Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board - Thursday, 16 February 2023

1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 8 December 2022 and the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 9 February 2023, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation: Sam Bhattacharya - Sport Auckland

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To enable an opportunity for Sam Bhattacharya, Community Sport Advisor for Sport Auckland to present.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Sam Bhattacharya, Community Sport Advisor for Sport Auckland to give an update on the work that Sport Auckland are doing in the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) whakamihi/thank Sam Bhattacharya from Sport Auckland for his attendance and Deputation.

Attachments

a Sport Auckland presentation........................................................................ 175

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 February 2023

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Puketāpapa Local Board for quarter two 2022/2023

File No.: CP2023/00447

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Puketāpapa Local Board with an integrated performance report for quarter two, 1 October – 31 December 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2022/2023 work programme.

3. The key activity updates from this period are:

· the Puketāpapa Local Board and the community were successful in joining Welcoming Communities – Te Waharoa ki ngā Hapori

· the Puketāpapa Youth Foundation held a ‘Design Your Future’ event which ran in unison with the 2022 local elections where they engaged young people into a conversation about civics

· half of all planned activations within parks, places and open spaces throughout the local board area were delivered.

4. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided an update against their work programme delivery. Activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred, or merged). There are no activities with a red status.

5. Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZ Stock Exchange (NZX). As a result, the council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board & Debt Market Listing Rules and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 sections 97 and 461H. These obligations restrict the release of half-year financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on or about 28 February 2023.

Due to these obligations the financial performance attached to the quarterly report is excluded from the public.

6. The Customer and Community Services capex budget has been revised to incorporate delayed delivery or earlier commencement of individual projects or other changes that are of material value.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) whiwhi/receive the performance report for quarter two ending 31 December 2022.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito/note the financial performance report in Attachment B of the agenda report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council Group half-year results for 2022/2023 are released to the New Zealand Exchange (NZX), which are expected to be made public on 28 February 2023.

Horopaki

Context

· The Puketāpapa Local Board has an approved 2022/2023 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Customer and Community Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· Plans and Places

· Auckland Emergency Management

· Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

8. The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), and activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

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

Graph 3: Work programme by activity status and department

Key activity updates

10. The Puketāpapa Local Board and the community were successful in joining Welcoming Communities – Te Waharoa ki ngā Hapori. The Welcoming Communities Expression of Interest Panel were impressed by the strong case the Puketāpapa Local Board made to join the Welcoming Communities network. The Panel acknowledged the solid platform in place already, notably the exceptional support provided to the local board’s diverse communities. Welcoming Communities gives an opportunity to shine a light on this exemplar work, while also working with the community to come up with new and innovative ways to build the local board’s welcoming practices.

11. The Puketāpapa Youth Foundation (PYF) is strengthening in members and successfully held a ‘Design Your Future’ event. This event was run in unison with the 2022 local elections to engage young people into a conversation about civics. The PYF invited local board candidates and rangatahi for a kōrero on critical topics affecting their community.

12. Half of all planned activations within parks, places and open spaces throughout the local board area were delivered. These activations enable and coordinate a range of ‘free to attend’ activities and events that support the local community to be physically active, either through the Out and About programme or other locally focused community or partner organisations and initiatives.

13. The community celebrated the opening of the Waikōwhai playground held on 18 December 2022 with an attendance of 60 guests. Papa Fred Holloway performed a blessing, and the local board members oversaw the ribbon cutting to mark the official opening of the playground.

14. The Oakley Creek and Waikōwhai community pest plan control buffer projects are both progressing well. Around 500 square metres of moth plant has been controlled so far. Thirty properties in the local board area have been visited that had climbing asparagus present, half of these properties had extensive pest plan infestations. These are now being controlled.

Activities on hold

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

· Waikōwhai Walkways – development of priority walkway routes; this project has been deferred to recommence in financial year 2025/2026

· Feron Park – renew – road and carpark within the park; this project has been deferred to recommence in financial year 2024/2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

a) Climate Action Activator Puketāpapa – This activity will deliver a work programme reflecting the climate action priorities of the local board specific plan - ‘Becoming a Low Carbon Community – An Action Plan’. The local board’s role is to amplify local climate action and enable community initiatives that contribute to this. During quarter one, a procurement process was completed to appoint a new climate action activator.

b) EcoNeighbourhoods Puketāpapa – This activity is continuing to deliver on the existing project from the previous financial year where EcoNeighbour hood groups comprise of six or more neighbours from different households with the objective of adopting sustainable, low carbon practices and increasing resilience within their homes, lifestyles, and neighbourhoods. Currently, there are seven Eco-Neighbourhood groups, with a new group forming that has a focus on local kai with potential for a shared neighbourhood growing space in Three Kings.

c) Low Carbon Lifestyles – Puketāpapa. This project will continue to support householders to lead low carbon lifestyles. Previous efforts have focused on home energy advice. This year, the project will change focus to incorporate sustainable transport behaviours and encourage residents to use active and public transport for their everyday work and leisure commutes. The local board will receive the projects 2021/2022 results in quarter two highlighting specific energy efficiency actions undertaken by participating households as well as the total climate emissions reductions of approximately 21,320kg of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

17. The Board is also investing in initiatives that respond to climate change, such as - Urban Forest Auckland (Ngahere) Strategy - Planting Plan Puketāpapa. This activity delivers the planting plan identified in the growing phase of the plan. Stage one of the planting is finished, and stage two of planting is to be undertaken in the next planting season.

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

19. Work programmes were approved in June 2022 and delivery is underway. Should significant changes to any projects be required, climate change impacts will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements. Any changes to the timing of approved projects are unlikely to result in changes to emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. This report informs the Puketāpapa Local Board of the performance for ending 31 December 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. Table 1 outlines the activities in the 2022/2023 work programme that have a direct Māori outcome focus. All activities listed in the table below are in progress and on track.

Table 1: Māori outcome delivery through proposed activities

Local Board Plan outcome	ID	Activity name	Māori outcome	Māori outcome description
Outcome 1: Inclusive communities that are healthy, connected and thriving	371	Māori responsiveness Puketāpapa	No specific outcome focus areas
	368	Manu Aute Kite Day	Maori identity and culture	To celebrate the festival of Matariki
	378	Local civic events Puketāpapa	Māori identity and culture	Direct engagement with mana whenua for the delivery of the events
Outcome 2: Our people speak up and help shape our future	3469	PKTPP: Te Kete Rukuruku (Māori naming of parks and places) tranche two	Te reo Māori and Māori identity and culture	Return te reo Māori names and narratives to parks and places
Outcome 3: Our environment is protected and enhanced for present and future generations	603	Climate Action Activator	Kaitiakitanga	The activator will work with mana whenua and mataawaka to identify and deliver low carbon outcomes for Māori.
	599	Low Carbon Lifestyles	Whānau and tamariki wellbeing	This programme does not specifically target the housing needs of Māori communities, however according to 2013 census data Māori are more likely to live in rental housing. The home energy advice programme will increase opportunities for promoting and improving living standards that could contribute to better Māori health and wellbeing.
	865	Manukau Harbour Forum	Kaitiakitanga and realising rangatahi potential	Māori youth will be involved in the youth sustainability wānanga and are supported to develop and implement programmes relevant to them and their communities. The wānanga also engages with kaumātua from Makaurau Marae to provide advice and mātauranga Māori that informs programme delivery. During the wānanga, te reo Māori is actively promoted, as a key component of programme delivery.
	3036	Oakley Creek Pest plant buffer	Kaitiakitanga	This programme will protect local parks and streams and encourage others to be kaitiaki of the environment.
Outcome 6: Thriving local economy with opportunities to learn, work and volunteer	1270	Young Enterprise Scheme Kick Start Days	Realising rangatahi potential	Young Enterprise Scheme Kick Start Days will support YES Māori students at participating schools to benefit from the experience and learnings from the YES.

23. Mana whenua played an integral role in the development of the integrated area plan for the Mt Roskill redevelopment area and this will continue until the area plan has been completed. The Puketāpapa Local Board approved the content of the final area plan for their local board area at their business meetings held on 21 July 2022. At its business meeting on 1 September 2022, the Planning Committee endorsed the content of the final area plan, subject to further consideration if mana whenua are uncomfortable with the definition and use of cultural landscapes as defined.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. This report is provided to enable the Puketāpapa Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2022/2023 work programmes. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial Performance

25. Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZ Stock Exchange (NZX). As a result, the council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board & Debt Market Listing Rules and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 sections 97 and 461H. These obligations restrict the release of half-year financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on <date>.

Due to these obligations the financial performance attached to the quarterly report is excluded from the public.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

27. Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter three, 31 March 2023.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Work Programme 2022/2023 Quarter 2 update	17
b ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Financial Appendix - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Vanessa Phillips – Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 February 2023

Draft Contributions Policy 2022, Variation A

File No.: CP2023/00527

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the proposal (draft Contributions Policy 2022, Variation A) to add to the Contributions Policy 2022 projects planned to be delivered beyond 2031 to support growth in Drury.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Development contributions (DCs) are charges that recover from new developments a fair share of the cost of the council’s investment in infrastructure. To date our contributions policy has only recovered a share of cost of our infrastructure investment planned in the next ten years.

3. The council has agreed to add projects beyond 2031 to the Contributions Policy for the Investment Priority Areas identified in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 in stages starting with Drury. This will ensure early developers pay a fair share of the cost of the cumulative impact of growth on the council’s need to invest in infrastructure.

4. The Contributions Policy 2022 was adopted in December 2021 and provides for the recovery of $399 million of the investment planned to be delivered in Drury in the period to 2031. The contributions price in Drury under this policy, including regional and sub-regional charges, is $22,564 per household equivalent unit (HUE – a house between 100m² and 249m²). We are now proposing to vary this policy to add investments we plan to deliver beyond 2031 to support development in Drury.

5. The original proposal was consulted on in late 2021 as part of the consultation on the region-wide Contributions Policy 2022. At that time, the majority of local boards were in support of the changes proposed in the draft Contributions Policy 2021

6. The Finance and Performance Committee considered the report on the proposal, which included local board views, at its meeting on 9 December 2021. The committee agreed to defer a decision on adding investment beyond 2031 to the Drury area to allow for the provision of further information requested by developers and additional time to make submissions once that information was provided.

7. The original proposal consulted on was revised accordingly and more information produced. The updated proposal included $2,470 billion of investment in Drury beyond 2031 of which $1.142 billion was to be funded by DCs. This would raise the average DC price in Drury by $60,687 to $83,25. Public consultation opened on 13 September 2022 for eight weeks, instead of the usual four weeks, and closed on 8 November 2022.

8. Sixty submissions were received, 33 of which were from those in the development community. The proposal was supported by 35 per cent of all submitters with 50 percent not in support. A further 15 per cent did not clearly state their views on the proposal.

9. This report summarises the key points made in submissions and notes officers’ initial analysis of the issues raised.

10. Local board feedback is sought to inform the Governing Body’s consideration of the adoption of the proposal planned for April 2023. The report to the Governing Body will also be updated reflecting officers' final analysis of the responses to submissions, updates reflecting additional work that has been undertaken since consultation and in particular to incorporate the latest economic forecasts and recent government decisions on their investment in Drury.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) whakaae/approve feedback from local boards on the draft Contributions Policy 2022, Variation A.

Horopaki

Context

Development contributions and infrastructure investment

11. Development contributions allow for an equitable and proportionate share of the total cost of growth-related capital expenditure to be recovered from the development community. The Contributions Policy sets out how the council will recover from new development an appropriate and fair share of the cost of infrastructure investment attributable to growth.

Growth and infrastructure investment

12. Auckland’s population is expected to continue to grow in the next ten years on top of the rapid population growth we have experienced in the last decade, bringing the projected population to 1.8 million early next decade. We are forecasting the construction of 145,800 new dwellings in the next ten years. To support the development enabled by the Auckland Unitary Plan, we are facing both immediate and longer-term demands for infrastructure in growth areas. If we do not adequately plan for the delivery and funding of this infrastructure, the cumulative effects of this development could lead to an unfair rates burden on future ratepayers or a risk of infrastructure shortfalls for future residents.

Drury

13. Drury-Opāheke is projected to grow by 22,000 new houses over the next thirty years. The proposal identified that an infrastructure investment of $2,869 billion will be required to support this growth. This investment will include a public and active transport led approach to transport infrastructure, parks and open spaces, and a new community facility that will include a local pool, leisure centre and library.

14. Investment in Drury will take around 30 years to deliver. The Contributions Policy 2022 only requires developers to contribute to the $399 million of investment we plan to make over the next 10 years. Without DC funding for a share of the $2.470 billion investment planned beyond 2031, there is a risk that those undertaking development will not contribute a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the capital expenditure necessary to service long-term growth. This risk could lead to shortfalls in the provision of infrastructure for the future residents of Drury and additional and/or additional demands on the city’s ratepayers.

Consultation 2021 and decisions

15. In 2021 the council consulted on a proposal to add investments planned to be delivered in Drury beyond 2031 to the 2022 policy and over the next year to the other Investment Priority Areas (IPAs) identified in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031. The IPAs are Inner Northwest, City Rail Link stations and Auckland Housing Programme (AHP) areas (Tāmaki, Mangere, Northcote, Oranga, and Mt Roskill). This would avoid an unfair rates burden on future ratepayers or the risk of infrastructure shortfalls for the future residents of new developments. The majority of local boards supported the original proposal.

a) The Finance and Performance Committee considered a report on the proposal at its meeting on 9 December 2021 (FIN/2021/119). The committee agreed in principle to add investments beyond 2031 to the Investment Priority Areas but deferred a decision on adding investment beyond 2031 to the Drury area. This was intended to allow the provision of more information to developers and other interested parties and allow more time for them to make further submissions with the benefit of this information.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Updated proposal for consultation in 2022

16. In response to the council’s direction (resolution FIN/2021/119 b), staff undertook substantial additional work internally, commissioned five external expert reviews of our methodology and key economic issues, and sought expert transport planning and engineering advice on the proposed investments.

17. The original proposal consulted on was revised by updating our forecasts for the timing and location of growth within Drury and of construction costs, land price inflation, and interest rates.

18. External reviews were sought on our growth forecasting, cost estimation, and approach to calculating the share of costs to be recovered from developers. Recommendations from these reviews were applied to our calculations of the contributions charges for projects to be delivered beyond 2031 in Drury for inclusion in the proposal consulted on. These changes will also be considered for incorporation into the wider contributions policy as part of our future policy reviews.

19. Additional analysis of the distribution of the benefits of the proposed transport projects within Drury was also undertaken. The proposal consulted on allocated the transport costs to be recovered from development contributions to four new funding areas within Drury and to the relevant neighbouring areas. Adjustments were also made to neighbouring funding areas to reflect the benefits from community facilities investments, the regional transport funding area for wider transport benefits, and to the regional community facilities funding area for the library accordingly and more information produced.

20. Following completion of the work above the investments planned for beyond 2031 included in the consultation were:

a) $1.882 million in transport including arterial roads and key elements of the collector network to provide an integrated public and private transport network and active transport investment connecting Drury to the wider city (in addition to the $243 million council has already committed to invest before 2031)

b) $403 million for 43 new parks, with a total land requirement of 32.4 hectares (in addition to the $156 million council has already committed to invest before 2031)

c) $185 million for a single multi-purpose facility including a community facility, leisure centre, library, and local pool.

21. Stormwater requirements for Drury beyond 2031 will be identified and added to the contributions policy as more information becomes available on the location and form of development.

22. Of the $2.470 billion of projects, the proposal identified for delivery beyond 2031, $1.142 billion was proposed to be funded by developers through our contributions policy. This additional revenue requirement would raise the contributions price for Drury by an average of an additional $60,687, per household equivalent unit (HUE) to a total of on average $83,251 per HUE. Different charges would apply to different geographical areas based on the benefits accruing to each area.

Consultation

23. Public consultation opened on 13 September 2022 for eight weeks and closed on 8 November 2022. Additional information provided included 13 documents and two spreadsheets to allow submitters to better understand the proposal. These can be found on the council’s Have Your Say page.

24. During the consultation period, those from the development industry requested further information and in response the following additional materials were provided:

· Transport cost estimates for Drury. Further details on individual construction cost elements for transport projects

· Growth and HUE forecast. Spreadsheet outlining data used to forecast growth

25. Around 336 stakeholders were directly approached to advise them of the consultation. A media release was issued, and an article appeared in Our Auckland at the start of the consultation period. The consultation was also promoted through the council’s Engagement and People’s Panel newsletters. Forty-four people participated in the Have Your Say events held to support the consultation.

26. Two online and two face-to-face Have Your Say (HYS) events were held. Staff also attended a drop-in session in Drury organised by Waka Kotahi, two meetings organised by Drury developers, and a session organised by the Property Council of New Zealand. There were 44 attendees across all events representing 39 organisations. Officers also provided briefings to Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

27. An opportunity for developers to present their submissions directly to the Governing Body at a Have Your Say event was provided on 14 December 2022. Developers were given a ten-minute slot with five minutes for their presentation followed by 5 minutes for questions from the decision-makers. The mayor and 16 councillors, heard presentations from 14 organisations at the session.

Feedback and Analysis

28. Sixty submissions were received. Overall, the proposal was supported by 35 per cent of submitters with 50 percent opposing it. A further 15 per cent did not clearly state their support or otherwise to the proposal. Key themes raised in the submissions are identified below. The submissions received in the consultation are available to elected members on the council’s meeting management system Nexus.

29. 26 individuals and one Māori organisation provided feedback. Of these, 69 per cent were in support of this proposal, 15 per cent did not support the proposal while the views of 15 per cent of submitters were not clearly stated.

30. Eleven of the individuals who supported the proposal commented that it was fair that developers should pay their fair share towards infrastructure. Those who did not state their support or otherwise thought that the council should support infrastructure development.

31. 33 responses were from those in the development industry. Responses from the industry show that 79 per cent opposed the proposal, six per cent supported it and 15 per cent did not state a clear view. Key themes from the developers’ feedback are outlined below.

Impact of higher development contributions

Feedback

32. Developers’ submissions noted the following concerns that higher DCs will:

· lead to higher house prices as developers seek to recover the increased costs. Developers who had already purchased land commented that they will be particularly disadvantaged as the increased DCs have not been included in the costs of their development

· lead to Drury being treated unfairly in relation to the rest of the city with much higher DCs

· discourage the construction of affordable housing as developers seek to recover higher costs with more expensive developments

· redirect development from Drury to other areas of the city with lower DC prices. Lower DCs are charged in wealthy established central parts of the city where infrastructure is already in place whereas incoming residents to Drury, where affordable housing can be built, are less able to afford higher DCs

· encourage land banking in Drury until house prices rise further or the policy changes.

Analysis

33. For developers who have purchased land recently higher DCs will put pressure on their margins. While staff acknowledge the impact a substantial increase in contributions charges is required if developers are to meet a fair share of cost of the investments required to support Drury’s development. The DCs charged in Drury will be higher than those in other parts of the city but this will reflect the council’s commitment to invest in infrastructure in Drury.

34. In feedback received from the original consultation, developers expressed concern about the equity of charging them now for investments that wouldn’t be delivered until the next decade. Our independent expert advice confirms the council’s previously presented analysis: that while the physical infrastructure wouldn’t be delivered until later, current landowners still benefit from the commitment to deliver in terms of higher land values. Furthermore, development occurring during the early years of this policy still contributes to the need for planned capital expenditure that will be incurred beyond 10 years’ time.

35. The independent economic consultants were asked for their views on the equity of our proposal to consider the likely impact of the proposal on house prices, and the viability of development in Drury. The consultants concluded that while the DC price will lower the price developers are willing to pay for land, this reduction is much lower than the increase in land value arising from the planning changes that enable housing development. There may be an indirect effect on the sequence of sites getting taken up for new housing across the city in the short term as development adjusts around a new equilibrium. However, this will be small relative to other market factors. Higher DCs may be an additional cost to development and could be argued to increase the return to holding land undeveloped however, earlier delivery of infrastructure funded by DCs is likely to accelerate development. The full report was included in the supporting documents pack released as part of the consultation process.

Complexity with a 30-year time frame

Feedback

36. Comments were provided on the accuracy of information on infrastructure requirements planned over a 30-year timeframe, including the assurance that revenue collected today will be used for future investment in infrastructure. Other comments from submitters include:

· possibility that infrastructure will not be needed resulting in over collection of DCs

· impact of inflation on delivery of projects over time adds complexity

· complexities arise around the accuracy of the price of infrastructure over a 30-year timeframe creating uncertainty. For example, when trying to estimate things such as inflation, delivery risks, costs of infrastructure, and future infrastructure demand over a 30-year period

· doubt that benefits will be received by early developers

· actions the council will have to take to ensure money collected today will be spent on delivery of the projects over 30-year period

· it is not clear what happens to the initially unspent portions of development contributions paid, but intended to fund works that are 1, 2 or 3 decades in the future.

Analysis

37. Forecasting capital expenditure over a 30-year horizon inevitably involves a higher degree of uncertainty than capex over the horizon of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031. However, the Local Government Act 2002 allows for development contributions to be recovered to fund capital expenditure to be incurred beyond the LTP period (10 years). The council may also vary the mix of projects for which development contributions will be used if there is a relevant change of circumstances relating to those projects, and the overall level of contribution does not increase.

38. Our contributions policy is reviewed every three years to ensure that our planned infrastructure investment continues to meet the need of the developing community and is appropriately costed using the latest available information. This enables us to respond to changing circumstances, while ensuring that our charges remain fair for developers.

Consideration of other sources of funding

Feedback

39. Several submitters considered the council should have given more consideration to alternative funding mechanisms before deciding to impose DCs. Submitters noted the council:

· has not demonstrated sufficient consideration of alternative funding methods such as Infrastructure Funding and Financing through the Crown Infrastructure Partners

· should consider the use of other funding and financing tools – such as targeted rates, congestion charging, Special Purpose Vehicles through the Funding and Financing Act and Specified Development Areas through the Urban Development Act – alongside DCs.

· should consider using targeted rates to cover the costs of infrastructure that cannot easily be identified with sufficient certainty, subject to these rates being ringfenced for sole use on infrastructure to facilitate growth in the specific area in which the targeted rate applies.

Analysis

40. The council’s Revenue and Financing Policy notes that at present DCs will be used to fund growth infrastructure. However, the Revenue and Financing Policy also makes provision for the use of other tools such as targeted rates and would also allow the use of levies under the Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act. All these tools have the same effective revenue for the council and cost for developers and landowners (the net present value is the same) but are triggered at different times.

41. These options remain open to the council and can be used in combination with development contributions. The first step under any of these options is to establish the investments required to support growth in the IPAs and the appropriate share to be recovered from developers or landowners. All tools need to be applied early in the process to ensure early developments pay their share. The potential application of these funding tools will be considered in the advice to council in April.

Accuracy and assumptions used in the model

Feedback

42. Comments were provided on the accuracy of information on infrastructure requirements planned over a 30-year timeframe, including the assurance that revenue collected today will be used for future investment in infrastructure. Submitters also noted:

· concern that the costings for the various projects incorporate excessive assumptions in respect of construction cost, contingency funding cost, and general inflation.

· the recent plan changes which have not been considered

· the model includes invalid assumptions concerning developer funded mitigation works and DC funded works, likely to lead to double dipping and over-recovery.

43. Comments on projects were also provided:

· the new policy encourages the council to design projects that are “gold plated” and have higher initial capital expenditure

· changes in transport patterns (e.g., mode share, e-bike subscriptions and sharing platforms) will influence future transport requirements.

· the full list of transportation projects arrived at by Supporting Growth Alliance has never been justified as being required to mitigate the effects of development in Drury East

· an independent audit of the proposed projects and their intended scale is requested to help ascertain how much of the increased cost relates to local rather than general factors

· the policy projects listed assumes that the council will purchase land from developers when in practice it is likely to require the land and infrastructure on it to be vested without charge or at a discount rate pursuant to the consent process will not incur these costs.

Analysis

44. A formal review was undertaken of the methodology the council uses to set DC charges. To do this, three external advisors were contracted to review our methods for growth forecasting, cost estimation, and how we assess the beneficiaries that underpin the DC charge calculations.

45. The feedback from our earlier consultation, the recommendations of these reviews, and our updated data models have allowed the DC calculation methodology to be refined to better suit the specific circumstances of Drury. The financial models were updated following a review conducted in November 2021. No errors in logic or in the functionality were identified in a review conducted in November 2022.

Updates to proposal

46. Further analysis of the feedback raised by developers will be presented to the Governing Body for decision making, planned for April 2023 and will include potential changes to the proposed amendment. Officers are in the process of updating the proposal to incorporate further work we have undertaken since consultation concluded to:

· respond as appropriate to issues raised in submissions including in the key areas noted below

· refine the projects and project costings in the proposal including

o estimates of developer mitigation - roading investments that developers will be required to provide as a condition of consent

o property costing

o investment decisions by the government

o community facilities funding areas

o transport funding areas

· update the forecasts of the following factors to reflect the latest economic conditions and predictions:

o growth in the Drury area – reflecting recent plan change decisions

o interest rates

o construction cost inflation

o land price inflation.

Compliance

47. Some submitters expressed a view that the proposal is not legally compliant and that there may be a case for a judicial review. Staff advice on the Contributions Policy is given in the context of highly prescriptive provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) which cover the content of a contributions policy and the assessment of contributions. These provisions are the only source of the council’s power to require development contributions and must be strictly complied with.

48. Staff have reviewed the proposal and will consider the matters raised in submissions giving consideration to the legislative requirements in the LGA, including specific content requirements for development contributions policies, and the council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

49. Recommendations in this report have a neutral climate impact as they relate to the funding of capital investment rather than decisions on the activities to be undertaken.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50. The information presented on the projects included in the draft Contributions Policy 2022 Variation A was developed in conjunction with the following council-controlled organisations and council units:

· Auckland Transport

· Community Facilities

· Community and Social Policy

51. The Chief Economist Unit and Research Investigations and Monitoring Unit worked with us on growth and economic forecasts, the impact of higher development contributions on the pace of development, and on land and house prices.

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

Local impacts and local board views

52. The Drury funding area in the proposal is within the Franklin and Papakura local board areas. The recommendations in this report support a higher level of infrastructure investment in the Drury area and sets a higher DC price in this area.

53. Local board feedback is sought to inform the Governing Body’s consideration of the adoption of the Contribution Policy 2022, Variation A in April 2023.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Development contributions are assessed against the demand that different types of development generate on council infrastructure. Māori developments are assessed under broader development types based on the demand they generate. For example, kaumātua housing is treated the same as retirement villages, and marae are considered under community facilities. As more Māori developments occur, evidence of demand generation can be used to reclassify developments or create new development types.

55. Eleven iwi authorities (with mana whenua interests) in the Drury area were contacted prior to the start of consultation to seek expressions of interest in discussing and providing feedback on the proposed changes. All iwi authorities were also notified when consultation opened, further advising of how they could have their say. Opportunities to present to the Mana Whenua forum, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and other council forums were explored, however, this topic was not seen as a priority area at the time. One response supporting this proposal was received from mana whenua who considered this was a fairer way to fund the required infrastructure.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56. There are no financial implications from requesting local boards views.

57. The proposal provides for additional investment by the council beyond 2031 to support growth in Drury of $2.470 billion. The draft Contributions Policy, Variation A provides for $1.142 billion of this investment to be funded by DCs.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. The recommendation requesting local boards views does not present any risk. The risks associated with amending the contributions policy will be set out in the report to the Governing Body planned for April 2023.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

59. Feedback from the public consultation will be reported to the Governing Body in February 2023.

60. Staff will provide advice, options and responses to the issues raised in the feedback to the Governing Body to assist in their decision making.

61. A decision-making report to the Governing Body is planned for April 2023 and will include potential changes to the draft policy and local board feedback.

62. All local board feedback is due on 3 March 2023.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 February 2023

Urgent Decision Puketāpapa Local Board feedback on the Resource Management Reform: Natural & Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill

File No.: CP2023/00642

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note that an urgent decision was made to provide Puketāpapa Local Board feedback on the Resource Management Reform: Natural & Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At its meeting on 8 December 2022 the Puketāpapa Local Board resolved (PKTPP/2022/152):

a) delegate authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board, if the local board is unable to meet.

b) confirm that the Local Area Manager, chairperson, and deputy chairperson (or any person/s acting in these roles) will authorise the use of the local board’s urgent decision mechanism by approving the request for an urgent decision in writing.

3. An urgent decision was required in this instance because the feedback needed to be provided by 3 February 2023 to be incorporated into the council’s submission. The Board’s next scheduled meeting is 9 February 2023. Delaying the feedback would result in the Board’s input not being able to be presented to the Governing Body for their consideration.

4. On 27 January 2023 the chairperson and deputy chairperson made an urgent decision on behalf of the Board to provide feedback on the Resource Management Reform: Natural & Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. The urgent decision and supplementary information is included in this report as attachments.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito/the urgent decision made on 27 January 2023 to provide feedback on the Resource Management Reform: Natural & Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito/note the feedback provided as follows:

(a) endorse / ohia in principle the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) draft submission on the Resource Management Reform.

(b) whakarite / provide the following feedback on the Resource Management Reform: Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill:

Relevance to the Puketāpapa Local Board:

i) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito the ‘quality compact city’ is already in progress in Puketāpapa. The Puketāpapa Local Board is committed to climate action and a quality compact city as per the Auckland Plan. The ‘quality compact’ urban environment is currently being realised in our rohe. In particular:

(1) major developments by Kainga Ora (for example in Mt Roskill, Wesley, Waikowhai), Fletcher Developments (in the Three Kings Quarry) and others will bring at least 10-15,000 new homes in our rohe, creating significant changes to the social and natural environment.

(2) the Auckland Light Rail proposal announced by central government includes Puketāpapa as a critical turning point in the route and this needs to be considered and incorporated within local government’s planning especially in light of the central government’s National Policy Statement – Urban Development which proposes intensification around rapid transit infrastructure.

(3) increasing numbers of denser infill housing developments in existing neighbourhoods as provisioned in the Auckland Unitary Plan’s (AUP) zoning.

ii) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito the Resource Management Act reform has relevance to many of the outcomes and objectives in the 2020 Puketāpapa Local Board Plan – our guiding document - Every three years local boards set their strategic direction through a local board plan.

iii) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito the relevance of the Integrated Area Plan for the Puketāpapa and Albert-Eden local board for planning our local communities which;

(1) investigates current activity and future opportunities for a study area that encompasses several major housing developments.

(2) responds to the changing nature of our neighbourhoods, explores the community and services infrastructure needs of larger, denser communities, and is an example of cross-local board collaboration; focusing on urban issues rather than boundaries in planning.

(3) has Mana Whenua activity represented around the working group table. Rather than keeping them separate from the conversation, their invaluable knowledge has helped craft the Area Plan into a better document.

Government objectives

iv) consider / kohuki these bills may not retain appropriate democratic input, specifically regarding the allocation of seats to councils. The proposal would result in a reduction of local input.

v) consider / kohuki the efficiencies and benefits the bills may introduce, through a nation-wide ruling system. Benefits may include more consistency in resource consent processing between different councils thus unlocking the opportunity to utilise external resources to fulfil processing targets and better community understanding of processes.

vi) do not have enough information to comment on how existing unitary plan content or any district plans that is being used in resource management processing will be implemented in the new system.

Local democratic input:

vii) request / tono representatives of each local board be required to maintain regular liaison with the joint committee to prevent a loss of local knowledge and participation. There should be formal processes to offer feedback and sessions to update local boards on what is occurring at these joint committees.

viii) support / tautoko increased central government funding to implement the changes – adding more costs to local government will have negative effects on the council’s ability to achieve the four wellbeing’s: social, economic, environmental and cultural.

ix) support / tautoko an enhanced Mana Whakahono ā Rohe process. This should include local boards as decision makers of local areas, rather than simply as a stakeholder. Having local board involvement allows more localised issues (such as a particular stream restoration or coastline) to be worked on with mana whenua together.

x) request / tono recognition of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act in the legislation, including the unique governance role of local boards.

Te Tiriti:

xi) support / tautoko the introduction of a requirement to “give effect” to the principles of Te Tiriti and the introduction of the concept of Te Oranga o te Taiao.

xii) support / tautoko mana whenua to be empowered to decide on their own functions and be empowered to decide on their membership and appointment process.

National Planning Framework (NPF):

xiii) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito that local government needs to be closely involved in the development of the National Planning Framework, with flexibility to accommodate local variation.

xiv) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito the role of the National Planning Framework to resolve conflicts through consenting should be to give clear guidance on which way it should be ruled. This guidance should be based on set baselines to environmental degradation. Effects should include downstream and cumulative effects. This will prevent localised issues (such as stream pollution and sedimentation) that are part of a wider problem.

xv) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito there should be alignment with the local government regional planning and political terms when reviewing the National Planning Framework. If these terms were to change, there should be flexibility allowed to respond to these changes, eg if local government adopts a 4-year political term.

Regional Planning Committees (RPC):

xvi) support / tautoko i the introduction of Regional Planning Committees but emphasises the need to have representation from Auckland Council (local boards, governing body), as well as mana whenua, in alignment with the principle of co-governance (Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009) and partnership (Te Tiriti).

xvii) request / tono any joint committee be appropriately funded and resourced. Central government should fund the committees and secretariat including the cluster groups. This will enable their full democratic functionality.

xviii) request / tono further clarity on how disagreement between Central Government and Local Government panel members would be managed.

xix) request / tono local board representatives be remunerated for their work on the committee. The role is specialised, detailed, time consuming and will go above and beyond the typical work of an individual local board member, as they will need to maintain relationships and ongoing engagement with multiple local boards in a decision-making capacity.

Regional spatial strategies (RSS):

xx) request / tono local plans such as the Integrated Area Plan for Puketapapa and Albert-Eden Local Boards are considered within the Regional Spatial Strategies. These plans set the vision, outcomes and actions that inform and influence future decisions.

xxi) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito spatial and environmental plans developed at the local level that capture a wider urban fabric should be considered as a planning instrument.

xxii) request / tono mechanisms for Auckland Council Local Board Plans to be considered, and local boards’ views to be heard, in the development and ongoing implementation of Regional Spatial Strategies.

Natural & Built Environment Plans (NBE Plans):

xxiii) support / tautoko enabling subregional Natural & Built Environment plans, with a potential focus on water catchments as an example.

xxiv) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito concern around the lack of reference to the outcomes for the built environment in the draft.

xxv) support / tautoko the need for environmental limits to be set.

xxvi) request / tono an overall focus in these sub-regional plans should be to reduce urban sprawl with active planning and management.

xxvii) request / tono placemaking derived from local plans and community involvement should be brought into the wider planning framework via the sub-regional plans, rather than keeping them side-lined as they are currently not considered when new developments or activities arise except through local board advocacy.

xxviii) request / tono the proposed planning framework should have accessible methods for interested parties to engage in the process from planning to instances of notification.

xxix) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito local boards are an effective conduit between the public and the development of plans. Consideration needs to be given to pathways for comprehensively involving wider community and resourced appropriately, particularly those who might not usually participate in local democratic processes. In terms of the IAP2 spectrum, this would include elements of both ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’.

Consenting:

xxx) support / tautoko incentivising ‘net positive developments’ that improve both the natural environment and the built environment.

xxxi) support / tautoko an urban design focused outcome, ensuring that a more permissive consenting regime could still allow for facilities that match the need of the population.

xxxii) request / tono any significant construction and modification works carried out on a property to be noted on the property file to ensure a level of standard it met and applying for a certificate of compliance gives accountability to this.

xxxiii) oppose the inclusion of a fast track consenting process that appears to be modelled from the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, as captured in Subpart 8—Specified housing and infrastructure fast-track consenting process for the following reasons:

(1) the COVID-19 Recovery Act provisions were for the specific purpose of providing economic stimulus in response to COVID impacts. Turning this provision into a ‘business as usual’ provision would undermine the usual resource consenting process, including local feedback.

(2) the list of eligible activities is wide ranging and large-scale housing developments are proposed for the Puketāpapa Area. This may result in a large volume of fast-track consents which the local board must have input into as custodians of the local area.

(3) the fast-track consenting process could create a bypass for significant and complex developments, as illustrated by the projects that have gone through the COVID-19 fast-track process, that local boards and communities will have an interest in and want to give feedback on.

(4) the local board is concerned that “The panel decides whether it is appropriate to hold a hearing” which may translate to there being no opportunity for local input if no hearing is to be had.

(5) the fast turnaround for feedback on these often complex applications with a large amount of documentation means that effective and thorough feedback from local boards will be difficult to provide within timeframes, noting the limited capacity of Local Board Services and local board members are only a part time role.

(6) suggest that if a fast-track consenting process be provisioned, limit the scope of what activities are eligible and exclude housing for fairness in the market (ie a private developer has to go through the resource consent process, whereas another developer could apply and use the fast-track consenting process – this does not seem equitable)

(7) for large scale or significant applications for the fast-track consenting process, request that the applications are required to respond and comply with the aspirations of the local area as captured in local plans such as Area Plans and catchment plans developed by Auckland Council, including local boards.

xxxiv) request / tono those who apply for resource consent should show how their consent is in alignment with relevant plans such as the integrated area plan. Such as environmental impacts and human environmental impacts

Implementation:

xxxv) request / tono further information on how the implementation of the bills will take place. The current time frame of 10 years is problematic. There needs to be clearer guidance on how this will be implemented over this 10-year period that outlines what will be implemented first, second, third and how this will impact local levels.

xxxvi) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito councils need certainty around transition arrangements, including which regions are part of which tranches. And councils need a line in the sand in terms of when they should stop undertaking plan changes/leading resource intensive reviews of existing planning documents.

Environmental:

xxxvii) request / tono more focus on protecting the environment, and an outcome that focusses specifically on this.

xxxviii) oppose the compensation required by Natural and Built Environment Bill s590 and s591 where compensation is required by the Territorial Authority to the allotment owner when an esplanade reserve is required to be taken on a subdivision. The esplanade reserves are an important part of the environmental rehabilitation and public enjoyment of our waterways, providing a public good for future generations and the environment and with subdivisions representing intensification adjacent to the waterways, the contribution of the esplanade reserve to the public realm should be a part of the amenity to mitigate development and intensification adverse effects.

xxxix) request / tono further ability to provide for tree protection in urban environments.

Infrastructure:

xl) request / tono more focus on the wider infrastructure related to a development or use of a property. There needs to be a system of facilities and infrastructure sufficiently in place prior to any intensification with the ability to cope. A system under stress with intensification will have flow on effects.

xli) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito the development contributions regime is back to front as the infrastructure system needs to be there before houses are built

xlii) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito without central government funding, local boards will not be able to update existing assets until growth funds are received. Any asset in a local board area such as libraries and parks should be part of an earlier discussion at the beginning of the four wellbeing's.

Monitoring and system oversight

xliii) note / tuhi ā-taipitopito if the new system incorporates local views and reflects local planning, the additional funding from Central Government will lead to better monitoring and oversight.

Compliance and enforcement:

xliv) support / tautoko having Central Government fund compliance, and notes the difficulties faced by the council in prosecuting many breaches. There needs to be an increase in the penalties for breaching environmental laws.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent Decision	63
b ⇩	Memorandum from staff and decision-making report	69
c ⇩	Memo – Resource management reform Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill	81
d ⇩	Appendix A questions Memo – Resource management reform Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill	87
e ⇩	Appendix B Detailed Analysis and Advice on the new Resource Management System – local boards Memo	89

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Vanessa Phillips – Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent Decision	105
b ⇩	Memorandum from staff and decision-making report - Sale and Supply of Alcohol	107
c ⇩	Auckland Council Submission	111

Puketāpapa Local Board

16 February 2023

Urgent Decision to provide Puketāpapa Local Board feedback for the Justice Committee inquiry into the 2022 Local Government elections

File No.: CP2023/00652

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note that an urgent decision was made to provide Puketāpapa Local Board feedback on the Justice Committee inquiry into the 2022 Local Government elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At its meeting on 8 December 2022 the Puketāpapa Local Board resolved (PKTPP/2022/152):

a) delegate authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board, if the local board is unable to meet.

3. An urgent decision was required in this instance because the feedback needed to be provided by 31 January to be incorporated into the council’s submission. The Board’s next scheduled meeting is 9 February 2023. Delaying the feedback would result in the Board’s input not being able to be presented to the Planning, Environment and Community Committee for their consideration.

4. On 27 January 2023 the chairperson and deputy chairperson made an urgent decision on behalf of the Board to provide feedback on the Justice Committee inquiry into the 2022 Local Government elections. The urgent decision and supplementary information are included in this report as attachments.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito/note the urgent decision made on 27 January 2023 to provide feedback on the Justice Committee inquiry into the 2022 Local Government elections.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito/note the feedback provided as follows:

i) recommend centralising and standardising local election processes and voting methods respectively.

ii) do not support postal voting.

iii) recommend a polling booth approach to ensure voting integrity.

iv) request additional resource into increasing public awareness and education around local elections.

v) request special voting places are more accessible and well equipped.

vi) provide the following feedback to issues arising from the 2022 local elections:

A) there was confusion amongst the community how local elections work in comparison to general elections.

B) there is a lack of community appeal and participation with voting in local elections.

C) there is a need for better enabling community participation in standing with funding support options through central government budgets, it is very costly to independently run a campaign.

D) do not recommend election services being run by private organisations. If centrally run then it would ensure systems across the country are aligned, direct accountability for errors and the ability to implement changes

E) note concern with messaging from Elections NZ such as vote for change. Neutral language needs to be used as well as the voting agency remaining neutral.

F) note there were too few special voting places, and these were not accessible enough such as closing early, too few locations and some running out of voting papers.

G) request increased efforts into ensuring no voting place can run out of voting papers.

H) alternatives to postal voting need to be explored that are well staffed and resourced.

I) postal voting requires too much effort on the community having to find a post box to send their vote in.

J) postal ballots have a high probability of exploitation.

K) postal voting does not appear to work, and the post is no longer in majority of people’s daily lives.

L) support a two week long voting period with polling stations to ensure vote integrity.

M) increase opportunities for people to drop off their voting papers and have these easily identifiable.

N) election boxes at Countdown supermarkets were not easily identifiable and required stronger and increase signage.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent Decision	123
b ⇩	Memorandum from staff and decision-making report	125
c ⇩	Planning Environment and Parks Committee Agenda report	131

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Vanessa Phillips – Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Ella Kumar, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Fiona Lai
Members	Roseanne Hay	Bobby Shen
	Mark Pervan	Jon Turner

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Workshop Record 13 October 2022	147
b ⇩	Workshop Record 20 October 2022	149
c ⇩	Workshop Record 27 October 2022	151
d ⇩	Workshop Record 03 November 2022	153
e ⇩	Workshop Record 17 November 2022	155
f ⇩	Workshop Record 24 November 2022	157
g ⇩	Workshop Record 01 December 2022	159
h ⇩	Workshop Record 08 December 2022	161
i ⇩	Workshop Record 26 January 2023	163

Author	Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987