Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board - Thursday, 23 February 2023

1 Nau mai | Welcome

The Chairperson will lead the meeting in a Karakia.

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 9 February 2023, 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 Upper Harbour 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 AUT Millennium - Update on Upper Harbour Regional Marine Centre, North Harbour Rowing Centre and AUT Millennium

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update from AUT Millennium on the Upper Harbour Regional Marine Centre, the North Shore Rowing Club’s North Harbour Rowing Centre (Rame Road redevelopment) and AUT millennium.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Mike Stanley, Chief Executive Officer AUT Millennium, representing AUT Millennium, and Terry Zouch, will be in attendance to provide an update on the Upper Harbour Regional Marine Centre, the North Shore Rowing Club’s North Harbour Rowing Centre (Rame Road redevelopment) and AUT Millennium.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Mike Stanley, Chief Executive Officer AUT Millennium, and Terry Zouch, on behalf of AUT Millennium and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a AUT Millennium - Update on Upper Harbour Regional Marine Centre, North Harbour Rowing Centre and AUT Millennium - presentation............ 137

8.2 Hobsonville Community Trust - Update

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update from the Hobsonville Community Trust on Headquarters and Sunderland Lounge and provide an update on community initiatives in Hobsonville.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Gavin Gunston, Organisation Leader and Venues Manager, and Ian Dalziel, Chairperson of the Hobsonville Community Trust, representing the Hobsonville Community Trust, will be in attendance to provide an update on Headquarters and Sunderland Lounge and provide an update on community initiatives in Hobsonville.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Gavin Gunston, Organisation Leader and Venues Manager, and Ian Dalziel, Chairperson of the Hobsonville Community Trust on behalf of The Hobsonville Community Trust and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Hobsonville Community Trust update presentation..................................... 153

8.3 Meadowood Community House annual update

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update from Meadowood Community House.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Leona Page, House Manager and Sara Visser, representing Meadowood Community House, will be in attendance to provide an update on Meadowood Community House activities over the last year.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Leona Page, House Manager, and Sara Visser on behalf of Meadowood Community House and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Meadowood Community House annual update presentation...................... 165

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.”

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2023

Naming of the new reserve at Joshua Carder Drive, Hobsonville Point

File No.: CP2022/15421

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the name Te Kori for the new reserve at Joshua Carder Drive in Hobsonville Point.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A decision is sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board to formally name the new reserve at Joshua Carder Drive in Hobsonville, often referred to by the temporary project name ‘Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park’.

3. The new 16.4-hectare reserve is currently being transformed from a rural landscape to a public park to meet the needs of the growing Hobsonville community. The park will comprise of three zones including an area for sports and active recreation, an informal recreation area, and areas of ecological restoration and conservation.

4. Mana whenua engagement is required under the Conservation Act 1987 and Reserves Act 1977. Local boards are allocated decision-making authority for naming of community parks and facilities.

5. The Māori Language Policy was adopted by the Governing Body in 2016. The policy recognises Auckland Council’s commitment to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that the Māori language is a cultural treasure and an official language of Aotearoa.

6. Auckland Council has worked with mana whenua on establishing an appropriate name for the reserve. Te Kawarau a Maki has gifted the name ‘Te Kori’. Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara, the governance entity of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, have agreed that this name reflects the cultural and historical character of the reserve.

7. The name ‘Te Kori’ was developed by members of Te Kawarau a Maki who have advised that the Te Aka (Māori dictionary) has the definition of ‘Kori’ as either

· Verb; ‘to move, wriggle or play’

· Noun; ‘movement’

· Verb; ‘to move into action’

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the name ‘Te Kori’ for the new reserve at Joshua Carder Drive, Hobsonville Point, gifted by Te Kawarau a Maki and supported by Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara.

b) thank Te Kawarau a Maki for the gifted name and the support of Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara.

c) acknowledge there are overlapping mana whenua interests at this site and that the name does not negate these overlapping interests, and that this name has been supported by Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.

d) confirm that Te Kawarau a Maki will be the kaitiaki (guardian) for the name and acknowledge that Auckland Council is committed to upholding the correct use of the name and to use it only for purposes that have a community outreach or educational purpose (non-commercial use).

Horopaki

Context

8. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within an Auckland Local Government context.

9. These commitments are articulated in council’s key strategic planning documents: the Auckland Plan, the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan, local board plans and the Unitary Plan.

10. In responding to council’s commitments and obligations to Māori in a way that will improve outcomes for all, Whiria Te Muka Tangata – the Māori Responsiveness Framework, has been developed. Its purpose is to enhance and guide Auckland Council’s responsiveness to Māori. The framework articulates that council will work to ensure its policies and actions consider:

· recognition and protection of Māori rights and interests within Tāmaki Makaurau

· how to address and contribute to the needs and aspirations of Māori.

11. Auckland Council’s Māori Language Policy was adopted by the Governing Body in 2016. The policy recognises Auckland Council’s commitment to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This policy recognises that the Māori language is a cultural treasure and an official language of Aotearoa. It notes that the Māori language and culture forms a critical part of a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world. Reclaiming or identifying new Māori names for community parks within the Upper Harbour Local Board area provides a significant opportunity to fulfil the policy intent.

12. Key outcome areas of the Māori language policy are:

· Te reo tē kitea – Māori language that is visible

· Te reo tē rongohia - Māori language that is heard

· Te reo tē kōreohia - Māori language that is spoken

· Te reo tē ākona – Māori language that is learnt.

13. The Māori language policy acknowledges that te reo Māori is an official language of Aotearoa and should receive equal status to English and New Zealand Sign Language.

14. All local boards were consulted on the Māori Language Policy. Local boards have allocated decision-making authority for naming community parks and facilities.

15. Consultation with mana whenua was undertaken by Auckland Council and ‘Te Kori’ was developed as a name for the new reserve. This was part of the comprehensive master planning exercise for the reserve which was carried out over several years. Other Mana whenua groups have been updated on progress through the Northwest Mana Whenua forum as the plans for the reserve were developed.

Gazettal

16. Auckland Council as landowner can name parks and places by resolution through the exercise of its power of general competence under section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002. Local boards are the allocated decision-makers for the naming of local parks as resolved by the Governing Body 28 June 2018 resolution number GB/2018/106.

17. Where the land is vested in council and held as reserve under the Reserves Act, Council may name or change the name of a reserve by notice in the Gazette (s16(10) Reserves Act).

18. As part of the naming process any sites subject to the Reserves Act 1977 will be gazetted once the local board has adopted the name.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. The Reserves Act 1977 is subject to the Conservation Act 1987 which requires that the Reserves Act be interpreted and administered to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland Council must consult with and have regard to the views of iwi or hapu before undertaking action and making decisions about reserves for which it is the administering body.

20. Auckland Council recognises the Māori language as a cultural treasure and official language of New Zealand and is one of the main points of difference for Auckland in the world. The Auckland Council Māori Language Policy is the Council’s commitment to ensure the Māori language is seen, heard, spoken and learned throughout Tāmaki Makaurau by actively using and integrating it in its activities and functions.

21. Dual or bilingual signage for all council-owned reserves and facilities is a priority for action identified in the Auckland Council Māori Language Policy (refer Attachment A). Dual naming is considered a potential stepping-stone to parks and park features becoming known only by their original Māori name. In general, if dual names are used, the Māori name should be stated first, followed by a forward slash (with a visible space on each side), and then the non-Māori name.

22. Since the name of this reserve was proposed, the Te Kete Rukuruku programme has been established to take a best practice approach to Māori naming through an agreed process, in partnership between mana whenua and local boards. Through this partnership, it is envisaged that relationships between mana whenua and their local boards will be strengthened.

23. Using the interim naming guidelines, staff have assessed the proposed name and concluded as follows:

· the name Te Kori has support from mana whenua as well as Kainga Ora

· the name Te Kori complements the history and character found within the park

· the name Te Kori is not currently in use for a park in the Auckland region

· the use of Māori naming aligns with the Auckland Council 2016 Māori Language Implementation Plan, Te Reo te Kitea - Māori language that is visible.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. Council recognises that Māori is an official language of New Zealand and that those iwi and hapu groups that have Mana Whenua over the area in which this reserve is located are the appropriate entity to gift the name for this reserve.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. There are no climate impacts relating to this item.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The Upper Harbour Local Board have been involved in the master planning processes for this reserve development which has included the proposed naming of the reserve.

27. The Upper Harbour Local Board does not currently support the Te Kete Rukuruku programme. This may be considered in the future by the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. Mana whenua who have mana and traditional associations with Tāmaki Makaurau, and for which Tāmaki Makaurau is their tūrangawaewae (standing place) and whakapapa (a genealogical link) is the most appropriate authority from which to seek Māori names.

29. The recommended name is supported by Te Kawarau a Maki and Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara as it reflects tangata whenua values and is appropriate for the location.

30. The name ‘Te Kori’ was developed by members of Te Kawarau a Maki who have advised that the Te Aka (Māori dictionary) has the definition of ‘Kori’ as either

· Verb; ‘to move, wriggle or play’

· Noun; ‘movement’

· Verb; ‘to move into action’

31. It was also noted that these are literal translations but consider this to fit within the wider concept of the ‘physical movement’ connection in that this is a sports park. There is also a connection to the forward thinking ‘movement’ of sustainability that is integrated into every aspect of the development of this reserve. Although Kori is the word for movement, representatives from Te Kawarau a Maki stated that ‘Te Kori’ sounds better, and it is still grammatically correct.

32. Motifs have been identified during the master planning exercise for the development of the reserve, some of which are currently being integrated into the park design features. This includes the historical and cultural space of Tahingamanu which relates to a large flock of birds, the visual movement on the ocean and the changing (therefore moving) landscape of Hobsonville. It was thought that the name is reflective of all these images.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. There are no cost implications to the local board for approving a name of a park or reserve.

34. The minor capital costs associated with installation of park signage is included in the existing budgets in the Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. Where there are multiple iwi interests, there may be no agreement. There is overlapping iwi interest throughout much of Tāmaki Makaurau. In recognition of this, a principle of the Te Kete Rukuruku project, as agreed by mana whenua, is that mana whenua will work together to provide a single name except where there is more than one traditional name for a site.

36. In this instance, mana whenua have agreed on the proposed name Te Kori.

37. As the naming of this reserve is considered low risk, there is no requirement to undertake public consultation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. Should the local board approve the name ‘Te Kori, for the new reserve at Joshua Carder Drive, this will be updated on the Auckland Council website, geographic information system (GIS) and system,, application and products (SAP) systems.

39. Parks and Community Facilities department will be advised of the adopted name, and signage will include the new Māori name.

40. Following adoption, the name will be notified in the Gazette.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Maori Language Policy	15

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John McKellar - Parks & Places Specialist

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2023

Private Plan Change 86 (41-43 Brigham Creek Road) - Local Board Views

File No.: CP2023/00088

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a private plan change by Taste Business Investment Trust Limited, for a site at 41 – 43 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the plan change, if the relevant local board(s) chooses to provide its views.

3. Taste Business Investment Trust Limited (the Applicant) lodged a private plan change application for 41-43 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai. Private Plan Change 86 (PC 86) seeks to change the Auckland Unitary Plan by rezoning 5.19 hectares of land from Future Urban zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU). The purpose of PC86 is to enabling housing at 41 – 43 Brigham Creek Road.

4. PC 86 has had full public notification (20 working days) between 22 September to 21 October 2022. Key themes that have been raised in submissions received include effects on the transport network, infrastructure funding and servicing, stormwater, and ecological effects.

5. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on PC 86. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide local board views on private plan change 86 applied for by Taste Business Investment Trust Limited for 41 - 43 Brigham Creek Road.

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a forthcoming hearing on private plan change 86.

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

8. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the reporting planner includes those views in the hearing report prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The hearing report will therefore address issues raised by the local board and all other submissions.

9. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views to commissioners at the hearing. The commissioners make the decision on the private plan change request.

10. This report provides an overview of PC86, and a summary of submissions’ key themes. The report does not recommend what views the local board should convey, if the local board chooses to express its views on PC 86. The reporting planner must include any local board views verbatim in the reporting on PC86. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then proceed to evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The private plan change applies to 41 – 43 Brigham Creek Road. The land is currently zoned Future Urban Zone, as shown below in Figure 1 (blue highlighted site).

12. The applicant states that the purpose of PC 86 is to enable residential development close to the Whenuapai neighbourhood centre to promote a compact urban form. Figure 2 below shows the proposed rezoning from Future Urban Zone to Residential – MHU.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

13. PC 86 includes technical reports that evaluate transport, infrastructure, stormwater, noise, wetland and stream effects. These reports and other application details are available from council’s website at PC 86.

14. The council’s reporting planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· technical reports supplied by the applicant

· submissions

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

15. 23 submissions were received on PC86. Six submissions were in support, 17 were in opposition. Key submission themes are:

· Effects on the local and wider transport networks

· Additional traffic and volume of traffic movements

· Effects on amenity values, specifically local recreation provision.

16. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from council’s Auckland Unitary Plan page on the council website.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

20. RMA amendments coming into force next year will enable climate mitigation to be considered. These effects cannot be considered now, unless the private plan change proposes rules about particular greenhouse gas discharges. No rules of that kind are proposed in PC86.

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

In scope for RMA decision-making	Out of scope for RMA decision-making
Climate adaption issues, such as: How should land be allocated to different activities when considering how climate change may affect our environment? How and where should physical resources be constructed? For example: · will sea-level rise cause inundation of land where development is proposed? · is the land in an area susceptible to coastal instability or erosion? · will Auckland be less or better prepared for flooding, stress on infrastructure, coastal and storm inundation? · is ecosystem resilience improved through ecological restoration or reduced by the loss of indigenous habitats?	Climate mitigation issues such as: · release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere · increase in tail-pipe emissions from private car use, use of coal fired or natural gas burners

In scope for RMA decision-making

Out of scope for RMA decision-making

Climate adaption issues, such as:

How should land be allocated to different activities when considering how climate change may affect our environment?

How and where should physical resources be constructed?

For example:

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

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

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

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

Climate mitigation issues such as:

· release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere

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

22. Few submissions were raised in relation to climate change and climate adaptation. The two submissions below highlight issues that are broader than the effects of climate change as stated within section 7(i) of the RMA. Only climate adaptation submissions will be considered by the hearing commissioners.

23. Auckland Council’s submission (submitter 07) highlighted that PC86 may rely on car dependency, resulting in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle kilometers travelled.

24. Living Whenuapai submission (submitter 11) have raised concerns regarding stormwater proposed to be discharged into the nearby Significant Ecological Area, the Sinton Stream. Submission 11 also notes the lack of green space proposed within the PC86 area, resulting in a loss of biodiversity and canopy cover.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Auckland Transport (AT) staff have been involved in discussions with the applicant regarding the proposed transport infrastructure upgrades and the outputs from traffic modelling. AT have confirmed they do not require any further information at this time.

26. AT’s submission (submitter 17) raises concerns that:

· there is no immediate funding solution to respond to the cumulative effects of increased traffic on the wider north western transport system

· no likelihood of being able to agree on funding amounts, until the work by the Supporting Growth Alliance in the north west is completed

· protection for future local road upgrades

· provisions in relation to adjacent sites and Brigham Creek Road connections.

27. Watercare staff have been involved in discussions with the applicant since the lodgement of PC86. Watercare have identified in their submission (submitter 21) that there is currently no way to service the PC86 area with wastewater, until future infrastructure upgrades are completed, i.e. there are feasibility and timing issues.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The PC 86 is wholly within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The site is near to public land for which the local board has some decision-making powers. The site is approximately 250 metres from Whenuapai Settlement Playground.

29. Matters that the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. If the local board chooses to provide its views on PC86 it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, the Wellbeing of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori world view). 5.1% of residents in the local board area identify as Māori, in 2018 census results.

31. Taste Business Investment Trust Limited advised council that it consulted with the following iwi authorities:

· Ngāti Paoā Iwi Trust

· Kaitiaki, Ngāti Paoa Trust Board

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngāti Manuhiri, Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust

· Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

32. The section 42A hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the RMA which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. PC 86 does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan (2017, Independent Māori Statutory Board).

33. No iwi authority has made a submission on PC 86.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. PC 86 could have a financial implication for the local board. The applicant has proposed to fund infrastructure to mitigate the immediate local effects (particularly traffic) of the proposed development that would be enabled by PC86. The council does not have enough information to accurately assign a fair proportion of future transport costs to the proposed development.

35. Full costs of the infrastructure for the wider network are unable to be determined at this time and are likely to take some time to be calculated. The shortfall in funding of the infrastructure costs is not provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031. Therefore, the council is unable to recover the costs of future infrastructure via either the Development Contributions Policy or by having another funding mechanism in place. Should the development go ahead without these matters being resolved, this could put pressure on funding identified for other development areas. Impacts on infrastructure arising from PC86, including any financing and funding issues, will be addressed in the hearing report.

36. Costs associated with processing PC 86 will be recovered from the applicant.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on PC86, if it doesn’t pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. The reporting planner will include, and report on, any resolution(s) of the local board in the section 42A hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak in support of the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and will be invited to attend.

41. The planner will advise the local board by memorandum of the decision made by the independent hearing commissioners on PC86.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Regional, North West and Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2023

Local board feedback on the draft Future for Local Government report

File No.: CP2023/00308

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the Draft Report released by the Future for Local Government Review Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Future for Local Government Review Panel released its Draft Report (the Report) for consultation on 28 October 2022.

3. Auckland Council is preparing a submission in response to the Report. Submissions close on 28 February 2023.

4. The Report makes 29 recommendations on a wide range of areas including: revitalising citizen-led democracy, achieving Tiriti-based partnership between Māori and local government, the approach to allocating roles and functions across different players, achieving genuine partnership between central and local government, more equitable funding, designing a local government system to enable the change we need, and putting in place effective system stewardship.

5. Auckland Council has previously reached positions on some of the Report’s recommendations through programmes of work or engagement with central government. These positions will be the starting point for preparing the submission but there will be an opportunity for this council to reconsider those positions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the Draft Report to inform the council’s draft submission.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Minister for Local Government established the Future for Local Government Review (the Review) in April 2021 and established a Review Panel (the Panel). The purpose of the Review is to identify how our local democracy and governance system needs to evolve over the next 30 years, to improve the wellbeing of communities and the environment and to actively embody the Treaty partnership.

7. The Panel released its Interim Report in October 2021. The case for change described a local government under pressure without all the levers needed to deliver on community wellbeing. The sector therefore needs to work collaboratively with others including central government, iwi/Māori organisations, the business sector and community groups. It noted that trust had broken down and that there is a need for greater understanding between central government and local government.

8. The Panel released its Draft Report He mata whāriki, he matawhānui on 28 October 2022. The Report can be found at: https://www.futureforlocalgovernment.govt.nz/reports/

9. The Report makes 29 recommendations and asks a range of questions intended to inform the Final Report to the Minister.

10. The Panel states that we are in a period of change (climate change, pandemics, biodiversity loss, social and economic inequity). This is causing many of our communities to lose trust in democratic institutions and to disengage. Government reform is creating further uncertainty for the role of local government in communities.

11. The challenges facing Aotearoa New Zealand are too big for central government to address alone. Local government has a fundamental role to play in responding to these complex issues and improving the wellbeing of communities. This will require renewal and change (shifts) to many aspects of the local government system.

12. The Panel previously indicated five shifts are needed to make this change: strengthened local democracy, authentic relationships with hapū/iwi and Māori, a focus on wellbeing, genuine partnership between central and local government, and more equitable funding. Two additional shifts – system design and stewardship – will also need to be considered.

13. The Report sets out recommendations and asks questions in relation to: revitalising citizen-led democracy, Tiriti-based partnership between Māori and local government, allocating roles and functions, local government as champion and activator of wellbeing, replenishing and building on representative democracy, and equitable funding and finance.

14. Following the release of the Report, the Review Panel undertook a further round of engagement with the local government sector across New Zealand. This included three in-person sessions with local board members in Auckland on 5 and 6 December 2022.

15. The Governing Body has approved the preparation of an Auckland Council submission in response to the Report. Submissions are due by 28 February 2023.

16. The Panel’s Final Report is due with the Minister by June 2023. Any response to the Panel’s final recommendations will be a decision for the next government.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. The purpose of the Review is highly relevant to local government and Auckland Council.

18. Some recommendations in the Report are of a functional order (e.g. allocation of roles), some more foundational (e.g. Te Tiriti based partnerships) and some about the ‘system’ we work within. The Report does not necessarily set out all the relationships/interdependencies between the components.

19. It is proposed that the council’s submission draws these connections where possible to ensure there is a clear understanding of how all elements of the future system will work together and potential impacts and risks. Council should also seek further clarity on the future funding framework for local government and the pathway to build the required capability and capacity to carry out its future role.

20. The council has formed positions in previous terms on a number of recommendations contained in the Report. These will be the starting point for preparing the submission but there will be an opportunity for this council to reconsider those positions through the drafting process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. The Report acknowledges that councils have a significant role in mitigating and adapting to climate impacts in their areas. It also notes that the future climate challenge for local government is likely to be greater than the challenge it has faced over the past 30 years to address the infrastructure deficit.

22. Current funding streams to manage the impacts of climate events are already being challenged, placing many communities at risk and requiring a long-term approach to addressing these issues. The sums involved to mitigate and respond to climate effects are likely to be significant.

23. Accordingly, the Report recommends (recommendation 23) that central government develops an intergenerational fund for climate change, with the application of the fund requiring appropriate regional and local decision-making input.

24. In its submission on the Draft National Adaptation Plan earlier this year, Auckland Council argued that central government funding is crucial and must have a long-term focus.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. CCO chairs and chief executives have been provided with a summary and high-level analysis of the Report.

26. CCO staff are included in the experts across the council group who will develop the council’s submission for approval.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. The Report proposes that putting wellbeing at the core of council’s purpose and its roles and functions will unlock greater wellbeing outcomes for communities. Councils have an opportunity to strengthen and expand their role in three key ways: as anchor institutions, place-makers, and systems networkers and convenors.

28. The Report also proposes a framework to guide the allocation of roles and functions between different actors: central government, local government, hapū/iwi and community. The framework starts with a local-first approach (the subsidiarity principle) and is guided by te ao Māori values.

29. The Panel has engaged with local board members over the course of the Review in July 2021, March 2022 and most recently on 5 and 6 December 2022 through three separate in-person sessions held across Auckland.

30. Local board views on the Report are sought and will be incorporated into the council’s submission as appropriate. Formal local board feedback will be appended to council’s submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. A finding of the Review is that the system needs to ensure a more meaningful expression of rangatiratanga and a more culturally specific exercise of kāwanatanga by councils, with te ao Māori values reflected at all levels of the system.

32. In response, the Report proposes fundamental changes to Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, a strategic role for Māori in identifying and addressing priority outcomes that will lift community wellbeing, as well as strengthened specific mechanisms for partnership and engagement (including the incorporation of tikanga Māori).

33. It also proposes improvements to Māori representation at the council table, and a concerted investment in the capability and capacity of both local government and Māori to build and maintain a Tiriti-based partnership in local governance.

34. Staff have engaged with iwi on the system shifts proposed by the Panel at earlier stages in the Review process. Now that the Report has been released, iwi have been asked for their views to be considered for inclusion in council’s submission.

35. There has been ongoing engagement with Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) staff on the Review and they will have an opportunity to review the council’s submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The submission will be developed within existing resources.

37. The recommendations of the Review Panel are multi-faceted and there is insufficient information to anticipate or quantify financial implications for the council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. No risks have been identified in relation to preparation of council’s submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. Staff are drafting a submission for the Governing Body’s approval at its meeting on 23 February 2023.

40. Formal feedback to be appended to council submissions must be received by 23 February 2023.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Denise O’Shaughnessy – Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2023

Draft Contributions Policy 2022, Variation A

File No.: CP2023/00892

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 $83,251. 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 Upper Harbour 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/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 2023.

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

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2023

Auckland Council’s Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter two 2022/2023

File No.: CP2023/00639

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with an integrated performance report for quarter two of the 2022/2023 financial year, 1 October – 31 December 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides a retrospective overview of the financial and non-financial performance of Auckland Council against the agreed 2022/2023 Upper Harbour Local Board work programmes for the period beginning 1 October to 31 December 2022 – quarter two.

3. The key activity updates from the 2022/2023 work programme (Attachment A) for the reporting period include:

· the Greenhithe Santa Parade 2022 was cancelled and $5,000 is available to be re-allocated to a current existing locally driven initiatives (LDI) operating expenditure (Opex) project pending officers’ advice

· the construction of a new pathway at Rosedale Park has been completed and opened to the public (Activity ID 3051)

· all of the solar panels have been installed at Albany Pools and the installation of the inverters and cabling is underway (Activity ID 36482)

· the playspace renewal at Parkwood Reserve (Activity ID 30235) and replacement of play equipment at Bill Moir Reserve (Activity ID 30455) have both been completed

· public consultation on the Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan has closed and the Upper Harbour Local Board have appointed a hearings panel (Activity ID 1326).

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. Overall, 100 activities within the agreed 2022/2023 work programme are on track and 5 activities have some identified risk or issue which is being managed.

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 (Attachment B) 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

b) 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

7. The Upper Harbour Local Board has an approved 2022/2023 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Customer and Community Services

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· Auckland Emergency Management

· Tātaki Auckland Unlimited

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

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

9. 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

10. To complete the snapshot, and in addition to a RAG status, information on activity status is also collected for each quarter to show the stage of the activity. The graph below shows the activity status of activities in each departments 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

11. The key achievements in the delivery of the local board work programmes for 2022/2023 during quarter one include:

· Activation of community places Upper Harbour (Activity ID 404) – Albany Community Hub, Meadowood Community House, Sunderland Lounge and Headquarters have all provided a quarterly activation report which are included in this report as Attachments C, D, E and F

· Diverse Participation: Age friendly inclusion and diversity (Activity ID 396) – a community manager has been appointed to the Digital Seniors programme who is responsible for interviewing and recruiting volunteers as well as connecting with community organisations, and this quarter 9 volunteers have been recruited and drop-in centres have begun

· Event Partnership Fund Upper Harbour (Activity ID 409) – the Greenhithe Santa Parade 2022 was cancelled and the funding of $5,000 is available to be re-allocated to a LDI Opex project within the 2022/2023 financial year pending officers’ advice on appropriate projects, which will be included in the quarter three performance report

· Upper Harbour Full Facilities contracts (Activity ID 983) – during quarter two maintenance contractors have experienced increased difficulties as for extended periods of time many sites were too wet for mowing; additionally, the amount of graffiti vandalism on council assets has increased significantly throughout the local board area

· Rosedale Park – new pathway (Activity ID 3051) – the construction of the pathway has been completed and opened to the public, followed by the completion of the line marking of ramps and speed tables

· Starlight Park – renew play space (Activity ID 27886) – the 'Have your say' results have been analysed and a concept design is being developed

· Bay City Park – re-new sports field lights (Activity ID 29111) – the concrete pouring for foundations is completed, the poles have been manufactured and delivered and resource consent has been granted

· Albany Pools – install solar panels (Activity ID 36482) - all the solar panels have been installed and the installation of the inverters and cabling is underway

· Parkwood Reserve – re-new playspace (Activity ID 30235) – and the Bill Moir Reserve equipment replacement as part of Upper Harbour – re-new park play spaces 2021/2022+ (Activity ID 30455) – have both been completed

· Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan (Activity ID 1326) – public consultation has closed, and the Upper Harbour Local Board appointed a hearings panel with the hearing expected to take place in March 2023

Activities with some risk or issues, being managed

12. The following work programme activity has been identified by operating departments as having some risk or issues that are being managed and have been given an Amber RAG status:

· Māori responsiveness Upper Harbour (Activity ID 403) – the sculpture project for Albany Village has not been completed during this quarter and staff are seeking further information from Ngati Manuhiri to confirm sculpture installation and unveiling dates.

· Albany Pool - install disability amenities (Activity ID 19839) – this project has experienced delays due to copyright issues and as of quarter two the concept design is nearing completion and will be sent to Lifemark Building Consultants for review before going to the Upper Harbour Local Board for approval

· Observation Green – develop neighbourhood park (Activity ID 29151) – this project has an Amber RAG status due to delays in delivery and during quarter two the contractor award is in process with construction of the park scheduled to begin during quarter three to quarter four of the 2022/2023 financial year.

· Fernhill Escarpment – re-new walkway and wayfinding signage (Activity ID 20471) – the materials for the bridge have been ordered, however due to unstable ground conditions the project remains delayed and the bridge foundation is expected to commence in quarter three of the 2022/2023 financial year.

Activities on hold

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

· Upper Harbour implement actions from the Greenways Plan (Activity ID 20709) this project remains on hold and has an Amber RAG status. The local board provided direction to prioritise the Albany Pool – install disability amenities project (Activity ID 19839) therefore the locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital expenditure (Capex) funding allocation for this project has been deferred to 2023/2024 with a reduction in 2022/2023 from $53,383 to $9,545

Changes to the local board work programme

Activities with changes

14. The following work programmes activities have been amended to reflect minor change, the implications of which are reported in the table below. The local board was informed of these minor changes, and they were made by staff under delegation.

Table 2: Minor change to the local board work programmes

ID/Ref

Work Programme Name

Activity Name

Change

Reason for change

Budget Implications

3051

Customer and Community Services

Rosedale Park - new pathway

$90,000 has been transferred from Rosedale Park - new pathway to Caribbean Drive - sports park upgrade

The project was successfully completed with a saving of $90,000 which was transferred

to Caribbean Drive-sports Park upgrade to cover some additional costs

Both projects are funded with the NCI compensation funding from NZTA

23782

Customer and Community Services

Caribbean Drive -sports field upgrade and new toilet facility

$90,000 has been transferred

Caribbean Drive - sports park upgrade from Rosedale Park - new pathway

Rosedale Park - new pathway was successfully completed with a saving of $90,000 which was transferred

to Caribbean Drive-sports Park upgrade to cover some additional costs

Both projects are funded with the NCI compensation funding from NZTA

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

16. 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.

17. The local board is invested in a number of sustainability projects, which aim to build awareness around sustainable practices, and support changing behavior at a local level, which include:

· Taonga tuku iho – Legacy – we preserve our past, ensure our future (Environment) – Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1120) – funds libraries to showcase sustainable workplace practices and quarter two delivered a workshop on worm farming and a session making sustainable Christmas decorations

· Pest free Upper Harbour strategy (Activity ID 3015) – will develop a Pest Free Upper Harbour Strategy and during quarter two the high-level planning of this project was completed, and procurement is now underway for delivering the stakeholder workshops and writing the strategy and Action Plan

· Ecology initiatives assistance programme Upper Harbour (Activity ID 716) – provides continued support for conservation projects proposed by the community, as part of the implementation of the Upper Harbour Ecological Connectivity Strategy and during quarter two Seven of eight new funding agreements for this programme have been completed

· Construction Waste Education and Leadership Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1441) – has established a construction and demolition waste advisor to work with developers to improve site practices; during quarter two there were eight referrals to compliance which resulted in two abetment notices and an infringement notice

· Our Local Streams Sustainable Schools (Activity ID 727) – provides expertise and assistance in stream care to eight schools and, this quarter, the contract was signed confirming involvement of all eight schools, including one new school, and testing sites are being identified.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. 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

19. This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for quarter one of 2022/2023 from 1 October to 31 December 2022

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. The Local board’s work programme contains a number of activities aimed at delivering on Māori outcomes for the 2022/2023 financial year.

21. Highlights for the quarter two reporting period on activities with a direct focus on Māori outcomes are outlined below:

· Whakatipu i te reo Māori – we grow the Māori language Celebrating te ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori – Upper Harbour (Activity ID 1115) – promotes the use of te reo in everyday communication and in quarter two library staff have been increasing their knowledge of te reo Māori and have been practicing a waiata to welcome the new Albany Library manager

· Māori responsiveness Upper Harbour (Activity ID 403) – aims to support local Māori in delivering social and economic outcomes and during quarter two Te Ohu o Onekiritea, a group led by mataawaka Māori residents in Hobsonville, provided te reo and tikanga sessions for local residents at the Sunderland Lounge

· Connected and Resilient Communities: Albany (Activity ID 398) – works with communities to build stronger connections and in quarter two the Albany Hub hosted successful Te Reo Māori classes which now have full classes for the next term.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. This report is provided to enable the Upper Harbour 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

23. 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 (Attachment B) is excluded from the public.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. 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.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. To receive and consider officers advice during the 2022/2023 quarter three performance report and reallocate $5,000 from Event Partnership Fund Upper Harbour (Activity ID 409) to an existing LDI Opex project in the 2022/2023 Upper Harbour Local Board work programme.

26. 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 ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Work Programme 2022/2023 Q2 Report	53
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Financial Report to 31 December 2022 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
c ⇩	Albany Community Hub Quarter two Report - 2022	81
d ⇩	Meadowood Community House 2nd Quarter report 15 December 2022	85
e ⇩	Sunderland Lounge – Te Rere Quarterly Update – 15 December 2022	91
f ⇩	Headquarters – Te Mahere Quarterly Activation Update – 15 December 2022	93