideration is required to determine whether the proposal would enhance the character in accordance with this policy.

b)   The proposal incorporates adequate provision for infrastructure within the plan change area in terms of the indicative roading network and stormwater devices, and feasible water and wastewater options are identified including funding. However, further consideration is required on the transport upgrades that are necessary to accommodate the scale of development proposed through this private plan change request, acknowledging that there are transport infrastructure upgrades required for the wider roading network that are not currently funded.

c)   There are no significant natural hazard risks identified and any potential flooding and geotechnical issues can be resolved through resource consent processes.

d)   There are no elite soils and although prime soils are present the land is already zoned for Rural – Countryside Living so these soils are not significant for food production.

e)   The proposal seeks to maintain separation between incompatible land uses, by providing for buffer areas between proposed residential areas and rural land.

f)    Proposed precinct provisions ensure that landscape and amenity values are recognized and provide opportunities for enhancement compatible with natural and physical characteristics.

g)   Part of the plan change area is located within walking distance (800m) of the ferry terminal and along with the local centre an integrated network of walking and cycling is proposed; and

h)   The proposed expansion is not on land scheduled in the AUP in relation to natural heritage, Mana Whenua, coastal environment, historic heritage or special character.

101.  For the purposes of a Clause 25 assessment the plan change request is also not considered to be contrary to:

a)   Other relevant RPS chapters of the AUP, particularly the remainder of B2 Urban growth and form, B3.3. Transport, B7 Natural resources and B10 Environmental risk.

b)   The Auckland Plan 2050, which seeks that residential growth in rural areas is contained within rural towns and villages. The request seeks to provide for residential growth on the periphery of an existing rural town.

102.  On a coarse merits assessment it is not considered that the plan change request will make the plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

103.  It is therefore recommended that this ground of rejection is not available and the private plan change request should not be rejected on this ground.

Has the plan to which the request relates been operative for less than two years?

104.  The plan provisions of the AUP relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years.

105.  It is therefore recommended that this ground of rejection is not available and the private plan change request should not be rejected on this ground.

Option 2 – Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part

106.  Council can decide to accept the request in whole, or in part. If accepted, the plan change cannot have legal effect until it is operative. It is recommended that the private plan change request should be accepted in whole.  As outlined above, while there may be one ground of rejection available (not in accordance with sound resource management practice), it is recommended that the Council exercise its discretion and not reject the private plan change request in reliance on that ground.

107.  There is not a demonstrable need for any rule proposed by the plan change to have immediate legal effect, and therefore adoption of the private plan change request is not recommended (and it is noted that the Private Plan Change applicant has not sought this either).

108.  The private plan change mechanism is an opportunity for an applicant to have their proposal considered between a council’s ten-yearly plan review cycle. The subject matter of this private plan change request is not a priority matter for a council-led planning investigation and is not presently being considered. The private plan change process is a means by which this matter can be considered before the next plan review.

 

 

 

109.  If the private plan change is accepted the matters raised in this report can be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process.

110.  The applicant did not request that council adopt the private plan change request.

Option 3: Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council itself

111.  Council can decide to adopt the request, or part of the request. Council would then process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change. If the council adopted the request, or part of the request, it would not be able to significantly modify the plan change (as that would mean that the plan change council advanced was no longer the plan change which it adopted). Adoption of the PPC request would also likely constrain the Council’s ability to lodge substantive submissions. The applicant has not requested that council adopt the private plan change request.

112.  The plan change does not include any proposed rule that would protect, or relate to, any natural or historical resource specified in section 86B.  The private plan change is unrelated to aquaculture activities.  It is therefore unnecessary to adopt the private plan change request to enable a rule to have immediate legal effect.

113.  The request does not address a gap in the AUP, introduce a new policy direction, nor does the private plan change have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region.

114.  Council meets all costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted.  Council should not carry these costs if the request is primarily of direct benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public. The request is a site-specific proposal and does not relate to the provision or development of public land. The most immediate or direct benefit, if any, is to the applicant.

115.  Additional growth at Beachlands is not identified in the Auckland Plan – Development Strategy. Although the Auckland Plan provides for some growth in rural towns, the proposed development has not previously been identified and is therefore not anticipated within strategic infrastructure planning and funding.

116.  It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request is not adopted for the following reasons:

a)   the request does not address a gap in the AUP or change provisions that apply across the Auckland region; and

b)   the request is a site-specific proposal that is likely to be of most immediate or direct benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public.

c)   the request is unanticipated growth and the full infrastructure necessary to support the development is not funded.

Option 4 – Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

117.  The council may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent.

118.  The plan change request seeks to establish urban zonings over land that is currently zoned Rural – Countryside Living in the AUP. It is more appropriate to consider changes of this nature through a private plan change than through an application for resource consent.

119.  Therefore, it is recommended that the private plan change request not be dealt with as if it were an application for a resource consent.

Conclusion: options assessment

120.  The private plan change request has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include clause 25 of Schedule 1 matters, having particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation, and case law[18] that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted in whole under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

121.  Council declared a climate emergency in Auckland, in June 2019.  The decision included a commitment for all council decision-makers to consider the climate implications of their decisions. In particular, consideration needs to be given to:

a)   how the proposed decision will impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the approach to reduce emissions;

b)   what effect climate change could have over the lifetime of a proposed decision and how these effects are being taken into account.

122.  It is noted that the decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself. 

123.  The request, if subsequently approved or approved with modifications, would provide for approximately 3800 dwellings across the proposed “live” zone and FUZ - more than doubling the existing population of Beachlands. The township has limited public transport and services with no secondary school and limited employment opportunities. Travel to work data identifies that in 2018 approximately 78% of employees leave Beachlands for work.

124.  A sustainability strategy is provided in support of the request, identifying six key focus areas including “Low-carbon development” and “Transport – modal shift and healthy streets”.  The strategy for a low-carbon development includes reduced embodied and operational energy for buildings and infrastructure, and sequestration through native planting. Locating higher density housing close to centres and public transport, along with connected walking and cycling network within the precinct are proposed to support modal shift. The request provides opportunities for an additional primary school and a new secondary school, as well as providing for approximately 960 jobs reducing the need to travel outside the area.

125.  Other initiatives identified in the sustainability strategy include supporting car-share schemes and producing a Travel Management Plan to achieve modal shift. However, these are not included in the precinct.

126.  A key element of the proposed low-carbon development is the modal shift, and the applicant supports the enhancement of the existing ferry service (capacity and frequency), including the identification of development thresholds associated with upgrades to the ferry service. However, the applicant is only proposing to contribute towards upgrades to the ferry capacity, leaving some uncertainty as to whether required upgrades to the ferry infrastructure can be implemented to support increased capacity.

127.  As outlined above, in 2018 only 6% of trips to work were by ferry with most people travelling to East Auckland employment areas by private vehicles. The applicant’s transport assessment anticipates an increased ferry service could double ferry patronage to around 13%. It is noted that Mr Edwards considers the transport assessment to be very optimistic about the internal capture of trips and ferry transport assumptions. The coarse assessment of transport effects of Mr Edwards indicates that the applicant’s assessment appears to underestimate the number of trips by private vehicles. Therefore, the proposal is anticipated to remain heavily reliant on private vehicles which would increase Vehicle Kilometres Travelled and could increase greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

128.  If accepted for processing, climate impacts can be considered in the future hearing report on the request. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (whether it encourages car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding and stress on infrastructure).

129.  At this coarse level of assessment, it is not possible to determine whether there would be a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but it is anticipated that an ongoing reliance on private vehicles would have an impact on council’s goals to reduce Vehicle Kilometres Travelled and greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

130.  The relevant departments within council have been consulted to confirm that the applicant has provided sufficient information under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. Specific feedback has been sought from Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited in relation to infrastructure requirements and risks.

131.  The applicant has consulted with Watercare at a high level and discussions are ongoing. Watercare advises that although there is some concern about lack of certainty in regard to which wastewater solution will be preferred and therefore what implications this will have for Watercare, several feasible options have been developed. Water supply will be the responsibility of the applicant because Watercare has no water supply services at Beachlands. Watercare has indicated that they are likely to make a submission on the plan change if it is accepted.

132.  The applicant has consulted with Auckland Transport and been advised by way of correspondence that Auckland Transport has significant concerns with the private plan change request. Auckland Transport notes that Beachlands South is not identified for future growth and as such, no planning for transport requirements or investment in transport infrastructure at a local or regional scale has been undertaken.  There are no projects identified in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2022-2031, nor are there any identified in the Council’s Development Contributions Policy to support proposed growth. Auckland Transport identifies significant transport network constrains that require addressing, including the local and wider road network and public transport, such as ferry services, facilities and feeder bus services. Auckland Transport has indicated that they are likely to make a submission on the plan change if it is accepted.

133.  A representative of Parks, Services and Recreation has reviewed the application for completeness and sufficiency of information. The initial assessment of the proposal raised concerns regarding the overprovision of parks and that the proposal is not consistent with the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 in terms of open space provision metrics. The proposed sports park is unlikely to be supported for acquisition due to the proximity of existing active recreation provision at Beachlands Domain and Te Puru Park – council sports field, and sports and active recreation. However, these issues can be considered through a merits assessment if the plan change is accepted.

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

Local impacts and local board views

134.  Local board views have not been sought on the options to reject, accept, adopt or deal with the private plan change request as a resource consent application.  Although council is required to consider local board views prior to making a regulatory decision, that requirement applies when the decision affects, or may affect, the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.  The clause 25 decision does not affect the Franklin Local Board’s responsibilities or operation, nor the well-being of local communities.

135.  If accepted, staff will prepare the private plan change for public notification for submissions, they will prepare and publicly notify a summary of any submissions received and provide the opportunity for the local board to give feedback on the private plan change at that point. Any feedback received must be taken into account by the independent hearing commissions appointed to hear and make the council’s decision on whether to approve, approve with modifications, or decline the private plan change under clause 29 of Schedule 1.

136.  It is noted that the applicant made a detailed presentation to the Franklin Local Board on 29 October 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

137.  An applicant should engage with iwi authorities in preparing a private plan change request, as a matter of best practice. It is also best practice for an applicant to document changes to the private plan change request and/or supporting technical information arising from iwi engagement.

138.  The applicant advises that a letter was sent to the mana whenua (10) with registered interest over the plan change area requesting whether they wish to engage in the project or defer to others, noting that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have been engaged as a development partner. No response from other iwi groups had been received at the time of lodgement. The following mana whenua are identified in the request as being consulted:

·    Ngāti Maru

·    Ngāti Pāoa Iwi Trust

·    Ngāti Tamatera

·    Ngāti Te Ata

·    Ngāti Whanaunga

·    Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

·    Te Ākitai Waiohua

·    Waikato Tainui

·    Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

139.  On 28 June 2018 the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill passed and came into force on 5 July 2018. The land is not subject to an existing Iwi Management Plan, but the applicant has considered the Iwi Management Plan prepared by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki for the Waikopua Catchment south of the plan change.

140.  The applicant advises that they will continue to engage with representatives from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki on an ongoing basis throughout the development of the plan change. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki provided a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) in relation to the plan change area and the applicant advises that a number of recommendations have been included in the proposal.

141.  The precinct includes a cultural landscape plan identifying key areas of spiritual connection, outlook and views, as well as a pā site. Although the pā site is located in the FUZ and would not be “live” zoned at this stage, the precinct includes standards that aim to limit development within the pā site by requiring resource consent as a discretionary activity.

142.  None of the clause 25 options trigger any signed mana whakahono a rohe (iwi participation arrangement). 

143.  The proposed plan change does not relate to Māori land or Treaty Settlement Land, nor does it relate to any identified Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua within the Auckland Unitary Plan.

144.  If council accepts a private plan change request, it is not required to complete pre-notification engagement with iwi authorities.  If the Council accepts the request and subsequently notifies it, iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

145.  The applicant has committed to funding the infrastructure required within the plan change area to service the plan change area including new stormwater, water and wastewater infrastructure, along with upgrades to several road intersections adjacent to the plan change area and within the wider network at Whitford. A total of $75 million is identified in the draft funding plan towards transport upgrades including, a contribution of $16 million towards increasing the ferry service.

146.  It is noted that the Beachlands South Limited Partnership includes the Guardians of the New Zealand Superfund which will be a long term investor contributing to funding the development if approved.

147.  Auckland Transport indicates that costs to increase the ferry service would be in the order of $79-$87 million as discussed above. Auckland Transport also identify an additional estimate of $200 million for roading upgrades to widen Whitford-Maraetai Road to four-lanes and construct the Whitford Bypass Road to address existing safety issues. The applicant is aware of these additional costs but has not committed any additional funding at this stage.

148.  As discussed above, the upgrades to Whitford-Maraetai Road and construction of the Whitford Bypass Road are not solely required because of the request but would trigger the need for them to be implemented. It is unclear how the projects would be funded and to what extent development contributions or additional funding from the applicant would be sufficient. 

149.  Auckland Transport currently has no plans to increase the ferry service at Pine Harbour and therefore no funding is available. Although the applicant is proposing to contribute towards the upgrade of the ferry service significant public funding would be required to fully implement the scale of upgrade required to support the plan change.

150.  Should the development go ahead without these matters being resolved, this could put pressure on funding for other development areas.

151.  If accepted for processing, costs for processing the private plan change will be recoverable from the applicant up until any appeals to the Environment Court.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

152.  The key risk associated with accepting the private plan change relates to the lack of certainty around the funding for the necessary infrastructure. As previously noted, to avoid the significant adverse effects that can result from the lack of appropriate infrastructure, or funds having to be diverted from elsewhere,

153.  Another key risk associated with accepting the private plan change is this decision could be perceived as supporting the expansion of rural and coastal towns and villages not anticipated by the Auckland Plan. However, accepting the private plan change and publicly notifying it for submissions does not mean that the council will ultimately support it. It simply means that it is the most appropriate decision to make in response to the matters set out in clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

154.  The risk can be mitigated by a council submission on the issue of transport and infrastructure funding and other relevant aspects of the private plan change.

155.  Another risk associated with the recommendations made in this report is the potential for a judicial review by a third party. This risk is considered to be low and mitigated by the analysis provided in this report.

156.  There are legal risks in either accepting or rejecting the private plan change request. If the request is rejected, the requestor is highly likely to appeal the clause 25 (of Schedule 1 of the RMA) decision to the Environment Court.

157.  An applicant may appeal to the Environment Court a decision to:

a)   adopt the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)

b)   accept the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)

c)   reject the private plan change in whole or in part under clause 23(6)

d)   deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent.[19]

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

158.  The Council is required under clause 25(5) of Schedule 1 of the RMA to notify the person who made the request, within 10 working days, of its decision under clause 25 of Schedule 1, and the reasons for that decision, including the decision on notification.  If the plan change request is rejected, the private plan change applicant can appeal the Council’s decision within 15 working days of receiving the decision.

159.  If the Council accepts the private plan change request, the private plan change must be notified within four months of its acceptance. A separate evaluation and decision will be required regarding extent of notification.

160.  The views and preferences of the Franklin Local Board will be sought after submissions close for inclusion in the section 42A hearing report.

161.  Council will need to hold a hearing to consider submissions, and local board views, and a decision would then be made on the private plan change request.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Chloe Trenouth –Planning Consultant

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Updating membership of the Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) Governance and Oversight Group following the 2022 election

File No.: CP2022/16430

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To update the membership of the Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) Governance and Oversight Group following the 2022 local election.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      On 7 June 2022, the Governing Body (GB/2022/45) agreed to the Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) as part of Annual Budget 2022/2023, which provides 10 years of funding for climate action in Tāmaki Makaurau.

3.      The purpose of the CATR is to lay the foundation to increase funding for climate action to reduce emissions, enable further reductions in the future, and to prepare for the impacts of climate change, with an immediate focus on enhancing low carbon transport options and greening our neighbourhoods.

4.      The CATR programmes play an important role as an initial dedicated fund for climate action in Tāmaki Makaurau and its implementation and outcomes are expected to be of significant public interest. Given this, a high level of oversight and transparency, as well as mechanism for agreeing any significant changes to CATR programmes, is needed.

5.      When the Governing Body approved the CATR, it agreed that “a political governance and oversight group for the Climate Action Targeted Rate be established for the duration of the fund to provide direction in line with the purpose and principles of the targeted rate and to monitor and report on progress”.

6.      The governance and oversight group has responsibility for overseeing the overall CATR programme, providing direction on specific programmes and projects for CATR funding, reviewing and endorsing any significant changes to programmes, and reviewing overall programme delivery. The governance and oversight group needs to act in accordance with the purposes for which the rate was established.

7.      On 28 July 2022, the Governing Body agreed “the initial membership of the governance and oversight group to consist of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the Chairs of the Planning; Environment and Climate Change; and Finance and Performance Committees and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, and that membership is updated consistent with any changes to the committee structure following the 2022 local government elections.” (Recommendation C of GB/2022/68).  The report establishing the governance and oversight group can be found here.

8.      The first governance and oversight group meeting was held on 5 September 2022. A number of recommendations were sought from the members including the CATR governance structure and responsibilities and programme delivery plans for the urban ngahere and Auckland Transport programmes funded by the CATR. All recommendations were endorsed by the group (resolution number CATRG/2022/2).

9.      Now that the committee structure for the term has been established it is timely to update the membership of the CATR governance and oversight group.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve updated membership of the CATR governance and oversight group to consist of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nick McKenna - Programme Manager - Climate Action

Authorisers

Matthew Blaikie - Chief Sustainability Officer

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Allocation of the 2022/2023 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant

File No.: CP2022/16141

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To approve grant allocations for the 2022/2023 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant funding round.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant is a contestable grants programme designed to support the protection, restoration and enhancement of Auckland’s regionally significant natural heritage areas.

3.      The programme focuses on strategic regional initiatives that deliver on any of three outcome categories: conservation, healthy waters and kaitiakitanga. The grant framework (provided as Attachment A) describes the purpose of the grant programme and lists the criteria, exclusions and reporting requirements for the 2022/2023 grant round. Previously the grant outcomes included climate specific outcomes, however a separate climate grant was established in September 2022 (ECC/2022/80) and therefore these outcomes are no longer covered under this grant.

4.      The total budget available for allocation in the 2022/2023 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme funding round is $658,888, funded from a combination of general rates and the Natural Environment Targeted Rate.

5.      This year 56 applications were received for the 2022/2023 funding round requesting a total of $2,899,560.

6.      Staff assessed the applications against the fund’s key criteria: project impact on regional outcomes, connectivity, kaitiakitanga (contribution to Māori outcomes), applicant capacity, and value for money.

7.      Based on this assessment criteria, staff recommend that 47 applications are supported in this grant round fully allocating the $658,888 2022/2023 grants budget.

8.      The 47 applications recommended for approval were assessed by subject matter experts and reflect the full range of priority areas: kaitiakitanga (2), conservation (40), and healthy waters (5). Many applications fit into more than one priority area.

9.      All other high-scoring applications are recommended to be partially funded. The funding rationale is fully detailed in Attachment B.

10.    The recommended grants range in value from $900 to $40,000, with an average value of $14,019.

11.    Staff recommend that nine applications be declined due to the round being oversubscribed, these projects having comparatively lower contributions towards regionally significant outcomes and in the case of two applications; being better suited to other grant processes. 

12.    At the outset of the 2022/2023 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant multiyear applications were offered and 27 applications requested multiyear funding. However, due to council’s current financial situation and the review of all budgets, staff do not recommend allocating further multiyear funding at this time and have instead recommended one off grants.

13.    The committee could choose not to approve the grant allocation; however staff do not recommend this due to the reputational risk to the council and the multiple outcomes and investment that the grants leverage.

14.    If approved, staff will contact grant applicants to notify them of the outcome in December 2022.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve the grant allocations for the 2022/2023 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme funding round totalling $658,888 as listed below and detailed in Attachment B of the agenda report.

Applicant

Project title

Amount recommended

Tū Mai Taonga under the umbrella of Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust

Tū Mai Taonga

$40,000

Mahu West Pest Incorporated

Project Management / Community Coordination & Facilitation

$13,500

SCOW Incorporated

Project Weta

$10,395

Te Ara Hikoi Trust

Community coastal trapping network for the Southern Hauraki Gulf shoreline.

$24,686

Shorebirds Trust

Te Uri o Hau to exercise kaitiakitanga within their rohe

$12,500

Motutapu Restoration Trust

Weed Control in Motutapu Restoration Trust managed restoration areas

$25,000

Tony King-Turner under the umbrella of Hauraki Gulf Conservation Trust

Te Matuku /Awaawaroa Bay Forest Restoration Jones Project

$25,000

Tony King-Turner under the umbrella of the Hauraki Gulf Conservation Trust

Te Matuku /Awaawaroa Bay Forest Restoration Simoni /Minson Project

$10,000

Pest Free Coatesville

North West wildlink and core habitat protection

$20,000

Pest Free Kaipatiki Restoration Society

Pest Plant On-Ground Activation

$25,000

Muriwai Environmental Action Community Trust (MEACT)

Goldies Halo Pest Animal Control

$27,500

Kauri Rescue Trust

Kauri Rescue in the Auckland Region

$30,000

Kaipatiki Project Incorporated

Pekapeka-tou-roa Radio Tracking - North West Waitematā Harbour

$25,000

Windy Hill Rosalie Bay Catchment Trust

Windy Hill Sanctuary - Weed and Track Team

$30,000

South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network under the umbrella of Gecko NZ Trust

Neighbourhood Restoration and Urban Sanctuary Project

$20,000

Leigh Community Club Incorporated (Pest Free Leigh)

Pest Free Leigh - Rural Expansion project

$17,500

Motuora Restoration Society Incorporated

Restoration of Motuora

$12,500

Ōtara Waterways and Lake Trust

Ōtara Creek Tributary stream restoration project

$15,000

Waiheke Marine Project under the umbrella of Hauraki Gulf Conservation Trust

Waiheke Marine Project

$12,500

Kauwahaia Charitable Trust

Expanded and improved predator control at Te Henga.

$7,500

Ōtara Waterways and Lake Trust

Pest Free Urban South Schools Coordinator

$29,500

CUE Haven Community Trust

CUE Haven native forest restoration

$5,000

Motu Kaikoura Trust Board

Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Surveys

$15,000

RA and JB Maddock

Matai Kōkako Conservation Project

$10,000

Restore Hibiscus & Bays Incorporated

Predator control, weed control, and monitoring program

$7,500

Restore Hibiscus & Bays Incorporated

RHB Schools Liaison Advisor - schools and community groups project

$7,500

Friends of Okura Bush Society Incorporated

Stillwater to Weiti River Predator Free Programme

$10,000

Tuatara Aotearoa Group

The Taiao School

$10,000

Conservation Volunteers New Zealand

Ecological Enhancement of the Awaawaroa Wetland Reserve

$13,988

Ōtāhuhu College Board of Trustees

Ōtāhuhu College Mara Kai Development

$10,000

Waiheke Resources Trust

Love our Wetlands Waiheke

$12,500

Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust - Whitebait Connection

Tāmaki Makaurau Awa Enhancement Project

$12,500

Tread Lightly Charitable Trust

Tread Lightly Caravan 2023

$10,000

Friends of Oakley Creek Te Auaunga Incorporated

Oakley Creek – Te Auaunga Restoration Project

$5,000

The Forest Bridge Trust

Rat control in the Tawharanui Open Sanctuary buffer zone

$8,919

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Of New Zealand Inc

Pest Free Hibiscus Coast Project

$17,500

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Hauraki Islands Branch

Waiheke Ngāhere Taonga Project

$900

Pest Free Warkworth under the umbrella of the Royal Forest & Bird Society of New Zealand - Warkworth Branch

Pest Free Warkworth - Extension to Programme (Baiting)

$3,500

Awaawaroa Bay Limited

Weed Eradication Project

$6,000

Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society Incorporated

Pest Free Kaipātiki Teaching Garden Establishment

$2,500

Richard Parsons - Sustainable Waiuku

Waiuku Predator Control Centre Establishment - A Sustainable Waiuku Project.

$17,500

Matuku Reserve Trust Board

Taupuhipuhi - monitoring Mauri

$10,000

The Helping Paws Charitable Trust

Little Blue Penguin Rehabilitation Facility

$5,000

Whakaupoko West Franklin Landcare Group

New Technology Trap Library Initiative

$10,000

Aotea Great Barrier Environmental Trust

Oruawharo Medlands Ecovision Phase 2 Expansion

$5,000

Community Cat Coalition Incorporated

Community Cat De-Sexing Project

$5,000

Chifuyu Horikoshi

Kārearea Auckland Population Survey

$5,000

Horopaki

Context

15.    The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme was established in 2015 for the purpose of protecting, restoring, and enhancing Auckland’s regionally significant natural heritage areas and projects. Natural heritage areas include native forests, wetlands, rivers, dunes, scrub and estuaries, and native flora and fauna.

16.    The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme supports the implementation of the Auckland Plan, Auckland Council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy and the Regional Pest Management Plan. Outcomes from these plans supported by this grant programme are outlined in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Outcome areas and grant programme criteria for 2022/2023

17.    Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant projects need to meet at least one of the outcomes set out in the grant programme framework. These are grouped under three categories:

·        conservation

·        healthy waters

·        kaitiakitanga.

18.    The grant programme framework and the specifics of the fund criteria are attached to this report as Attachment A.

Funding available for the 2022/2023 financial year

19.    The budget available for allocation in the 2022/2023 grant round is $658,888 which is drawn from the Regional Natural Environment and Heritage Grant allocation funded by general rates, and the Natural Environment Targeted Rate. This excludes any multi-year funding allocations which were committed to in prior funding rounds.

Timing and promotion of the grant programme

20.    The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme has one annual funding round. In 2022/2023, applications opened on 4 July 2022 and closed on 24 August 2022. Applications were assessed by subject matter experts in September and October 2022.

21.    The grant was promoted through Auckland Council’s website and social media sites, the Infrastructure and Environmental Services mana whenua forum, pest liaison and biodiversity groups, community conservation networks and emails to environmental stakeholders and partners.

22.    Two online community workshop presentations were held during July and August 2022. The workshops provided a forum for applicants to seek support with the application process and request advice from council staff.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Applications were assessed using a three-stage process

23.    Applications were assessed against grant programme eligibility criteria and according to the outcomes of the fund. Subject matter experts for each of the categories assessed the applications against key criteria: project impact; project connectivity, applicant capacity, contribution towards Māori outcomes, and value for money. Any necessary additional information was obtained through email, phone conversations and site visits.

24.    A panel of subject matter experts considered all applications against the outcome areas and the assessment criteria. The weighting of assessment criteria is provided in Table 2 below. 

Table 1: Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant assessment criteria

Criteria

Weighting

Project impact

40

Project connectivity

20

Applicant capacity

20

Contribution towards Māori outcomes

10

Value for money

10

Total

100

25.    Applications that more closely align with programme outcomes are more likely to be funded, although other key criteria were also considered such as geographical distribution and ability for the project to be scaled up and or replicated across the region.

26.    Further detail of the assessment process is provided in Attachment B.

Recommendations for allocating funding

27.    It is recommended that 47 applications are supported with one off grants from the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme budget.

28.    If approved, the grant allocation will approve a total of $658,888 from the 2022/2023 grant budget.

29.    Due to the current financial climate, it is recommended that the multi-year projects seeking funding for future years are not considered in the current round with funding recommended for the 2022/2023 financial year only.

Rationale for funding decisions

30.    The grant framework provides for grants between $5,000 and $40,000 per annum, however there is provision to award smaller grants for projects that meet the criteria for regional significance, but only require moderate support. Funding for less than $5,000 is recommended for three projects in the 2022/2023 financial year.

31.    Given that the funding requested exceeds the budget available, staff have recommended that all high scoring applications with clear regional benefits are partially funded to enable a greater number of projects access to some level of funding. Staff have considered value for money, project budgets, ability to scale projects and access to other resources in these recommendations.

32.    Recommended grants range in value from $900 to $40,000, with an average grant value of $14,019.

33.    Staff recommend that nine applications be declined due to the round being oversubscribed, these projects having lower contributions towards regionally significant outcomes and some which are better suited to other funding mechanisms. The funding rationale and details of the projects which staff recommend be declined are provided in Attachment B.

Recommended projects are split across the grant outcomes

34.    The projects which are recommended for funding will achieve conservation, healthy waters and kaitiakitanga outcomes. Table 4 below shows the number of outcome areas which each project best aligns to, however many applications will meet multiple objectives. 

Table 2: Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant applications overview and funding recommendations

a)      Primary priority outcome

Number of projects with this primary outcome

2021/2022

2019/2020

2022/2023

Kaitiakitanga

4

1

2

Conservation

28

38

40

Healthy Waters

2

2

5

Sustainable living

14

8

-

Total

48

49

47

Recommended projects’ spread across the Auckland region

35.    Equitable distribution of grant allocations across the Auckland region was considered among other factors in the grant allocation recommendations. Some projects will primarily benefit one local board area while other projects occur in multiple board areas or have an Auckland-wide reach. Projects are recommended for funding in all local board areas. For information on which local board the projects are located, please see Attachment B.


 

Table 3: Geographic distribution of recommended applications

Local Board

Region

Number of recommended applications

Ōrākei

Central

13

Waitematā

Central

Great Barrier

Central

Waiheke

Central

Albert-Eden

Central

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Central

Puketāpapa

Central

Hibiscus & Bays

North

19

Upper Harbour

North

Kaipātiki 

North

Devonport-Takapuna

North

Māngere-Otāhuhu

South

7

Howick

South

Franklin

South

Manurewa

South

Papakura

South

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

South

Henderson-Massey

West

3

Waitākere Ranges

West

Whau

West

Rodney

West

Regional

 

5

Total

 

47

Project funding and resourcing is shared between applicants and the council

36.    A 50 per cent applicant contribution is encouraged for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant to ensure that the council grants continue to leverage private investment and funding from other providers.

37.    The applicant contribution can be financial, volunteer time or in-kind contributions. The total applicant contribution to environmental outcomes across all applications is $14,081,296.

38.    Following the assessment of project budgets and potential environmental outcomes, all applications were able to provide 50 percent or greater contributions to their proposed projects.

Options to not approve the grant recommendations

39.    Staff have considered the option for the committee to not approve the grant allocation. Staff do not recommend this option due to the existing public commitment for grant funding in 2022/2023 and that a reduction in funding to community organisations would reduce community capacity to continue delivering work which will improve biodiversity outcomes within the Auckland region.


 

40.    Grants to community organisations enable the council to achieve conservation goals at a lower financial cost and with higher community engagement than funding contractors to achieve the same ends. Each grant applicant contributes towards their project in volunteer time and in-kind funding from non-council funding sources.

41.    There is also a risk that without funding from grants such as the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants some community organisations may need to cease operations in the current financial climate. This could make it harder to engage community members in conservation work in the future.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

42.    Previously the grant outcomes for this grant included climate specific outcomes, however a separate climate grant was established in September 2022 (ECC/2022/80) and therefore these outcomes are no longer covered under this grant.

43.    However the improved health of native biodiversity through conservation projects supported by this grant will improve the resilience of Auckland’s indigenous ecosystems against the impacts of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44.    The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views on applications were not sought.

45.    Environmental Services administers the Regional Natural Environment and Heritage Grant. Subject matter expertise is sought from other departments, such as Healthy Waters, Parks and the Chief Sustainability Office, where relevant. 

46.    Some applications were also reviewed by a historic heritage subject matter expert, or an archaeological assessment was completed where necessary. This expertise was provided from within the council.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impact

47.    Equitable geographical distribution of grant allocations across different local board areas was considered among other factors by the moderation panel.

Local board views

48.    The Community Grants Policy provides for local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. Local boards may choose to fund local environmental projects and activities, some of which may complement the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa. Applicants to the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant list all previous grants they have received which is considered in funding allocations.

49.    Staff will distribute information on the outcome of this grant round to all relevant local boards, following the approval of the grant recommendations in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50.   This grant programme also aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to Kia ora Tāmaki Makaurau through delivering on the objective Kia ora te Taiao. These grants aim to invest in activities that contribute to Māori environmental outcomes and improve Māori wellbeing. This is achieved through providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori.

 

 

 

51.   Input from the Independent Māori Statutory Board informed the development of the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grants programme.

Applications under the kaitiakitanga category

52.    The Kaitiakitanga category of this grant programme supports projects or activities that align with, enable and empower mana whenua or mataawaka in the exercise of kaitiakitanga in Tāmaki Makaurau.

53.    Māori outcomes for all applications were assessed by a subject matter expert in Te Ao Māori and te taiao. The subject matter expert evaluated the extent to which the project empowered mana whenua as kaitiaki and how Te Ao Māori has been integrated into the project methodology and goals. Four applications were received in this category.

54.    A total of seven applications recommended for funding were identified during the assessment process as contributing positively towards Māori outcomes. Of the applications which were recommended for support, the projects with greatest contributions towards Māori outcomes are detailed in Table 6 below.

Table 4: Projects with significant contributions to Māori outcomes

Applicant

Project title

Contribution to Māori outcomes

Tū Mai Taonga under the umbrella of Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust

Tū Mai Taonga

The project is being led by the representative body of Mana Whenua on Aotea - the Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust. The trust’s goal is to restore taonga species to the island by eradicating pests through the continued employment of whanau and wider community members. As such, positive outcomes for Māori - socially and economically equitable, spiritually enriching and environmentally restorative are at the heart of the project’s kaupapa. As a Māori led, mana whenua owned project, Tū Mai Taonga is steeped in tikanga and aims to set an example for what it means to be Te Tiriti partners in the conservation space. The project area includes Te Paparahi and Maori landblocks.

 

Shorebirds Trust

Te Uri o Hau to exercise kaitiakitanga within their rohe

This project primarily involves mana whenua Te Uri o Hau to exercise kaitiakitanga in their rohe for the project of threatened shorebirds. Shorebirds Trust has a Memorandum of Understanding with Te Uri o Hau. Along with support from Auckland Council, Shorebirds Trust supported Te Uri o Hau to develop a Predator Control Strategic Plan. An outcome from the strategic plan has been for Te Uri o Hau to appoint a number of kaitiaki to undertake predator control. Shorebirds Trust has also helped with the predator control training of the kaitiaki. At present Te Uri o Hau kaitiaki are undertaking predator on their cultural redress maunga. Te Uri o Hau have aspirations to undertake extensive predator control within their rohe. This project, and others that Shorebird Trust and Te Uri o Hau are working together on, is to increase Te Uri o Hau kaitiaki capability.

 

Waiheke Marine Project under the umbrella of Hauraki Gulf Conservation Trust

Waiheke Marine Project (WMP)

The Waiheke Marine Project and the Waiheke Marine Project Regenerative Dive Programme is fully co-led with 50% of all dive trainees supported by the programme being mana whenua and even more being Māori. The Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust is a co-lead of the project and has prioritised the dive training as a direct activity that enables and empowers mana whenua and mataawaka in the exercise of kaitiakitanga around Tīkapa Moana. Half of all dive trainees supported are mana whenua and even more are Māori and the dive training is a direct activity that empowers mana whenua and mataawaka in the exercise of kaitiakitanga around Tīkapa Moana.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55.    The total amount available for allocation in the 2022/2023 funding round of the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants is $658,888. This is funded through the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant budget ($256,988) and augmented by the Natural Environment Targeted Rate budget ($361,900).

56.    Attachment B details the amounts recommended for funding from both the grant programme budget and the additional targeted rate funding.

57.    At the outset of the 2022/2023 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant multiyear applications were offered and 27 applications requested multiyear funding. However, due to council’s current financial situation staff do not recommend allocating multiyear funding at this time and have instead recommended one-off grants.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58.    A risk assessment has identified three risks associated with the grant allocation process which are all considered low risk. These are listed below along with the mitigations:

Table 5: Risks and mitigations

Risk

Risk assessment

Considerations and mitigations

Perceived inequity in grant allocation

Low

Applicants may query the grant allocation process and feel it has been inconsistent or unfair. This risk is mitigated through the thorough and transparent evaluation and assessment process, carried out in accordance with the grant framework.

Projects unable to be completed due to unforeseen circumstances

Low

This risk is mitigated through the application assessment which has included consideration of alternative delivery options where required.  In the event of project disruption, council staff will work with grant recipients to agree alternative delivery plans or extended project timeframes. 

Grant applicants do not use grant funds appropriately to fulfil the conditions of their grant or deliver the outcomes desired by the council

Low

This risk is mitigated through the initial assessment, which included evaluation of the capacity of applicants and their track record, and requirements for detailed reporting on outcomes of all applications. Grant recipients are required to account for use of allocated funds and the council can request the return of any funds not used in line with the approved grant purpose.

59.    Staff will maintain regular contact with grant recipients during project implementation to follow up on progress and make sure any risks of individual projects are properly addressed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

60.    Once approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practicable. Successful applicants will have one to three years to complete the proposed project work.

61.    At the end of the grant term recipients will be required to complete an accountability report on what has been achieved through their projects. Accountability reports provide detailed information about different aspects of the project, including receipts to show expenditure, photos and videos and are reviewed by subject matter experts against prespecified metrics.

62.    Unsuccessful applicants will be issued with a decline letter as soon as practicable. These applicants will also be offered the opportunity to work with council staff on applications for future funding rounds or other opportunities for funding.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants programme framework 2022-2023

 

b

Grant allocation table

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Eirin Peterfreund - Senior Grants Advisor

Pierre Fourie - Principal Grants Advisor & Incentives Team Leader

Authorisers

Rachel Kelleher – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2022/2023

File No.: CP2022/16158

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To provide an update regarding grant recommendations for the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2022/2023 funding round.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund is a contestable grants scheme established as a key initiative of Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 (the Waste Plan 2018).

3.      The fund supports initiatives that will help achieve the vision, targets and strategic objectives of the Waste Plan 2018, including waste minimisation and the diversion of waste from landfill in Auckland.

4.      This fund has been established to disburse a portion of the funds allocated to Auckland Council from the national waste levy (currently set at $20 per tonne for municipal waste).

5.      The fund focuses on seed-funding new waste minimisation activities. Funding is allocated across four key outcome areas:

·        resource recovery initiatives and facilities

·        commercial waste

·        organic waste

·        community action and behaviour change.

6.      In the 2022/2023 funding round a total of $581,025 is available to distribute, of which:

·        $67,860 is available to distribute to small grants ($5,000 and under), with decision-making delegated to the General Manager Waste Solutions

·        $513,165 is available to distribute to medium and large grants (over $5,000), with decision-making allocated to the Governing Body through the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

7.      This year, the grant programme received 76 applications, requesting over $2.1 million in total. Ten were for small grants, and 66 for medium and large grants. Four applications from the medium and large grant category and one application from the small grant category were ineligible due to misalignment with the fund criteria and objectives.

8.      All applications were checked for eligibility, before being assessed and scored by a panel of council staff with expertise in waste minimisation and innovation. Assessments were undertaken in line with the funding criteria, including strategic alignment, Māori outcomes, potential for waste minimisation, community participation, value for money, and quality of the proposal (see WMIF fund guidelines).

9.      To improve Māori outcomes achieved by the fund, there is a separate Māori outcomes assessment criterion with a 10 per cent weighting. There is also a target of 15 per cent of the fund to be awarded to projects which deliver specific Māori outcomes by Māori for Māori. This will help ensure effective participation and encourage applications from mana whenua and mataawaka organisations.

 

 

 

10.    Staff recommend that 19 of the medium and large grant applications are supported with funds from the 2022/2023 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund budget for a total value of $509,997, of which $76,460 is recommended for applications submitted by Māori organisations. The recommended projects will deliver on all four key outcome areas of the fund.

11.    The recommendations for the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2022/2023 funding round will be presented for decision-making in the confidential section of this meeting as the report contains sensitive information about some commercial applications that should not be released to competitors.

12.    If the recommendations are approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions in December 2022. All projects are to be undertaken within calendar year 2023. Applicants are required to report back to the waste solutions department at the end of their project, submitting an accountability report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the information contained in this report on allocation of funds to medium and large (over $5,000) grant applications for the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2022/2023 funding round

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that allocations for the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2022/2023 funding round will be presented for decision-making in the confidential section of this meeting.

 

Horopaki

Context

13.    The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund was established as one of the key initiatives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan to support waste minimisation initiatives using a portion of the funds allocated to Auckland Council from the national waste levy. The fund is primarily intended to provide seed-funding to encourage and enable creative reuse and recovery as well as generate economic opportunities.

14.    Half of the total revenue generated from the national waste levy (currently set at $20 per tonne for Class 1 landfills and $10-$20 per tonne for the other classes) is allocated to territorial authorities on a population basis. This money must be spent on promoting or achieving waste minimisation as set out in local authorities’ waste management and minimisation plans.

15.    The Auckland Council Waste Plan 2018 sets out the purpose of the fund, which is summarised as follows:

·        promote or achieve waste management and minimisation

·        reduce waste to landfill in accordance with the objectives of the plan

·        foster new ideas and encourage community participation in reducing waste to landfill.

16.    The fund aims to target priority waste streams, reduce harm to the environment and improve efficiency of resource use by supporting new initiatives which complement and enhance existing programmes or address gaps. Funding is allocated through four outcome areas as shown in Table 1 below.


 

Table 1. Outcome areas targeted through the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

Outcome area

Background

Resource recovery initiatives and facilities

Development of a regional resource recovery network is a priority for Auckland’s long-term aim to achieve zero waste by 2040. The network will provide infrastructure that supports maximum resource recovery, as well as providing local business and employment opportunities. A specific focus is the development of community and business operated resource recovery facilities.

Commercial waste

Supporting business waste minimisation is a key initiative of the Waste Plan 2018. The long-term target of this plan is to reduce total waste to landfill by 30 per cent by 2027. As commercial waste (waste not controlled by the council) makes up 83 per cent of all waste sent to landfill in Auckland, supporting business waste minimisation is a priority. The council is seeking ways to encourage development of innovative solutions for commercial waste, particularly construction and demolition waste (such as concrete, timber, plasterboard, and insulation materials).

Organic waste

Organic waste (food waste and green waste) makes up about 50 per cent (by weight) of domestic waste sent to landfill. Reducing organic waste is a priority for achieving Auckland’s zero waste goal. Auckland Council have started to introduce a kerbside collection of food scraps for households in urban areas. Initiatives that complement this service or enable local composting are eligible for funding. Projects could look at reducing domestic and commercial green waste to landfill like community gardens, through composting or mulching, or innovative ways to process organic waste.

Community action and behaviour change

Fostering new ideas and encouraging community participation in reducing waste to landfill is a key direction of the waste plan and a priority in the lead up to introducing fortnightly collections for refuse across the region once the food scraps collection has been introduced. Building community capacity for waste minimisation will be important in ensuring all Aucklanders have access to the information, education and support they need to reduce the amount of waste they send to landfill. The aim is to create enduring change in community behaviour and attitudes towards waste.

Grant programme budget and funding available for 2022/2023

17.    The fund has an annual budget of $500,000, with $450,000 allocated to medium and large projects and $50,000 allocated to small grants in a single funding round (see Table 2).

18.    If funds are not fully allocated in one year, they are carried forward into the next funding round. Unspent allocations can also be returned to the budget if no longer required by the grant recipient.


 

Table 2. Sub-categories for allocating grant funding

Category

Grant range

Application period each financial year

Funding available 2022/2023

Small projects

From $1,000 - $5,000

August

$67,860

Medium projects

From $5001 - $25,000

August

$513,165

Large projects

From $25,001 - $50,000

August

19.    In the 2022/2023 funding round, unallocated or returned funding from previous financial years totalling $162,051 was carried forward and added to the budget for this funding round. Of this, $17,860 is available for small grants, and the remaining $63,165 is available for medium and large grants.

20.    The total amount of funding available for distribution for the 2022/2023 funding round is $67,860 for small grants and $513,165 for medium and large grants.

21.    The fund has a minimum threshold of $1,000, and a maximum threshold of $50,000. Applications requesting funding of more than $50,000 in a single year period are considered on merit at the discretion of subject matter experts and council staff.

22.    Decision-making for recommendations of up to $5,000 is delegated to the General Manager Waste Solutions, with decision making for recommendations of over $5,000 allocated to the Governing Body.

Applicants are required to match 50 per cent of the funding

23.    A minimum 50 per cent contribution towards the projects is required from applicants. This can be achieved through additional funding from their own or other resources, or time-in-kind.

24.    Private investment and funding from other providers are encouraged and considered favourably by the assessment team.

Timing and promotion of the grant programme

25.    The 2022/2023 funding round was promoted via several avenues, including:

·      local boards

·      internal council networks including the Waste Solutions, Sustainability Initiatives, Community Empowerment Unit and Grants teams

·      Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund contact database

·      media releases to newspapers, including articles in OurAuckland

·      Facebook ads

·      digital screens in Auckland Council service centres, libraries and buildings.

26.    In addition to the standard promotion listed above, in July 2022 three online workshop presentations were held where applicants could be supported through the application process and request advice from council staff.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Grant applications were assessed using a three-stage process

27.    Applications were assessed through a three-stage process as follows:

i.        All funding applications were assessed for eligibility against the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund guidelines

ii.       Feedback was requested from subject matter experts and council staff on all eligible funding applications. The Māori outcomes specialist assessed and scored the relevant applications against the Māori outcomes criteria. Their assessments and scores were taken through to the panel meetings but were not further modified by the panel. The Māori outcomes scores were given a 10 per cent weighting and contributed directly to the overall weighted score of each application.

iii.      Applications were then assessed by a panel comprised of council subject matter experts, who scored each application against the assessment criteria, focusing on the:

·     project’s strategic alignment with the waste plan

·     potential for waste minimisation

·     community participation and/or benefit

·     value for investment

·     quality of proposal.

28.    The initial scores were moderated by panel members before the panel agreed upon final funding recommendations for the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee’s consideration.

The grant programme received 76 applications across all four priority outcome areas

29.    The grant programme received 76 applications, requesting over $2.1 million in total. Seven applications were for small grants, and 69 applications requested medium and large grants. Four applications from the medium and large grant category and one application from the small grant category were ineligible due to misalignment with the fund criteria and objectives. Three medium applications are recommended for small grant funding, bringing the total number of small grant funding recommendations to 10.

30.    Applications were received from a range of organisation types with the majority received from businesses, charitable organisations, schools or educational institutions and social enterprises, as shown in Figure 1 below. 

Chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Applications received by organisation type

31.    Applications were spread across all four priority outcome areas (resource recovery initiatives and facilities, commercial waste, organic waste, and community action and behaviour change). Applications generally aimed to deliver on more than one of the four outcome areas. Refer to Figure 2 below for applications received by outcome areas.

32.    There was a strong focus on projects that influenced community action and behaviour change and reduced commercial waste.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 2. Applications received by outcome area

33.    Grant requests ranged from $1,030 to $50,000 in value, with an average of $25,533 being requested.

Recommendations and rationale for allocating funding

34.    The funding recommendations included in this report have been developed in line with the fund guidelines, priorities and agreed funding principles.

Medium and large grant category

35.    Staff recommend that 19 applications from the medium and large grant category, totalling $509,997 are supported from the fund’s medium and large grants category budget for the 2022/2023 funding round.

36.    A total of $76,460 is recommended for applications submitted by Māori organisations. This equates to 15 per cent of the funds available for medium and large projects or 14 per cent of the total available funds for the 2022/2023 funding round. This is an increase from the previous grant round.

37.    Applications which are recommended for funding scored highly against the assessment criteria, as well as showing:

·        capability of the applicant to deliver the project outcomes

·        budget feasibility, including applicant investment and funding requested

·        demonstration of financial and operational project sustainability

·        ability to scale or replicate the project

·        use of best practice methods

·        project continuance and benefit should partial funding be granted.

38.    Of all medium and large applications received, 43 applications are recommended to be declined for reasons such as:

·        low contribution towards funding outcomes

·        not significantly meeting funding criteria

·        budget limitations.

39.    Four applications from the medium and large grant category were ineligible from this grant round due to misalignment with the fund criteria and objectives. The unallocated funding of $3,167 will be carried forward from the medium and large grants category budget to the 2023/2024 funding round.

Small grant category

40.    A total of seven applications from the small grant category requesting up to $5,000 were recommended for funding for a total of $26,625 out of which three applications were moved from the medium grant category to the small grant category due to change in funding allocation. The decision-making on these is delegated to the General Manager Waste Solutions.

 

 

41.    Two applications for the small grant category were recommended to be declined and one application was ineligible due to misalignment with the fund criteria and objectives and one application was withdrawn by the applicant. The unallocated funding of $41,235 will be carried forward from the small grant category budget to the 2023/2024 funding round.

42.    Table 3 below shows the number and total value of applications received, declined and recommended for funding since 2019/2020.

Table 3. Summary of funding available and allocations from 2019/2020 to 2022/2023

 

2019/2020

2020/2021

2021/2022

2022/2023

Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Budget

$484,130

$649,770

$551,770

$581,025

Number of applications received

84

115

80

76

Total value of grants requested (including multi-year requests)

$2,347,380

 

$3,163,920

 

$1,847,280

$2,148,248

Number of medium and large applications recommended for funding

20 applications recommended for funding, no multi-year

41 declined

24 applications recommended for funding, no multi-year

59 declined

2 withdrawn

21 applications recommended for funding.

39 declined

2 ineligible

19 applications recommended for funding.

43 declined

4 ineligible

Number of small applications recommended for funding

13 applications recommended for funding

7 declined

3 withdrawn

27 applications recommended for funding

3 declined

 

11 applications recommended for funding

5 declined

1 ineligible

1 withdrawn

7 applications recommended for funding

2 declined

1 ineligible

 

Value of grant allocation for medium and large applications

Range: $5,190 to $50,000

Average grant: $22,500

Range: $7,350 to $50,000

Average grant: $23,990

Range: $8,710 to $50,000

Average grant: $23,390

Range $7,075 to $50,000

Average grant

$25,533

43.    More detail on the allocation of grant funding will be discussed in the confidential section of the 8 December 2022 Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44.    One of the key criteria for allocation of funding under the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund is the potential for a project to divert waste from landfill. The diversion of waste from landfill contributes to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through reducing the largest source category for the waste sector – solid waste disposal.

45.    Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan sets out a path for the region to achieve its climate goals and respond to our changing climate. Projects funded through the fund will contribute to the following actions:

·        Action B7: Develop and support initiatives to minimise construction and demolition waste.

o   three projects that focus on minimising construction and demolition waste are recommended for funding in this grant round. The projects mainly focus on reuse and repurposing of material as well as creating a better understanding of barriers and opportunities for waste minimisation in order to develop tools and guidelines for the wider construction industry. Construction and demolition projects also help drive demand for recovered materials by diverting them from landfill or cleanfill, helping to create a circular economy.

·        Action E6. Manage our resources to deliver a zero waste, circular economy:

o   two projects which contribute to a circular economy by encouraging re-use and restoration of products and materials are recommended for funding. By reusing materials, these projects will reduce emissions from waste in landfill and preserve embedded carbon by extending the lifecycle of such materials.

·        Action F3. Prevent and reduce waste and maximise the value of surplus food:

o   eleven projects that rescue food and divert food scraps from landfill are recommended for funding in this grant round. Food scraps and organic materials release methane when they degrade in the anaerobic environment of a landfill. The diversion of these specific materials will further reduce methane emissions.

46.    More detail on climate impacts will be discussed in the confidential section of the 8 December 2022 Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47.    All applications have had input from a subject matter expert from relevant departments, according to the project outcome areas and scoring guidelines. All applications were also reviewed by a resource consent expert and recommendations were provided to ensure the proposed projects do not require any consents.

48.    The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views on applications were not sought.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49.    Local boards have a strong interest in waste minimisation and play a key role in promoting the fund to their networks and communities. This is reflected in the relatively even spread of funded projects across the region.

50.    The Community Grants Policy provides for local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. Local boards may choose to fund local waste minimisation projects and activities, some of which may complement the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa.

51.    Local boards will be informed of the results of the funding round and successful applications from their areas, following approval of funding recommendations by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

52.    A guiding principle of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund is to support waste minimisation projects which enable Māori to participate in co-management of resources and support sustainable development of Māori outcomes, leadership, community and partnerships.

53.    To improve Māori outcomes achieved by the fund, following a review of the fund in 2021 there is now a separate Māori outcomes assessment criterion with 10 per cent weighting to prioritise waste minimisation projects that enable mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki and mataawaka businesses and organisations with waste minimisation capability.

54.    There is also now a target of 15 per cent of the fund to ensure that more of the fund is awarded to projects which deliver specific Māori outcomes by Māori for Māori and help ensure effective participation and encourage applications from mana whenua and mataawaka organisations. For the 2022/2023 funding round 15 per cent of the funds available for medium and large projects or 14 per cent of the total available funds recommended for applications submitted by Māori organisations. This is an increase from the 2021/2022 funding round.

55.    To further enable Māori participation in the fund the Waste Solutions department held four capacity-building workshops for Māori organisations prior to the 2022/2023 round of funding.

56.    The grant programme received two applications from Māori organisations in the 2022/2023 funding round. Funding is recommended for both of these applications under the medium and large grant category. Approximately 32 other applicants identified as either:

·        working with Māori

·        having Māori involvement in the design or concept

·        having a Māori focus through tikanga (practices), mātauranga (knowledge) or reo (language), or

·        Māori participation through a Māori priority group, target group or high representation of Māori staff delivering the project.

57.    Funding is recommended for 12 of these applications under the medium and large grant category.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

58.    The grant allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund can be managed through existing budgets provided for by the national waste levy. The 2022/2023 budget for medium and large grants is $513,165.

59.    Staff recommend $509,997 of this budget be allocated in the 2022/2023 funding round.

60.    The unallocated funding of $3,167 will be carried forward to the 2023/2024 budget for medium and large grants.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

61.    To reduce risks, allocation of grants follows the guidelines and criteria of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund and Community Grants Policy. A thorough assessment process, including fair and transparent decision making, ensures fair allocation of grants.

62.    The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund further mitigates potential risk by using a reimbursement process when awarding large amounts of funding. Recipients receive funding once project works have been undertaken and invoices or receipts have been provided to the council.

63.    Upfront funding can be provided, however an official and detailed request must be made by the grant recipient and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. There is also a requirement for applicants to provide a project accountability report at the end of their term.

64.    Staff will maintain regular contact with applicants during the project implementation phase to follow up on progress and make sure any risks are properly addressed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65.    Once recommendations are approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions in December 2022.

66.    Successful applicants will be notified in writing. At the end of the grant term, recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements, detailing how funding has been used and what their project has achieved.

67.    Unsuccessful applicants will be informed of the decision in writing. These applicants will also be offered a written evaluation on request, and the opportunity to work with council staff for advice on applications for future funding rounds.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tanya Browne, Waste Planning Advisor

Sarah Le Claire – Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Parul Sood - Manager Waste Planning

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Establishment of the Waste Political Advisory Group

File No.: CP2022/16615

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.      To approve the re-establishment of the Waste Political Advisory Group to advise staff on the review, development and implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      Auckland Council has previously established a Waste Political Advisory Group to support the implementation of the council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. The group included representatives from the governing body, local boards and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

3.      The group’s objective is to oversee the review, development and implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. The draft Terms of Reference are provided as Attachment A. The group provides an opportunity for elected members and staff to discuss key regional and national issues relating to waste management and minimisation.

4.      Staff have analysed several options for the composition of this group, including:

·    option one: do not re-establish the advisory group

·    option two: re-establish the advisory group consisting of a chair, four councillors, four local board members and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board

·    option three: re-establish the advisory group consisting of a chair, six councillors, six local board members and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

5.      Staff recommend that the committee approve option three: re-establishment of the advisory group consisting of a chair, six councillors, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and six local board members. This is recommended to ensure good representation of the diverse communities and geographic spread across Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland.

6.      Staff recommend that the chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee (as the parent committee) be the chair of the political advisory group.

7.      Staff recommend that the group include councillors and local board members who represent different geographical areas, including the north, east, west, south, and rural and islands interests. This geographical spread is recommended to best represent the range of Auckland communities.

8.      It is anticipated that the Waste Political Advisory Group will focus primarily on the review of the current waste plan over this new electoral term.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve re-establishing the Waste Political Advisory Group comprising of:

i)        the Chair of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

ii)       six councillors

iii)      six local board members

iv)      one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board

b)      kopou / appoint six councillors to the Waste Political Advisory Group

c)      pōwhiri / invite the Independent Māori Statutory Board to appoint one of their members to the Waste Political Advisory Group

d)      pōwhiri / invite the Local Board Chair’s Forum to select six local board members to join the Waste Political Advisory Group.

Horopaki

Context

9.      The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires local authorities to undertake a waste assessment and adopt a waste management and minimisation plan every six years. Auckland Council adopted its first waste management and minimisation plan in 2012 which has been regularly revised, most recently in 2018.

10.    The current Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 has an aspirational goal of zero waste by 2040. It commits the council to act to reduce waste. These actions include providing refuse, recycling, food scraps and inorganic services, advocacy to central government, and undertaking community engagement activities. Other commitments under the plan involve partnering with the commercial sector, creating a network of community recycling centres, and delivering waste minimisation programmes.

11.    Waste services are important to Aucklanders and therefore the Waste Political Advisory Group was initially established in 2012 as an informal political forum to guide and monitor the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (resolution number GB/2012/78). The group was re-established in the 2013-2016, 2016-2019 and 2019-2022 political terms.

12.    The Waste Political Advisory Group was successful in providing advice and oversight during development and implementation of the first two waste management and minimisation plans in 2012 and 2018.

13.    It is anticipated that a re-established Waste Political Advisory Group would provide valuable advice and oversight of the development of the third waste management and minimisation plan, due to be developed over the 2023/2024 financial year and adopted in 2024.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Key Considerations

14.    The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is a regional strategy. Previous waste political advisory groups have generated informal political feedback on regional aspects of the implementation of the plan.

15.    The proposed political advisory group will provide advice and feedback to staff and to Planning, Environment and Parks Committee. It is not a decision-making entity. In alignment with Auckland Council’s governance structure, all decisions on the development and implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be sought from the relevant committee.

16.    The 2019-2022 Waste Political Advisory Group included seven councillors, six local board members and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Options considered and criteria for assessment

17.    Three potential options for the Waste Political Advisory Group have been considered:

·    option one: do not re-establish the advisory group

·    option two: re-establish the advisory group with a smaller membership consisting of a chair, four councillors, four local board members and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board

·    option three: re-establish the advisory group at the same size as previous terms, consisting of a chair, six councillors, six local board representatives, and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, (recommended option).

18.    Each option has been assessed against a set of assessment criteria to help determine the preferred approach to the Waste Political Advisory Group. The assessment criteria includes:

·      Consistency: is the membership of the group consistent with other political working groups?

·      Appropriate size for giving direction: does the size of the group enable direction and feedback to be made effectively and efficiently?

·      Representation: does the composition of the group provide sufficient representation of the Auckland region (governing body and local board members) to give effective feedback and direction?

Results of options assessment

19.    The options assessment is presented in table one below.

Table 1: Waste Political Advisory Group Options Assessment

Criteria

Option one:

No Waste Political Advisory Group

Option two:

chair, four councillors, four local board members, and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board

Option three:

chair, six councillors, six local board members, and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board

Consistency with other groups

NA

üü

üüü

Appropriate size to give direction

NA

üüü

üü

Representation

X

üü

üüü

Key:

Not Applicable

NA

No

X

Low

ü

Medium

üü

High

üüü

20.    Option one is not recommended because it scores poorly against all criteria. It will likely mean that staff will need to schedule several workshops with the full Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, or staff will default to seeking guidance from the chair of the committee. This approach does not enable effective feedback and guidance from elected members on waste issues.

21.    Option two is also not recommended. This option is for a smaller group, which could enable more efficient and effective discussion, however it does not allow for representation of councillors and local board members from all regions of Auckland (i.e. north, west, east, south, rural and islands). The third Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be developed in this electoral term and therefore effective representation is particularly important.

Recommended option three: re-establish group using the same structure as last term

22.    Staff recommend that another Waste Political Advisory Group is established for the 2022-2025 electoral term comprising a chair, six councillors, six local board members and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

23.    This option will continue the role of previous waste advisory groups, by providing a platform for in-depth discussion of regional and nationally significant waste-related issues prior to presentation to a full committee. It will also ensure that staff can easily access political input when making time-pressured decisions.

24.    The input required from the Waste Political Advisory Group is regionally focused, however it is important to have a Waste Political Advisory Group membership that represents the diversity of communities that exist across Auckland. Staff believe that having a broad geographical representation of elected members will provide valuable insights to both local and regional policy perspectives and outweighs any challenges of scheduling meetings for a larger group.

25.    Therefore, staff recommend that along with the Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, the six councillors that are appointed to the group can represent different geographical areas of Auckland including the north, central, west and south areas, and rural interests.

26.    Staff also recommend that six local board members be appointed to the Waste Political Advisory Group that can represent the north, south, east, and west areas of Auckland, and rural and islands interests.

27.    Staff also recommend that a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board be invited to join the group. This will enable them to provide input on issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau at a governance level.

28.    Proposed draft terms of reference for the Waste Political Advisory Group are provided in Attachment A. These will be adopted by the group at their first meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.    The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan’s goal of zero waste by 2040 has significant climate change implications. This goal signals a shift towards a circular, low emissions economy, which staff expect to be reflected in the soon-to-be-released national waste strategy. The plan contains several actions that provide tangible ways for Aucklanders to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the introduction of a household food scraps collection.

30.    All waste streams reported in the next waste assessment will be provided with carbon emission estimates where possible. The development of Auckland’s third Waste Management and Minimisation Plan presents a further opportunity to strengthen Auckland’s commitments and prioritise the most cost-effective interventions to further reduce waste-related climate emissions.

31.    The Waste Political Advisory Group will contribute to Auckland’s climate impact objectives through supporting the development and implementation of these actions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32.    The current Waste Management and Minimisation Plan has a priority action to address waste diversion from the in-house and operational activities of the council and council-controlled organisations. This involves collaborating with all parts of the council group to agree baseline waste levels and waste minimisation targets.

33.    Work is in progress to establish operational waste baselines and targets for the council and Council Controlled Organisation’s activities. A zero-waste outcome has been included in the council’s sustainable procurement framework. This framework is being applied to high value contracts and major construction projects and will be incorporated within all contracts in the future.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34.    Empowering local communities is one of the key tenets of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

35.    Local board member involvement in the Waste Political Advisory Group will ensure local feedback and guidance on development and implementation of the plan from across Auckland.

36.    Staff will also consult directly with local boards on any significant unplanned changes to regional waste policy or services and seek local board input into submissions to central government on waste.

37.    Some local boards fund local waste minimisation projects including scoping studies, pilot projects, and locally delivered waste prevention and minimisation initiatives. These will continue alongside the newly established Waste Political Advisory Group.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38.    The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 emphasises an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources. The concept of zero waste reflects Māori tikanga and kaupapa.

39.    Through the development of the current plan, Auckland Council engaged in extensive consultation with mana whenua and mataawaka on resource use and waste management. Based on this consultation, Māori values are at the core of the plan.

40.    The plan highlights the council’s responsibility to recognise Māori priorities when implementing the actions outlined in the plan, including rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, kotahitanga, manaakitanga and whanaungatanga.

41.    Staff are already working with mana whenua representatives through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on a partnership approach with mana whenua for the development of the next waste management and minimisation plan.

42.    Staff also recommend inclusion of a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board on the advisory group to provide input on issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau and ensure that the council acts in accordance with our responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43.    The main costs associated with running the Waste Political Advisory Group are staff time to support the meetings. This will be funded through existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44.    Staff have identified few risks in relation to establishing the political advisory group. One potential risk is that it could have low participation from elected members due to the lack of decision-making authority. Staff will mitigate this risk through ensuring that the group is provided with meaningful updates and topics for discussion.

45.    If the political advisory group is not established, there is a risk that there will be no dedicated forum for discussions on regional waste services between staff and elected members at a crucial time of reviewing and development the next waste management and minimisation plan. This will lead to reduced opportunities for political guidance, particularly on time pressured issues.

46.    Re-establishing the group will also reduce the potential for escalation of pressing issues and ensure that elected members are aware of potentially contentious issues at an early stage.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47.    If approved, meeting dates will be established following local board member appointments, and the appointment from the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Group meetings will be scheduled quarterly but the group will meet on an as needed basis.

48.    The draft terms of reference will be presented for approval at the first political advisory group meeting.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Waste Political Advisory Group Terms of Reference

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Le Claire – Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Parul Sood - Manager Waste Planning

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

08 December 2022

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       CONFIDENTIAL: Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2022/2023

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report contains sensitive information about some commercial applications that should not be released to competitors.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 



[1] Te Oranga o te Taiao means: the health of the natural environment, and the essential relationship between the health of the natural environment and its capacity to sustain life, and the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment, and the intrinsic relationship between iwi and hapū and te taiao

[2] The same commissioners have been appointed for Proposed Plan Change 78 and Proposed Plan Changes 79 to 83.

[3] AUP, Chapter E40 Temporary Activities.

[4] AUP, Rule E40.4.1(A15).

[5] AUP, Chapter D21, Rule D21.4.1(A3).

[6] Infometrics, March 2021.

[7] Infometrics, March 2021.

[8] There are no contractual arrangements in place with Auckland Transport in relation to the upgrading of intersections on the local road network or increasing the capacity of the Pine Harbour Ferry.

[9]  Statistic NZ Estimated Resident Population in 2021.

 

[10]  Objectives B2.2.1(1)-(5), Chapter B2 Urban Growth and Form of the Regional Policy Statement.

[11]  Objective B2.6.1(1), Chapter B2 Urban Growth and form of the Regional Policy Statement.

[12]  Development Strategy: Rural Areas https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/auckland-plan/development-strategy/Pages/rural-auckland.aspx.

[13]  Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019 and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019.

[14] Census 2018 population and occupied dwellings for Beachlands Statistical Area Units - Sunkist Bay (3207 people and 1077 dwellings) and Te Puru (3054 people and 978 dwellings).

[15] Auckland Council Building Consents data provided by RIMU.

[16] Property Economics Beachlands South Private Plan Change Economic Assessment (March 2022).

[17] Section 32 for Plan Change 78 for Infrastructure Constraints Transport – Beachlands

[18] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392 (HC)

[19] Clause 27, Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.