Agenda of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Approved Scope February 2023 - Flooding impacts implications and improvements

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Auckland Plan Three Yearly Progress Report

File No.: CP2023/01298

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To present the Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Plan 2050 was adopted in June 2018 and sets the long-term strategic direction for Auckland.

3. Reporting on progress against the Auckland Plan 2050 is done through:

· Annual Monitoring Reports against the Plan’s measures (annual scorecard)

· Three Yearly Progress Reports against the Plan’s outcomes from 2020 (the main subject of this report and included as Attachment A)

· Updates on new information relevant to the Auckland Plan (updated evidence report for the six Plan outcomes were published in September 2022 and the Plan updated accordingly).

4. The Three Yearly Progress Report provides an in-depth analysis on progress towards the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and identifies opportunities for greater progress.

5. Since the last Three Yearly Progress Report in February 2020 there has been unprecedented disruption. Ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impacts from accelerating climate change (including extreme weather events) and the growing threat from the biodiversity crisis for example, are driving change and demand a rapid transformation to a low-carbon and inclusive society and economy.

6. The main findings of this report support the continued focus on the Plan’s key challenges of high population growth, shared prosperity and environmental degradation. The two most dominant themes across the outcomes and in the opportunities for greater progress centre on the need to ensure equitable outcomes and the societal transformation needed in response to climate change. This is consistent with the key challenges identified in the Auckland Plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report.

b) ohia / endorse the opportunities for greater progress (as identified in the Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report) as a basis for alignment with the 10-year budget and other decision making as appropriate.

c) tono / request the Three Yearly Progress Report be distributed to all local boards for their information.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Auckland Plan 2050, a statutory 30-year spatial plan for Auckland was adopted in June 2018 (PLA/2018/62).

8. The legislation for the Auckland Plan sets out the requirements for implementing the plan. It must:

· enable coherent and co-ordinated decision making by Auckland Council and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland

· provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council

· identify policies, priorities, land allocations and programmes and investments to implement the strategic direction and specify how resources will be provided to implement the strategic direction.

9. In addition, the Development Strategy component of the Auckland Plan 2050 was prepared to meet the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

10. In line with these requirements, the Three Yearly Progress Report provides an in-depth analysis of progress towards the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and identifies opportunities for greater progress as a basis for alignment with the council’s 10-year budget and other decision-making as appropriate.

11. The Development Strategy is a core component of the Auckland Plan 2050. Monitoring progress towards implementation is undertaken annually. The latest monitoring report covering the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 was published in December 2022.

12. The Three Yearly Progress Report contains data up to and including 2022 as available. It covers a broad range of measures and data sources vary in their availability. It focuses on analysing and describing the long-term trends, building on a broad range of insights and understanding, including the 2022 updated evidence reports for the Auckland Plan outcomes. Where the measures rely on the Census, the latest available data is 2018. This will be updated when the 2023 Census is completed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The Auckland Plan 2050 uses 33 measures to measures progress and trends across the six outcomes and the Development Strategy. The latest scorecard was published in September 2022.

14. The Three Yearly Progress Report provides an in-depth analysis using a wider range of data and research than the annual scorecard to evaluate progress towards the outcomes. The Plan takes a 30-year view of outcomes and progress should be considered in the context of this long-term planning horizon.

15. This is the second Three Yearly Progress Report since the adoption of the Plan in June 2018. The first Three Yearly Progress Report was presented to elected members in March 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic.

16. The report provides supporting evidence and strategic context for areas identified as opportunities for greater progress. These areas are considered integral to moving toward the outcomes and provides a basis for alignment with the 10-year budget.

17. Since the last Three Yearly Progress Report in early 2020 there has been unprecedented disruption leading to increasing levels of uncertainty for decision makers. The ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and era scale changes from accelerating climate change including extreme weather events and the growing threat from the biodiversity crisis for example, are driving change and demand a rapid transformation to a low-carbon and inclusive society and economy.

18. These global changes are highlighting and exacerbating the challenges we already face as a city (identified in the Auckland Plan 2018), which are responding to population growth, reducing environmental degradation and ensuring shared prosperity for all Aucklanders.

19. It is against this backdrop that we report progress on the Auckland Plan. The evidence reinforces the continued need to focus on our three key challenges through areas identified as opportunities for greater progress.

20. Common themes emerge across the outcomes and in the opportunities for greater progress, with two of the most dominant centering on equity and societal transformation in response to climate change, mirroring the key challenges identified in the Auckland Plan. The key themes and opportunities for greater progress are largely a continuation of those identified in the previous Three Yearly Progress Report.

21. Many of the opportunities for greater progress do not fall within the direct control of Auckland Council. This is understandable given the Auckland Plan is not focused on Auckland Council, but on outcomes for Auckland and Aucklanders. These opportunities for greater progress point to the need for increased advocacy, on behalf of communities, to central government.

22. The critical need to address equity issues in relation to socio-economic outcomes such as education, health, employment, income and housing runs through as a key theme. Disparities in all of these areas play out both spatially and ethnically. The societal transition required in response to climate change has far reaching implications across all outcomes, and the potential to exacerbate the disparities Māori are already experiencing. The transition required is reflected in areas such as the focus on transport emissions reduction; increasing the uptake of more sustainable housing; a greener urban environment for enhanced climate resilience and wellbeing; future skills for a greener, regenerative economy, and leveraging mātauranga Māori in the adaptation process as a central part of New Zealand’s transition pathway.

23. The Three Yearly Progress Report is summarised below with detail provided in the full report (Attachment A) and a summary version (Attachment B).

Belonging and Participation

All Aucklanders will be part of and contribute to society, access opportunities, and have the chance to develop to their full potential

How is this outcome progressing?

Opportunities for greater progress

· Persistent and deep-seated inequalities between different socio-economic groups a major challenge – deprivation concentrated in South and West Auckland

· Inequitable progress against child poverty targets - Māori, Pacific and disabled children experiencing the most hardship

· Rising cost of living impacting all Aucklanders, but particularly those already most disadvantaged

· Weakened community connection and resilience - sense of community has declined; more people report feeling lonely and trust in people has declined

· Health and wellbeing declining - quality of life and physical and mental health has declined, with Māori, Pacific and younger people reporting poorer results

· Diversity as a strength – Auckland is becoming increasingly diverse and a growing number of Aucklanders report feeling increased diversity is making the city better.

· Supporting community connection and resilience: initiatives to improve community connection and resilience should focus on providing safe and welcoming places and spaces for Aucklanders to interact.

· Improving mental and physical health: growing inactivity contributes to worsening mental and physical health. Access to affordable places and spaces for activity, recreation and connection vital, highlighting the critical role of council provision of these spaces.

· Supporting communities of greatest need: the pandemic has negatively impacted financial wellbeing and job security, highlighting inequity and child poverty. Targeted action and investment are needed to support those with the greatest needs.

Māori Identity and Wellbeing

A thriving Māori identity is Auckland’s point of difference in the world – it advances prosperity for Māori and benefits all Aucklanders

How is this outcome progressing?

Opportunities for greater progress

· Māori experiencing overall poorer outcomes in education, health, employment and housing

· Individual and household incomes improving

· Educational attainment improving; NEET rate improving

· Māori economy growing strongly in Auckland

· Te reo Māori resurgence - attitude towards the Māori language among Māori and non-Māori improving

· Recognition of mātauranga and te ao Māori increasing in particular when managing natural resources

· Some progress on Māori heritage protection through the regulatory framework and the reflection of Māori identity and culture in places and spaces.

· Improving housing choices for Māori: much lower home ownership rate with no significant change and more likely to live in unsuitable housing (such as overcrowding or incidence of damp/mould) due to the quality of the rental stock they can access. Māori are also over-represented in homelessness figures. A focus on Māori-led solutions is needed to deliver more fit-for-purpose housing choices.

· Improving health outcomes for Māori: Self-rated measures of health have decreased which are aligned with key health indicators. The Waitangi Tribunal has noted that Māori have been most impacted by COVID-19 due to existing disparity of health outcomes and inadequacy of central government responses. More Māori-led solutions focusing on whānau are required to improve Māori health and reduce inequalities.

· Addressing climate change impacts on Māori: Māori face the loss of physical structures and resources, as well as the impacts of those losses on the spiritual, physical, intellectual, and social values that are integral to the health and wellbeing of Māori identity. The impacts of transition will exacerbate the existing disparity they are already experiencing. A Māori-led transition pathway, based on the principles of the treaty, will be required.

Homes and Places

Aucklanders live in secure, healthy, and affordable homes, and have access to a range of inclusive public places

How is this outcome progressing?

Opportunities for greater progress

· Auckland becoming more compact, legislative changes will enable even more intensification

· Worsening housing affordability; intermediate housing market growing; more people experiencing housing stress

· Housing supply increasing with historic high consent numbers; typologies changing

· Improvements to rental housing system - Healthy Homes legislation leading to better quality rentals; Residential Tenancies Act changes leading to greater security of tenure; tax incentives to stimulate build-to-rent investments

· Uptake of more sustainable homes increasing, but still only a fraction of new homes

· People are reporting declining satisfaction with the built environment, with housing development among top three reasons given

· Little data / evidence on the quality of urban spaces

· Greening of the city – data limited, but reports of loss of mature trees to development.

· Improving housing affordability: Auckland housing is severely unaffordable, and a large number of people are experiencing housing stress. This has detrimental individual and societal costs. There is an urgent need to improve housing affordability for all Aucklanders, requiring multi-faceted solutions and sustained action from all stakeholders.

· Building better and more sustainable homes: step change is needed to improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock and reduce embodied carbon. This also offers important co-benefits (e.g. health and wellbeing).

· Maximising urban green spaces that improve the lives of people and planet: maximising the role of urban green spaces in climate change adaptation and mitigation, whilst also enhancing the liveability of higher density living require a strategic approach to planning and managing of nature and green spaces.

Transport and Access

A low-carbon, safe transport system that delivers social, economic and health benefits for all

How is this outcome progressing?

Opportunities for greater progress

· Transport emissions constitute the largest part of Auckland’s total emissions, and remain high with no signs of decreasing at a rate necessary to meet climate commitments

· Safety – death and serious injury remain high, but declining, except for cyclists

· Public transport – highest ever level of public transport boardings pre-COVID 19, but lockdowns led to decreased demand for public transport

· Infrastructure improvements – better walking and cycling links and connections between railway stations.

· Reducing transport related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: requires significant and sustained investment in the initiatives outlined in the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway e.g. public transport, walking, cycling and micro-mobility, and integrated land-use and transport policy and action.

· Ensuring a safe transport system, free from deaths and serious injuries: the design of new and upgraded infrastructure and investment decisions must prioritise vulnerable road users e.g. people walking and cycling.

· Targeting investment on the most significant challenges: taking a long-term view to ensure existing strategic direction is driving investment decisions, including direction from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, the Transport Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP), and Vision Zero for Tāmaki Makarau.

Environment and Cultural Heritage

Aucklanders preserve, protect and care for the natural environment as our shared cultural heritage, for its intrinsic value and for the benefit of present and future generations

How is this outcome progressing?

Opportunities for greater progress

· Biodiversity - animal and plant pest control is successfully protecting the rich biodiversity throughout our regional parks, on Hauraki Gulf islands, and in rural areas

· Tree planting is increasing biodiversity and native forest cover

· Visibility of Māori culture and identity has improved with te reo Māori names of parks and public spaces, and use of Māori design elements in the city urban area

· Cultural heritage protection improving, but must be ramped up further to ensure sites of cultural significance to mana whenua have formal protection.

· Building resilient infrastructure systems: Climate change calls for a rapid transition to clean energy and transportation. Critical improvements to water infrastructure are needed to reduce sewage overflows currently having detrimental effects on rivers, streams, beaches and harbours.

· Mitigating environmental pressures of growth by increased use of nature-based solutions: Part of the solution to managing our growth is to make greater use of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions. Enhanced uptake of nature-based solutions (e.g. tree-lined streets, urban green spaces, permeable pavements) will enhance biodiversity, resilience and climate change mitigation. They double as urban green spaces and act as recreational and educational areas.

· Enhancing protection of our cultural heritage: More resourcing needed to ensure greater formal statutory protection of sites of significance to mana whenua, potentially under threat by development across the city.

Opportunity and Prosperity

Auckland is prosperous with many opportunities and delivers a better standard of living for everyone

How is this outcome progressing?

Opportunities for greater progress

· Economic performance interrupted by the pandemic with falling GDP and job losses in some sectors (retail and hospitality). Other sectors doing well e.g. construction

· Economic growth dampened by rising inequality and income disparity

· Unemployment is low but labour productivity has slightly decreased

· Public investment in R&D low by global standards

· Educational achievement improved, but disparities still exist. Only slow growth in the proportion of high skilled jobs

· Skills shortages in many sectors – signs that Auckland is losing skilled workers to other places that offer better wages and employment opportunities

· Improving outcomes for Māori - increased wages and less unemployment and growth in their asset base

· Pacific Peoples continue to experience greater disparities in incomes and employment.

· Attracting and retaining innovation, talent and investment: Auckland’s attractiveness as a place to live and work is vital for business success and competitiveness. Quality infrastructure, entertainment, and an attractive natural and built environment are critical elements to be invested in.

· Working towards equitable economic wellbeing: disparities in socio-economic outcomes must be urgently addressed, requiring among other things a continued focus on improving educational outcomes and housing affordability.

· Transitioning to a low carbon, regenerative economy: responding to climate and non-climate related disruption requires transition, including the adoption of new business models, new disruptive innovations and technologies. The transition presents opportunities by way of new sectors and jobs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. This report highlights several trends that are directly relevant to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, largely related to transport, housing and business growth. It outlines the urgent need to both mitigate and adapt to climate change to increase the city’s resilience to its impacts, specifically through:

· Building better and more sustainable homes

· Maximising urban green spaces that improve the lives of people and planet

· Reducing transport related greenhouse (GHG) emissions

· Building resilient infrastructure systems

· Mitigating environmental pressures of growth by increased use of nature-based solutions

· Transitioning to a low carbon, regenerative economy.

25. Our latest GHG inventory (based on the year 2019) highlighted another increase (+3.2% compared to year 2018) in the regional GHG emissions, highlighting the urgent need to mitigate and reduce our emissions to achieve our 2030 and 2050 targets.

26. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets Auckland Council’s direction to respond to accelerating climate change and must guide its investment through a better integration of climate in the budgeting and decision-making processes. The need to mitigate and respond to climate change has been identified as a significant theme that must be addressed through alignment with the 10-year budget 2023-33.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The council group will be provided with information on the opportunities for greater progress through alignment with the 10-year budget 2023-33. Council staff will continue to work with substantive CCOs to ensure further progression and implementation of outcomes where relevant.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The Three Yearly Progress Report includes analysis of some measures at a spatial level and addresses issues of inequality and disparities that exist across Auckland’s communities. These disparities are most evident in the following opportunities for greater progress:

· Improving mental and physical health

· Supporting communities of greatest need

· Improving housing choices for Māori

· Improving health outcomes for Māori

· Addressing climate change impact on Māori

· Improving housing affordability

· Moving towards equitable economic wellbeing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. The Three Yearly Progress Report shows progress towards the Auckland Plan 2050 outcome Māori Identity and Wellbeing. The areas identified as opportunities for greater progress are:

· Improving housing choices for Māori

· Improving health outcomes for Māori

· Addressing climate change impacts on Māori.

30. Directions for improving outcomes for Māori are included within most of the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and therefore progress or otherwise in these areas will have an impact on Māori. Trends and results that are specific to Māori (for example, health, housing, education and employment statistics) are detailed alongside each of the outcome areas.

31. The council adopted the Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, Māori outcomes performance measurement framework in 2021, to measure Māori wellbeing outcomes and performance. This monitoring framework complements the Auckland Plan monitoring framework with many shared measures and is published annually in the Māori Outcomes Report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. The strategic direction set in the Auckland Plan 2050 provides advice to support decision-making on the council’s long-term plans. Staff will use the Three Yearly Progress Report to input into the 10-year budget 2023-33 through the identified opportunities for greater progress as set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. Research and analysis of datasets, measures and trends can be limited by data availability, accuracy and inconsistencies in interpretation. Whilst great care has been taken to ensure accuracy of data and validity of information, the areas identified as opportunities for greater progress have relied on a range of information sources and have been considered within a strategic and future focussed context.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee will receive the following regular reporting on the Auckland Plan 2050:

· Auckland Plan annual scorecard, containing commentary on the 33 outcome measures, the next report due July/August 2023.

· A three yearly progress report that provides and in-depth analysis of outcome trends and provides advice on opportunities for greater progress for council’s long term planning processes. The next report is due in 2026.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Plan Three Yearly Progress Report 2023
b ⇨	Auckland Plan Three Yearly Progress Report 2023 - Summary version

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lise Eriksen - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Auckland Unitary Plan - Proposed Plan Change - Rezoning of 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat

File No.: CP2023/00430

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to prepare and notify a proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) to rezone 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat from Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone to Residential – Single House zone.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Planning for development in the Kingseat area was initiated by the legacy Franklin District Council and advanced by Auckland Council after amalgamation in 2010. The area is identified in the Auckland Plan for urban development and the AUP zonings for the Kingseat precinct are based on the 2011 Kingseat Structure Plan. Both 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road are located in the Kingseat precinct and are zoned Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone. The properties are privately owned.

3. Staff from the council’s Community and Social Policy department have assessed the open space needs and provision in the area against the council’s Open Space Provision Policy. They have advised the owners that the council does not wish to acquire any additional open space land adjoining the council’s existing three-hectare suburb park.

4. Privately owned land is not typically zoned open space unless there is agreement with the landowner. Environment Court decisions have supported this approach in the past, however it is noted that there is no hard and fast legal principle to this effect. As the council is unwilling to acquire 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, the owner does not support the properties being zoned for open space and has requested the properties are re-zoned Residential – Single House zone via a council-initiated plan change. The re-zoning would enable approximately 90 additional houses to be built within the Kingseat precinct.

5. Auckland Transport staff expressed an initial concern that the rezoning of the two properties could result in adverse effects on the transport network and that an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) was required.

6. Two reports have subsequently been prepared that assess the transport and traffic effects of rezoning the two properties to Residential – Single House zone:

a) An Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) to assess a potential plan change

b) A wider transport review/assessment of the Kingseat precinct.

7. The ITA concludes that additional development provided by a change in zoning to Residential – Single House zone could be accommodated by the local transport network.

8. In terms of the wider area, the additional transport review/assessment concludes that the currently anticipated land use in the wider area will increase the level of morning peak period traffic congestion on both Linwood Road and Hingaia Road and increase traffic volumes at the Papakura interchange.

9. On 2 June 2022, the Planning Committee resolved (PLA/2022/54):

a) request staff to pause any further work on the preparation and notification of a proposed plan change to rezone 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat from Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation pending the forthcoming central government release of the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land, and the resolution of water supply and wastewater infrastructure issues, and advise the land owners of this direction.

b) as a result of a) request staff to re-consider the appropriate zoning and any other options for the land at 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat and report back to the relevant committee of the new council with recommendations on any next steps.

10. 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road contain prime soils. The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land 2022 (NPS-HPL) came into effect on 17 October 2022. It restricts the rezoning of land from a general rural or rural production zone to an urban zone. As both 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road are currently zoned open space (and not a general rural or rural production zone), the NPS-HPL does not apply.

11. Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngaati Te Ata Waiohua have expressed concerns with the proposed rezoning due to the absence of adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure in the Kingseat area. It is noted that there are rules in the Kingseat precinct that would make land subdivision without the necessary public water supply and wastewater infrastructure in place, a non-complying activity. Should a resource consent application of this nature be received, iwi authorities would be provided with the opportunity to raise their concerns, and if notified, make formal submissions.

12. The proposed rezoning is supported by the Franklin Local Board.

13. The key alternatives to initiating a council plan change to rezone the properties to Residential – Single House zone are:

· retain the current open space zoning

· retain the current open space zoning and acquire the properties

· rezone the properties to a rural zone.

14. If the council does not rezone or acquire the properties, the land owners have two key options. They can:

· seek a declaration from the Environment Court requiring the council to rezone the properties

· apply for a private plan change.

15. Having regard to the history of planning for the Kingseat precinct, Environment Court caselaw regarding the zoning of private property as open space, the transport analysis that has been undertaken, and the council’s Open Space Provision Policy, it is recommended that the council prepares and notifies a plan change to rezone the properties at 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road from Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation to Residential – Single House zone.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the preparation and notification of a proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to rezone 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat from Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone to Residential – Single House zone, together with consequential amendments to the maps and text in the Kingseat precinct to reflect the proposed change in zoning.

Horopaki

Context

16. Plan Change 28 (Kingseat Structure Plan) to the legacy Franklin District Plan was publicly notified on 20 January 2011 and made operative on 21 July 2015 following the resolution of appeals. The structure plan showed a future sports park in the vicinity of 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat.

17. The AUP zoned 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road as Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone. It also applied other zones to the Kingseat area, including Business – Local Centre, Business – Light industry, Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban and Residential – Single House zone.

18. 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat are owned by Kingseat Village Limited. The open space zoning was included in Plan Change 28 to the legacy Franklin District Plan with the agreement of the landowner.

19. In October 2019, staff within the council’s Community and Social Policy department confirmed that, in accordance with the council’s Open Space Provision Policy, the council does not wish to acquire any additional open space land adjoining the council’s existing three hectare suburb park. The provision of formal sports fields for current and future residents of the Kingseat precinct will be catered for at the nearby Karaka Recreation Reserve.

20. 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat were originally proposed to be included in Proposed Plan Change 60 – Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters. However, Auckland Transport expressed concern that the rezoning of the two properties could result in adverse traffic effects and that an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) was required to support the plan change. The properties were subsequently withdrawn from Proposed Plan Change 60.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

21. Flow Transportation Specialists Limited were subsequently engaged to assess the transport and traffic effects of rezoning the two properties to Residential – Single House zone. Two reports have been prepared:

a) An Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) to assess a potential plan change

b) A wider transport review/assessment of the Kingseat precinct.

22. The findings of the two studies are considered under the analysis and advice section below.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Open Space Caselaw

23. Privately owned land is not typically zoned open space unless there is agreement with the land owner.

24. There is relevant caselaw on the zoning of private land as open space (or equivalent). This includes:

a) Dilworth Trust Board v Dunholme Lawn Tennis Club & Auckland City (1980) A142/80

b) Golf (2012) Ltd v Thames-Coromandel District Council [2019] NZEnvC 112.

25. In the Dilworth case, the Environment Court found it was unreasonable to apply Recreation D zoning from the Auckland City District Plan to private land used for recreation purposes, without the consent or acquiescence of the owner of that land. The Court noted that in “the case of the present appellants, they oppose that form of zoning for their land. The appeals must therefore be allowed”.

26. However, in the Golf (2012) Ltd case, the Environment Court found that there is no general principle that private land cannot be zoned as open space against the owner’s wishes and that the planning history of an area is relevant to determining the appropriateness of zoning for a particular site. The Court concluded that each case needs to be determined on its own merits.

27. The particular factors that were determinative in this case were that the site had been zoned open space for a number of years and this was known to the appellant when it was purchased, and the site and surrounding area also had high amenity value which required protection. It should be noted that in the Court’s decision, it was recommended that the council and Matarangi Community make it a priority to formally acquire the land of the golf course which was zoned open space. Therefore, this case could be distinguished from others where such factors are not present.

28. There are no special or unusual factors applying to 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road that would warrant the retention of the open space zoning.

Integrated Transport Assessment and Wider Area Effects

29. In the ITA, Flow Transportation Specialists Ltd consider that additional development opportunities provided by a potential plan change could be accommodated by the local transport network. They also consider that the existing Kingseat Precinct provisions are adequate to ensure that any development within the plan change area would provide appropriate improvements to the local transport network to support development.

30. In terms of the wider transport network, the transport specialists consider that the currently anticipated land use development in the wider area will increase the level of morning peak period traffic congestion on both Linwood Road and Hingaia Road, and increase pressure on Papakura interchange. The effects of this increasing congestion have not previously been fully considered, through for example the Te Tupu Ngatahi/Supporting Growth Alliance programme of work.

31. Whether or not this land is developed, demands for private car travel on the Linwood Road/Hingaia Road corridor are predicted to exceed its capacity in the future, as will demand for travel through the Papakura interchange. This is to be expected through growth anticipated across the wider South Auckland area. Waka Kotahi will continue its role of managing demand on the motorway network through ramp metering, and prioritising high productivity vehicles through T2/truck lanes at the Papakura interchange. However, there is little ability to increase the capacity of the general traffic network in this area, so residents living in Kingseat and Karaka North will need to be given better choices to ‘opt out’ of peak period congestion. Options include:

· Travel Demand Management measures that reduce the need for travel

· a land use development pattern that provides local destinations, such as local schools, shops and community facilities within Kingseat

· significantly improved public transport offering, relative to the existing peak direction bus service on Linwood Road. This may include:

o more frequent bus services to Waiuku and Papakura

o new bus services such as to Drury, and to the proposed new train stations at Drury West and Paerata

o interventions to make the proposed new train stations at Drury West and Paerata more attractive. These stations are intended to include park and ride facilities that may well attract commutes from Kingseat and Karaka North

o interventions to prioritise high productivity vehicles, such as transit lanes on Hingaia Road.

32. Auckland Transport concurred with the findings of the ITA and the wider area assessment of effects.

33. Auckland Transport, in conjunction with Waka Kotahi, the Franklin Local Board and the community will determine which mix of options will best serve the Kingseat and Karaka North communities as the areas continue to develop. These decisions will, of course, be dependent on future funding decisions.

Water Supply and Wastewater Infrastructure

34. Kingseat is not currently serviced by public reticulated water supply and waste water infrastructure.

35. In terms of water and wastewater, the Kingseat precinct contains the following policy:

(10) Ensure infrastructure provision for public water supply and one public waste water system in the precinct is in advance of, or concurrent with, any resource consents for subdivision and development, provided that resource consent for the reticulated and treated waste water disposal and any required resource consents for storm water discharge have been granted.

36. This is implemented via the following precinct standard:

I418.6.12. Wastewater and Water Supply

(1) Any site located within the Kingseat precinct must be connected to a public reticulated wastewater treatment and disposal system.

(2) Any site located within the Kingseat precinct, must be connected to a public reticulated water supply and network.

37. Subdivision of sites within the Kingseat Precinct that are not connected to a public reticulated water supply or a public reticulated sewage disposal system, and where all necessary resource consents have not been granted for a public reticulated water supply network and a public reticulated sewage disposal system, is a non–complying activity.

38. Both Watercare Services Limited (WSL) and the owner of 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road – Kingseat Village Limited, are currently investigating the provision of water supply and wastewater infrastructure for the Kingseat area.

39. Kingseat Village Limited has been granted a resource consent (on 1 April 2022) “to take and use a total of 714m3/day and 260,610m3 per year of ground water from the Franklin Te Hihi North Waitemata Aquifer with three proposed bores for a reticulated water supply to service residential, commercial and community uses in the Kingseat Precinct area”.

40. WSL are currently working with Crown Infrastructure Partners and initiating conversations and contact with a number of the Kingseat precinct developers around providing a public (WSL) water and wastewater solution to service the precinct as anticipated by the precinct provisions. The Precinct provisions allow or anticipate multi water solutions, but are much more specific that there should only be one wastewater solution to service the precinct. WSL have sized the South West wastewater treatment plant and discharge consent to accommodate the anticipated population of the Kingseat Precinct as well as carried out preliminary design and costs for the pipe and pump station network to get the flows to the not yet built wastewater treatment plant. This is not provided for in Watercare’s Asset Management Plan and the network would need to be funded directly by the developers or a third party funding arrangement (such as Crown Infrastructure Partners).

41. WSL understand and have meet with Kingseat Village Limited about a year ago, over their possible solution. WSL are aware that they wish to develop a solution to provide wastewater services to the precinct without the support or input of WSL, as they believe their solution is cheaper. WSL advise that this arrangement would require that Kingseat Village Limited (or someone else) to set themselves up as a network owner and operator and all the residents would need to sign up to this scheme.

42. Critical timing for a wastewater solution is likely to be the commissioning of the new south west plant and outfall. This is currently planned to be circa 2027-28, so WSL would not be able to provide wastewater services until this plant is up and running.

43. Kingseat Village Limited (KVL) are working towards the Kingseat Plan Change 28 community having what they refer to as “community centric infrastructure” for water, wastewater and stormwater.

44. As part of the water-take resource consent, KVL referred to their local wastewater solution for Kingseat Village, including the open space zoned properties, which is via an MBR (Membrane bio reactor) plant. Discussions have been held with WSL on this, and KVL will apply for a resource consent for the discharge in the next few months. It is envisaged that discharges will be directed to a non-potable network, with any balance discharged through a series of constructed wetlands, restored waterways and wetlands of approximately 2.4 km in length on KVL property at 956 Linwood Road.

45. In summary, under KVL’s proposal, the current open space properties at 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road would be serviced for both water and wastewater as well as wrap around stormwater, along with the wider Kingseat precinct area.

Elite and Prime Soils & the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (2022)

46. On 2 June 2022, the Planning Committee resolved:

47. Kingseat, including 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, is identified as an area of prime soils.

48. The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (2022) came into effect on 17 October 2022.

49. The objective of the NPS is that “Highly productive land is protected for its use in land – based primary production, both now and for future generations”.

50. Policy 5 of the NPS states that “the urban rezoning of highly productive land is avoided, except as provided for in this National Policy Statement”. Policy 7 states “the subdivision of highly productive land is avoided, except as provided for in this National Policy Statement”.

51. Under Section 1.3 Interpretation:

Urban rezoning means changing from a general rural or rural production zone to an urban zone, and

Urban, as a description of a zone, means any of the following zones:

a) Low density residential, general residential, medium density residential, large lot residential and high density residential

…

52. Under Section 3.5 – Implementation, of the NPS

(7) Until a regional policy statement containing maps of highly productive land in the region is operative, each relevant territorial authority and consent authority must apply this National Policy Statement as if references to highly productive land were references to land that, at the commencement date:

(a) is (i) zoned general rural or rural production; and

(ii) LUC 1, 2, or 3 land; but

(b) is not: (i) identified for future urban development; or

(ii) subject to a Council initiated, or an adopted, notified plan change to rezone it from general rural or rural production to urban or rural lifestyle.

53. As both 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road are currently zoned Open Space (and not a general rural or rural production zone), the NPS does not apply.

54. The AUP contains an objective for the growth of existing or new rural and coastal towns and villages that states:

“Avoid elite soils and avoid where practicable prime soils which are significant for their ability to sustain food production.”

55. This objective has been the subject of extensive litigation in the Environment Court and High Court in response to the council’s rejection of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel’s recommendation to enable urban development at Crater Hill and Pūkaki near Māngere. The High Court recently (28 November 2022) dismissed the appeal against the Environment Court’s 2020 decision and the matter is now settled.

56. Both 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road were part of the original Kingseat Structure Plan. That plan resulted in urban zonings being applied to the Kingseat area, which is identified in the Auckland Plan for urban development. The two properties have a combined area of approximately five hectares. They are contiguous with land zoned Residential – Single House zone. The original intention of the structure plan was that the two sites (along with a third site owned by the council) were to be developed and used for sport and active recreation and not used for food production. They are currently grassed and not used for food production.

Analysis of zoning options

57. When land is no longer required as open space, the most appropriate alternative zone is typically the zoning of the adjacent land. 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat is adjacent to the Residential – Single House zone. 1023 Linwood Road is adjacent to the Rural – Rural Production zone.

58. The main advantages and disadvantages of the key zoning options are summarised in the table below:

	Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation	Residential – Single House	Rural – Rural Production
Advantages	Reflects the original Kingseat Structure Plan Minimises potential reverse sensitivity effects by limiting development adjacent to the proposed primary school No costs associated with preparing a council plan change	Provides for additional residential development (up to 90 dwellings) in close proximity to the future village centre Likely to enhance the economic viability of the centre Additional development in close proximity to the centre and primary school thereby reducing vehicle trips that would come from further away Consistent zone boundary between urban zones and rural zoned land Reflects the original Kingseat Structure Plan boundary	Retention of of prime soils Consistent zoning with land to the east Retains “open character” of the land
Disadvantages	Additional open space is not required in this area To secure the land as a park, the council would be required to pay for the acquisition of the open space which is not required Costs associated with potential Environment Court declaration proceedings by the land owners	Residential development of five hectares of prime soils Additional five hectares of land that requires servicing Costs associated with preparing a council plan change	Loss of additional residential development (up to 90 dwellings) Economic viability of the centre is reduced Zone boundary between urban zonings and rural zoned land loses its consistency Does not reflect the original Kingseat Structure Plan boundary Potential reverse sensitivity effects from rural production activities adjacent to the future primary school Costs associated with preparing a council plan change

Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation

Residential – Single House

Rural – Rural Production

Advantages

Reflects the original Kingseat Structure Plan

Minimises potential reverse sensitivity effects by limiting development adjacent to the proposed primary school

No costs associated with preparing a council plan change

Provides for additional residential development (up to 90 dwellings) in close proximity to the future village centre

Likely to enhance the economic viability of the centre

Additional development in close proximity to the centre and primary school thereby reducing vehicle trips that would come from further away

Consistent zone boundary between urban zones and rural zoned land

Reflects the original Kingseat Structure Plan boundary

Retention of of prime soils

Consistent zoning with land to the east

Retains “open character” of the land

Disadvantages

Additional open space is not required in this area

To secure the land as a park, the council would be required to pay for the acquisition of the open space which is not required

Costs associated with potential Environment Court declaration proceedings by the land owners

Residential development of five hectares of prime soils

Additional five hectares of land that requires servicing

Costs associated with preparing a council plan change

Loss of additional residential development (up to 90 dwellings)

Economic viability of the centre is reduced

Zone boundary between urban zonings and rural zoned land loses its consistency

Does not reflect the original Kingseat Structure Plan boundary

Potential reverse sensitivity effects from rural production activities adjacent to the future primary school

Costs associated with preparing a council plan change

59. Taking into account the factors identified in the table above, the planning history of the Kingseat area, the relatively small land area in question from a viable productive land use perspective, and the fact that the Kingseat precinct (including the two properties) is identified for urban development in the Auckland Plan, on balance, the proposed rezoning to Residential – Single House zone is considered to be appropriate and consistent with the objectives and policies of the AUP. This reflects the original Kingseat Structure Plan boundaries, minimises potential reverse sensitivity effects from the adjacent future primary school and will support the economic viability of the future Kingseat Village centre.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

60. Policy 3(d) of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD), as amended by the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 states:

Policy 3: In relation to tier 1 urban environments, regional policy statements and district plans enable:

…

d) Within and adjacent to neighbourhood centres zones, local centre zones, and town centre zones (or equivalent), building heights and density or urban form commensurate with the level of commercial activity and community services.

61. Kingseat village is zoned as a Business – Local Centre zone. However, at present it does not provide a range of commercial and community services and is not served by frequent public transport. As such, a more intensive zoning than the Residential – Single House zone is considered to be at odds with the over-arching intent of the NPS UD of creating well-functioning urban environments.

Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Act 2021

62. Under section 77F Duty of specified territorial authorities to incorporate Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) and give effect to policy 3 or 5 in residential zones:

(1) Every relevant residential zone of a specified territorial authority [includes Auckland Council] must have the MDRS incorporated into that zone

(2) Every residential zone in an urban environment of a specified territorial authority must give effect to policy 3 or policy 5, as the case requires, in that zone.

63. Section 2 – Interpretation, contains the following definitions:

Relevant Residential zone

a) means all residential zones; but

b) does not include –

(i) a large lot residential zone;

(ii) an area predominantly urban in character that the 2018 census recorded as having a resident population of less than 5,000, unless a local authority intends the area to become part of an urban environment.

64. The Kingseat – Karaka statistical area (see map below) had a 2018 usually resident population of 2904. Kingseat – Karaka also lies outside the Auckland Unitary Plan’s Rural Urban Boundary.

Map

Description automatically generated

65. Therefore, the Kingseat area is not subject to the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Act 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

66. 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road are not located in an area that is at risk of coastal inundation or coastal erosion, however approximately 15 percent of 1023 Linwood Road is located within the 1 percent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood plain. The extent of the flood plain is minor enough that it can be managed/avoided at the subdivision/land development stage. As such, the proposed rezoning will not increase the risk of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change.

67. With respect to mitigating impacts on climate, it is likely that a reasonable proportion of the residents living in the additional dwellings that would be enabled by the proposed rezoning would drive to work on a regular basis, and that in the short term, this could result in an increase in vehicle emissions compared to not enabling additional development in the Kingseat area. Secondary school children and those attending tertiary institutions would also need to be driven or drive on a regular basis. However, as the area develops, the viability of a local bus service to Pukekohe is likely to increase, and with that, a reduction in private vehicle trips and emissions.

68. With respect to other transport trips, the properties are in close proximity (250m to the edge) to the proposed Kingseat village centre, and therefore walking and cycling would be the most common mode of travel to local goods and services.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

69. The proposed plan change is in response to advice from the council’s Community and Social Policy department, who have advised that 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat are not required as open space.

70. As discussed above, Auckland Transport staff expressed an initial concern that the rezoning of the two properties could result in adverse traffic effects and that an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) was required to support the proposed plan change.

71. Flow Transportation Specialists Ltd have assessed the transport and traffic effects of rezoning the two properties to Residential – Single House zone. Two reports have been prepared:

b) An Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) to assess a potential plan change

c) A wider transport review/assessment of the Kingseat precinct.

72. Auckland Transport staff have reviewed and provided input into both reports and agree with the conclusions reached (i.e. that the proposed rezoning can proceed), because the potential number of additional houses enabled, is not significant in comparison to the wider area.

73. Watercare is currently investigating water supply and wastewater issues in the wider Kingseat area. Watercare staff advise they have no objection to the proposed rezoning and the council proceeding with the plan change process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

74. Initial consultation occurred with the Franklin Local Board in 2019 when 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat was initially included in Plan Change 60. It was subsequently withdrawn from that plan change due to concerns over traffic/transport issues arising from its development for residential purposes.

75. The Chairperson of the Franklin Local Board had raised an issue in late 2019 relating to a park and school that would be divided by an access road to a new residential development (see map below showing the proposed school (hatched and within the blue outline) and 1039 Linwood Road (with the blue outline)). The Chair was concerned this was a poor design and safety outcome and expressed the view that the council should work with Ministry of Education (MoE) to suggest that the school and park land are contiguous, meaning the access road to the rear residential area is on the outside of the western and southern sides of the MoE land.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

76. Since the withdrawal of 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat from Plan Change 60, the designation for a new primary school has advanced.

77. The Franklin Local Board raised a number of traffic and access matters in relation to the NOR. It also sought to ensure that the school boundary was contiguous with the adjacent open space. Its views on the proposed designation were in a resolution dated 23 March 2021 (Resolution number FR/2021/27) which included:

a) support the Ministry of Education acquisition of land for a school at Kingseat, noting that a school will be an important centre of this growing community

b) recommend that the design of the space is reviewed so that the designated reserve adjacent to the proposed school property is adjoined with the school and separation by road avoided.

78. The MoE’s comments on b) above are summarised below: -

“As part of the negotiations to purchase the land the seller (Kingseat Village Limited - KVL) needed to retain access to the only existing road – Linwood Road. Therefore, KVL retained a strip from Linwood Road to the rear of the site to ensure they have practical road access for future use of that site. Other indictive roads cross land they do not own so there is no guarantee of the timing or alignment of those roads………

Whilst the matter raised by the Board is acknowledged, the Ministry have settled on the land purchase subject to the NoR and does not own the strip separating it from the Council reserve. The matter raised by the Board as part of the NOR consultation was after the purchase of the land had been completed, so it is not a matter that the Ministry is in a position to change. The land at the rear is still zoned reserve so would require a plan change to be developed for residential use.

If a future road is developed to serve land at the rear, we envisage that a pedestrian crossing(s) with traffic calming measures such as speed bumps or a raised table could be implemented to ensure safe and suitable connections between the school and the park. Further, advice from Abley [MoE’s traffic expert] is that any side road at this location would likely to be designed to a 30km/h speed limit (as per AT’s TDM recommendations) and would also be beneficial for providing alternative road access from Linwood Road to the school”.

79. On 26 May 2021, a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners appointed by Auckland Council issued its recommendation to Minister of Education that the Notice of Requirement be confirmed.

80. On the 4 June 2021, pursuant to s172(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the Act”), the Minister advised that the council’s recommendation was accepted in full.

81. The future subdivision of 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road will be the appropriate time to address the issue of the proposed primary school and existing park being separated by the access to 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat. Any required changes in zoning can be addressed at a later date via the council’s annual open space zoning plan change.

82. The Franklin Local Board once again considered the possibility of a proposed plan change at its meeting on 22 March 2022 and supported the proposed rezoning.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

83. Both 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat were originally part of Plan Change 60.

84. During the preparation of Plan Change 60, a copy of the draft plan change was forwarded to all Auckland’s 19 iwi authorities as required under Section 4A of the first schedule above of the RMA. The properties were subsequently withdrawn from Plan Change 60, but the feedback received remains relevant.

85. Feedback on the plan change as a whole was received from:

a) Ngāti Manuhiri – who wished to reserve their rights for cultural engagement and to be notified of the plan change;

b) Waikato Tainui – who support mana whenua to take the lead role in this plan change.

86. There was no feedback specifically on 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat.

87. Subsequent discussions with representatives from Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngaati Te Ata Waiohua have indicated that they have concerns with the proposed rezoning and the absence of water supply and wastewater infrastructure in the Kingseat area.

88. As discussed under the Water Supply and Wastewater Infrastructure section of this report, there are rules in the Kingseat Precinct which would make any proposed subdivision without the necessary public water supply and wastewater infrastructure in place, a non-complying activity.

89. Further, Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngaati Te Ata Waiohua were both involved in the Kingseat Village Limited’s resource consent process to take water and would likewise be involved in any resource consent process for public reticulated sewerage disposal and water supply systems.

90. Both WaterCare and Kingseat Village Limited are progressing work on resolving water supply and wastewater treatment issues. These will need to be resolved before urban development can take place.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

91. The possibility of having to progress this plan change has been known about since 2019 and the project is part of the Plans and Places department work programme. The costs of the plan change process are therefore able to be managed within the department’s current operating budget. Costs associated with the plan change hearing are covered by the Democracy Services department budget.

92. There are existing financial issues in terms of longer term and wider infrastructure requirements for water supply, waste water and transport in the Kingseat and wider area. However, analysis by council, Auckland Transport and Watercare staff and consultants has confirmed that the proposed rezoning and additional dwellings that would be enabled is insignificant compared to the existing development already enabled under the Auckland Unitary Plan. In terms of transport, there is currently no funding available to address the wider issues. The Kingseat precinct in the AUP is able to address local transport issues. In terms of water and wastewater, as discussed above, Kingseat Village Limited is pursuing its own infrastructure solution at its own cost. In parallel, Watercare is pursuing a solution for Kingseat as part of a wider network solution.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

93. The only identified risk associated with the proposed rezoning of 1023 and 1039 Linwood Road, Kingseat from Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone to Residential – Single House zone is development occurring within the 1 percent AEP flood plain. This risk is mitigated through the subdivision and development rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Those rules enable the council to decline resource consent applications that fail to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of exposing people to natural hazards.

94. As noted above, the effects of increased traffic volumes in the wider area is an existing issue that will require attention in the future.

95. The AUP has methods in place to address the issue of the current absence of public reticulated water supply and waste water infrastructure with subdivision of sites within the Kingseat Precinct that are not connected to a public reticulated water supply or a public reticulated sewage disposal system, and where all necessary resource consents have not been granted for a public reticulated water supply network and a public reticulated sewage disposal system, being a non–complying activity.

96. Both water supply and wastewater treatment issues will need to be resolved before urban development can take place

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

97. If the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approves notification of the proposed plan change, it would then follow the normal plan change process set out in the RMA.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Section 32 Report

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Auckland Unitary Plan - Making operative in part Plan Change 60 - Open Space (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters

File No.: CP2023/00431

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative in part Plan Change 60 – Open Space (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 60 Open Space (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters (PC60) has four components:

i) Rezoning 49 land parcels that have been recently vested and/or acquired as open space so that the zoning reflects their purpose, function and intended use.

ii) Rezoning 22 land parcels to correct anomalies and errors. These include aligning and updating zone boundaries with new property boundaries, rezoning Department of Conservation land incorrectly shown as road and privately owned land incorrectly zoned as open space.

iii) Rezoning 26 land parcels as part of Auckland Council’s land disposal and rationalisation process.

iv) Rezoning eight land parcels that include land swaps between Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council to facilitate redevelopment of certain neighbourhoods.

3. The decision on Plan Change 60 was notified on 9 September 2022. No appeals have been received against the decision.

4. The decision was significant as 11 of the 26 sites proposed to be rezoned as part of Auckland Council’s land disposal process were rejected by the commissioners and their open space zoning was retained.

5. The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can now be amended and made operative in part, in accordance with the hearing commissioners’ decisions.

6. The plan change can only be made operative in part (rather than fully operative) because ten land parcels are the subject of a variation – Variation 4.

7. Variation 4 to Plan Change 60 seeks to amend the zoning of ten land parcels in PC 60 to apply “relevant residential zones” to land that is proposed to be rezoned from an open space zone to a residential zone, where the zoning of the adjacent lots is proposed to change under Plan Change 78 - Intensification. The variation is required as a result of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 and the amendments introduced by the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.

8. Submissions on the variation will be heard by the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) as part of the intensification plan change. The IHP will make a recommendation to the council in late 2023/early 2024 which will then make the decision.

9. Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes. Clause 17(2) enables the council to approve part of the plan change if all appeals relating to that part have been disposed of. Under the Resource Management Act, the procedural decision to make a plan change operative (or operative in part as in this case) must be made by the Governing Body or a relevant committee comprising the Mayor and all councillors.

10. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve in part Plan Change 60 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) as included in Attachment A of the agenda report, under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

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

Horopaki

Context

11. On 3 December 2020 the Planning Committee resolved to publicly notify Plan Change 60 – Open Space (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). (PLA/2020/113).

12. Plan Change 60 (PC60) had four components:

i) Rezoning 49 land parcels that have been recently vested and/or acquired as open space so that the zoning reflects its purpose, function and intended use.

ii) Rezoning 22 land parcels to correct anomalies and errors. These include aligning and updating zone boundaries with new property boundaries, rezoning Department of Conservation and incorrectly shown as road and privately owned land incorrectly zoned as open space.

iii) Rezoning 26 land parcels as part of Auckland Council’s land disposal and rationalisation process.

iv) Rezoning eight land parcels that include land swaps between Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council to facilitate redevelopment of certain neighbourhoods – Mangere East, Owairaka & Northcote.

13. Key dates associated with the plan change were:

· Notified on 28 January 2021

· Submissions closed on 1 March 2021

· Summary of Decisions Requested was notified on 25 March 2021

· Further submissions closed on 12 April 2021

· A hearing by independent commissioners took place on 8 February 2022 and 26 May 2022.

14. The decision on Plan Change 60 was notified on 9 September 2022. No appeals have been received against the decision.

15. The decision was significant as 11 of the 26 sites proposed to be rezoned as part of Auckland Council’s land disposal process were rejected by the independent commissioners and their open space zoning was retained.

16. The key reasons for rejecting the rezoning of the 11 land parcels were:

· Lack of open space in the respective locations

· Significant intensification already provided for under the Auckland Unitary Plan operative zones and the proposed response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (Plan Change 78)

· Evidence from the community on the use and value of the sites by/to the community

· Opposition from local boards to some of the proposed rezonings

· Loss of mature trees (if the site were rezoned and developed) which was considered to be inconsistent with Auckland Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency and Urban Ngāhere Strategy

· In light of the above, the need to review the Open Space Provision Policy (2016) and the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013) which are used to guide the disposal process was raised.

17. The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can now be amended and made operative in part, in accordance with the hearing commissioners’ decision.

18. The plan change can only be made operative in part (rather than fully operative) because ten land parcels are the subject of a variation – Variation 4. These are:

· R24 Linwood Ave, Forrest Hill

· 67 East Street, Pukekohe

· Section 1 SO 430835 Princes Street West, Pukekohe

· Lot 6 DP 16500 Paerata Road, Pukekohe

· 33R Pohutakawa Road, Beachlands

· 17W Hawke Crescent, Beachlands

· 8 Magnolia Drive, Waiuku

· 5R Ferguson Street, Mangere East

· 50 Mayflower Close, Mangere East

· 62 Mayflower Close, Mangere East.

19. Variation 4 to Plan Change 60 seeks to amend the zoning of the ten land parcels in PC 60 to apply relevant residential zones to land that is proposed to be rezoned from an open space zone to a residential zone, where the zoning of the adjacent lots is proposed to change under Plan Change 78 - Intensification. The variation is a result of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 and the amendments introduced by the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.

20. Key dates associated with the variation are:

· Notified on 18 August 2022

· Submissions closed on 29 September 2022

· Summary of Decisions Requested was notified on 5 December 2022

· Further submissions closed on 20 January 2023.

21. Submissions on the variation will be heard by the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) as part of the intensification plan change (PC78) and related plan changes and variations. The IHP will make a recommendation to the council which will then make the decision.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes. Clause 17(2) enables the council to approve part of the plan change if all appeals relating to that part have been disposed of. The majority of PC60 can be approved, with only the sites subject to the variation unable to be finalised.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. As the approval of a plan change is a procedural matter, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation. However, the retention of open space in some areas will assist in progressing some of the council’s climate change goals.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. As the approval of a plan change is a procedural matter, no views are being sought from any council departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The views of all local boards were sought on the proposed plan change. Many local boards provided feedback which was considered by the commissioners.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of the plan change.

29. All iwi authorities were consulted with during the preparation of the plan change and sent letters when Plan Change 60 was publicly notified. No submissions were received from iwi authorities on the plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. There are no financial implications associated with making Plan Change 60 operative in part. Approving plan changes and amending the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. There are no risks and mitigations associated with making Plan Change 60 operative in part.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

33. Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act to make Plan Change 60 operative in part.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Plan Change 60 Decision

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make operative Private Plan Change 70 (751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa)

File No.: CP2023/00433

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Private Plan Change 70, to rezone 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa, in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 70 (PC70) is a privately initiated plan change by Riverview Properties Limited to rezone 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway Kaukapakapa, from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone. PC70 removes the Subdivision Variation Control – Rural, Kaukapakapa Countryside Living from 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa, as the control will no longer be relevant to the sites in the plan change area under the proposed rezoning.

3. The private plan change was publicly notified on 27 January 2022. Five submissions were received. One further submission was received.

4. PC 70 was considered by Independent Hearing Commissioners on 25 July 2022. The commissioners, in their decision on behalf of the council, considered the submissions received and concluded that the private plan change should be approved with no modifications. The decision was publicly notified on 14 October 2022. No appeals have been received on the decision.

5. The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 3 October 2022 (refer to Attachment A). Under the Resource Management Act, the procedural decision to make a plan change operative must be made by the Governing Body or a relevant committee comprising the Mayor and all councillors.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 70 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

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

Horopaki

Context

6. PC70 – 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa sought to:

· rezone 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone

· remove the Subdivision Variation Control – Rural, Kaukapakapa Countryside Living from 751 and 787 Kaipara Coast Highway, Kaukapakapa, as the control will no longer be relevant to the sites in the plan change area under the proposed rezoning.

7. PC70 was notified on 27 January 2022 and five submissions were received. One further submission was received.

8. The hearing for PC70 was held on 25 July 2022. The hearing was conducted by Independent Hearing Commissioners who were given full delegation to make a decision on the submissions received for PC70. The decision, issued on 3 October 2022, concluded that PC70 be approved without modifications.

9. No appeals have been received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision (refer to Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes. Clause 17(2) enables the council to approve part of the plan change if all appeals to that part have been disposed of. The entirety of PC70 can be approved, with no matters subject to appeal.

11. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date of a plan change. Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to the recommendation made in this report. However, it is noted that while the additional 16 houses enabled by the plan change in this location do not have access to good public transport, walking and cycling connections, this scale of this is such that it will have a negligible impact on carbon emissions and climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

13. As a procedural request, no views are being sought from any council departments or council controlled organisations. However, it is noted that Auckland Transport submitted in opposition to the private plan change and presented expert evidence at the hearing.

14. The findings of the Independent Hearing Commissions in relation to transport matters are discussed in paragraphs 94 to 97 of their decision (see Attachment A).

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

Local impacts and local board views

15. The views of the Rodney Local Board were sought on the private plan change following lodgement of the request. The local board provided comments through a resolution at its meeting on 24 April 2022. The local board’s concerns related to transport issues, in particular concerns regarding the lack of public transport, and provision for walking and cycling. The local board’s comments were included in the hearing report. A representative from the Rodney Local Board attended and presented the local board’s views on the private plan change at the hearing.

16. As discussed, the findings of the Independent Hearing Commissioners in relation to transport matters are discussed in paragraphs 94 to 97 of their decision (see Attachment A).

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of PC70 and it being made operative.

19. It is noted that all Mana Whenua groups identified on Auckland Council’s GIS mapping viewer as having an interest in the area in which PC70 is located were notified of the private plan change. No submissions from iwi authorities were received.

20. The Independent Hearing Commissioners, in their decision, found that PC70 is consistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement, and gives effect to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991, in relation to Mana Whenua interests and values.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is an administrative and statutory requirement. Costs are recoverable from the applicant (Riverview Properties Limited).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

22. There are no risks associated with making PC70 operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

23. The final step in making PC70 operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

24. Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make PC70 operative.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Plan Change 70 - Decision

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jo Hart - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in Part) - Making operative further parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan – Crater Hill/Ngā Kapua Kohuora and Pūkaki Peninsula

File No.: CP2023/00436

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make those parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) associated with Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula that are no longer subject to appeal, or further appeal, operative under clause 20 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 19 December 2022, all Planning, Environment and Parks Committee members, all Independent Māori Statutory Board members and all Local Board Chairs were provided with a memorandum summarising the High Court decision, Gock v Auckland Council [2022] NZHC 3126, which was issued on 28 November 2022. A copy of this memorandum is provided in Attachment A to this report. This is an important decision that follows related decisions from the Environment Court and High Court concerning the location of the Rural Urban Boundary and zoning at Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula.

3. The decisions support the council’s consistent position that the area should not be urbanised because of its important cultural, landscape, geological and other values, and due to presence of high-quality soils that are important for Auckland’s food production needs. The council and Te Ākitai Waiohua have worked closely with one another throughout the process. The decision is highly significant for Te Ākitai Waiohua.

4. In accordance with section 152(2) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA), if an appeal is lodged on any part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, when all those appeals, including further appeals, are withdrawn or determined that part is deemed to have been approved by the council under clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. All appeals, including further appeals associated with the location of the Rural Urban Boundary and zoning at Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula have now been determined and the relevant parts of the AUP are deemed to have been approved by the council.

5. Section 160 of the LGATPA requires that the council publicly notify the date on which the AUP, or each part of the AUP will become operative in accordance with clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. Clause 20(1) provides that an approved policy statement or plan shall become an operative policy statement or plan on a date which is to be publicly notified.

6. The parts of the AUP that are now deemed to have been approved can be notified under clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA and made “operative” (i.e. the final formal procedural step in the plan-making process). A map showing the location of the Rural Urban Boundary and zoning at Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula to be made operative is provided in Attachment B to this report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that in accordance with section 152(2) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, those parts of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan associated with Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula that are no longer subject to appeal or further appeal, are deemed to have been approved by the council under clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b) tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes under clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, to publicly notify the date on which those parts of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan associated with Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula that are no longer subject to appeal or further appeal will become operative.

Horopaki

Context

7. An appeal associated with the location of the Rural Urban Boundary and zoning at Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula has been resolved by decisions of the Environment Court and the High Court. No application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed against the High Court decision Gock v Auckland Council [2022] NZHC 3126 issued on 28 November 2022. On 19 December 2022, all Planning, Environment and Parks Committee members, all Independent Māori Statutory Board members and all Local Board Chairs were provided with a memorandum summarising the High Court decision.

8. The decisions support the council’s consistent position that the area should not be urbanised because of its important cultural, landscape, geological and other values, and due to presence of high-quality soils that are important for Auckland’s food production needs. The council and Te Ākitai Waiohua have worked closely with one another throughout the process. The decision is highly significant for Te Ākitai Waiohua.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The parts of the AUP associated with the location of the Rural Urban Boundary and zoning at Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula can now be made operative under clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

10. As there are no further appeals, the associated appeal annotations will be removed from the AUP. As a result, those parts of the AUP will no longer be shown as under appeal and will be deemed ‘approved’ under section 152 of the LGATPA.

11. It is those parts of the AUP (that were formerly under appeal) that can now be made operative under clause 20. Section 160 of the LGATPA requires that the council notify the date on which the AUP, or each part of the AUP, will become operative in accordance with clause 20 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. Clause 20(1) provides that an approved policy statement or plan shall become an operative policy statement or plan on a date which is to be publicly notified.

12. In order to complete that process, this report seeks a resolution from the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13. There are not considered to be any issues pertaining directly to climate change in respect of this procedural decision. However, it is noted that there are climate change related benefits in ensuring significant food production opportunities are retained within the Auckland region (i.e. reduced distances to transport food to consumers and therefore reduced vehicle emissions).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. It is not necessary to obtain the views of the wider council group in respect of this procedural decision.

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

Local impacts and local board views

15. Local Board views are not required in respect of this procedural decision.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

16. The final step in making parts of the AUP operative is a procedural matter only and does not have any direct impact on Māori. However, it is important to acknowledge at this final step, the support provided by Te Ākitai Waiohua throughout the appeal process (and indeed prior to this) and the importance of the decision to Te Ākitai Waiohua. Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula are components of a significant cultural landscape within Tāmaki Makaurau that would have been compromised by urbanisation. The council and Te Ākitai Waiohua have worked in close partnership to ensure this did not occur.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

17. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Amending the AUP is an administrative and statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

18. There are no risks arising from this procedural decision.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

19. Following the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee’s decision, staff will publish a public notice advising of the date on which the location of the Rural Urban Boundary and zoning for Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula will be made operative. All costs associated with this are provided for within existing budgets.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Memorandum dated 19 December 2022 - High Court decision – Gock v Auckland Council [2022] NZHC 3126
b ⇨	Map showing the location of the Rural Urban Boundary and zoning at Ngā Kapua Kohuora/Crater Hill and Pūkaki Peninsula to be made operative

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marc Dendale - Team Leader Planning - South

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Shoreline Adaptation Plan: Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Pilot Report

File No.: CP2022/17314

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Shoreline Adaptation Plan Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Pilot Report (Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Shoreline Adaptation Plans are being developed across Auckland to provide a long-term adaptation strategy for council-owned land and assets. These plans are in response to the current and predicted impacts of coastal hazards and climate change (including sea-level rise). The plans are developed in the partnership with mana whenua and reflect the needs and values of the local communities that live near the coast.

3. To support the development of Shoreline Adaptation Plans, the shoreline of Auckland has been broken up into 20 coastal cells of varying size. Each coastal cell will have its own plan informed by local iwi, infrastructure providers, and local community engagement.

4. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme is funded as part of the climate action package of the Recovery Budget 2021-2031 and is a core climate adaptation workstream under Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which highlights the importance of planning for and adapting to the impacts of climate change in coastal areas under the ‘Community and Coast’ theme.

5. The programme commenced in February 2021 with the development of the Whangaparāoa pilot which was approved in March 2022 (ECC/2022/56). A Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Te Waimanawa/ Little Shoal Bay was approved in September 2022 (ECC/2022/78).

6. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East plan is the second full pilot and was launched in October 2021. It covers the area from Pine Harbour, Beachlands to Whakatīwai Regional Park.

7. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East coast was divided into 31 coastal sections. Staff aligned the results of the technical coastal hazards exposure assessment with local iwi feedback, infrastructure and community objectives, and developed a series of adaptation strategies across the short, medium and long-term. Strategies include ‘Hold the Line’, ‘Limited Intervention’, ‘No Active Intervention’ and ‘Managed Retreat’.

8. The plan was developed in the partnership with mana whenua. Mana whenua engagement with local iwi (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngaati Whanaunga) started in December 2021 and was completed in February 2023. The Ngāti Paoa Trust Board were also engaged throughout the plan development but have since requested that their input be withdrawn. This request has been respected, with a commitment from council staff to ongoing engagement to ensure any future input and direction from the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board can be included within this living document. Te Ākitai Waiohua was also involved as an observer throughout the development of this plan.

9. Community engagement for the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan began in October 2021 and closed on 25 February 2022. It included both digital and in-person engagements to identify community values and objectives.

10. The resulting plan has shown that most of the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East shoreline areas can be managed over the short to medium term with limited to no active intervention. Recent flooding impacting Auckland, coupled with the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle does not alter this recommendation. There are some limited areas where an ongoing, continued strategy of ‘hold the line’ has been identified as a preferred option. These include Kahawairahi / Pine Harbour Marina as a critical transport hub, Sunkist Bay to preserve access to and along the coast, and the eastern stretch of Omana Esplanade Reserve.

11. Managed retreat of some coastal stretches is recommended to avoid ongoing coastal hazard risk. In many instances this relates to the setback of assets such as coastal walkways and infrastructure to reduce ongoing maintenance costs and reduce impacts of ‘coastal squeeze’. This includes coastal stretches of Te Hiore Pā/Leigh Auton Reserve, western Omana Esplanade Reserve and western Maraetai Beach. In the longer term, this also includes stretches of Te Wai o Maruwhenua/Waiomanu Bay, Kakaramea/Magazine Bay, Umupuia, Kawakawa Bay, Ōrere Point and Tāpapakanga Regional Park.

12. To sustainably manage the shoreline, these adaptation strategies will be progressively integrated into the relevant plans and documents that include assets exposed to the long-term impacts of coastal hazards and climate change, as they are reviewed. This includes long-term plan budgets, infrastructure strategies, Reserve Management Plans, Regional Parks Management Plans, and Asset Management Plans.

13. Where there is an identified immediate need and strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated immediately following the adoption of this Shoreline Adaptation Plan. This is reflected in the regionally funded Coastal Asset Renewals Programme for the 2022/2023 financial year, which includes renewal work for assets identified as near the end of their ‘useful’ life or beyond the scope of routine maintenance. Current assets identified for renewal are located at Sunkist Bay seawall, Maraetai Wharf, Kawakawa Bay Boat Club, boat ramp and wharf, and Ōrere Point. No additional funding is sought for these works.

14. Where strategies require additional budget, this will be subject to a regional prioritisation process for funding after all of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans have been completed. This will ensure an equitable process to funding and decision making across the region.

15. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan was endorsed by the Franklin Local Board on 23 August 2022 (FR/2022/118, Attachment B).

16. Staff will continue to develop the remaining 18 Shoreline Adaptation Plans for Auckland and will present them to the Parks, Environment and Planning Committee for adoption once they have been developed.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Pilot Shoreline Adaptation Plan

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan provides site-specific adaptive strategies that outline the preferred coastal management response for council owned land and assets for each coastal stretch over time

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that to implement the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan, the recommendations will need to be integrated into relevant council strategies and plans to inform the maintenance and renewal of assets:

i) where strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated from now;

ii) where strategies require additional budget, this will be subject to a regional prioritisation process for funding once all Shoreline Adaptation Plans have been completed

d) tuhi a-taipitopito / note that implementation of Kahawairahi ki Whakatiwai /Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan including the Coastal Renewals Work Programme will require ongoing engagement with local iwi.

Horopaki

Context

There is a need to adapt to climate change

17. Global temperatures are rising due to greenhouse gas emissions. This is causing a range of impacts from higher sea levels to increasing rainfall intensity. In 2020, Auckland Council declared a climate emergency and published Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

18. Modelling undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have ‘locked-in’ a temperature increase of 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels and at least 1.7 metres of sea-level rise. While the timeframe for this increase remains uncertain, Auckland will need to adapt to the impacts of increasing temperatures and rising sea levels. Decisions made today will have implications reaching far into the future, therefore strategic planning is more important than ever.

19. The early impacts of climate change are already being realised globally and in New Zealand. For Auckland, this includes the recent significant weather events of January and February 2023, including Cyclone Gabrielle. The impact of these events highlights the importance of robust shoreline adaptation planning to guide both short-term, operational responses post storm events, alongside longer-term strategic planning to inform future management and associated funding.

The Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme forms part of the council’s response to climate change

20. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan (SAP) work programme is focused on how we can adapt Auckland Council-owned land and assets to the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change over time. The programme is led by the Resilient Land and Coasts Department, in Infrastructure and Environmental Services, and is developed collaboratively across Auckland Council and with Auckland Transport and Watercare.

21. The need for SAPs was set out in the Coastal Management Framework adopted by the council in 2017 (ENV/2017/116). The SAPs give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010), which directs councils to identify areas that may be affected by coastal hazards over a timeframe of at least 100 years. The approach aligns with guidance from the Ministry for the Environment (2017). In particular, to enable a best practice method for developing the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways through the identification of mana whenua and community values and the development of a coastal hazards vulnerability and risk assessment. The approach also recognises the reforms to the Resource Management Act currently underway.

22. SAPs are focused on Auckland Council-owned coastal land and assets, which generally fall into three major categories: parks and community facility assets, stormwater assets, and environmental assets. Assets considered in the SAPs include those owned and managed by council-controlled organisations including Auckland Transport and Watercare.

23. SAPs assess the potential future impacts of three key natural hazards: coastal erosion, coastal inundation, and rainfall flooding. The hazard modelling used to inform SAPs includes how climate change will alter the frequency, magnitude and extent of these natural hazards. The potential exposure of Auckland Council owned land and assets on the coast to these hazards is modelled for each SAP area over three timescales: short [1-20 years], medium [20-60 years], and long term [60 years and onwards]) to quantify the risk and inform decision-making.

24. Using input from engagement with local communities, local iwi, and infrastructure providers, adaptation strategies are recommended for each area of the coast, across the three timescales. The strategies provide high-level guidance on how coastal areas can be adapted over time to sustainably manage the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change. Strategies include:

· No active intervention: allow natural processes and evolution of the coast to continue. This includes no investment in the provision or maintenance of any coastal defences.

· Limited intervention: acknowledges that the coastline’s position will not be fixed into the future and may include limited work to extend existing asset life and small-scale nature-based measures (like dune planting).

· Hold the line: maintain the coastal edge at a fixed location, using nature-based options (like beach nourishment) or hard structures (like sea walls).

· Managed retreat: assets and activities are moved away from hazard-prone areas in a controlled way over time. Managed retreat allows greater space for natural buffers and reduces asset exposure to natural hazards.

25. The SAP programme launched in February 2021 with a pilot study across Whangaparāoa Peninsula. This plan was endorsed by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 17 February 2022 (HB/2022/6) and approved by the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 10 March 2022 (ECC/2022/56). The report is publicly available online.

26. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East SAP is the second large scale pilot and was launched in October 2021. The plan was endorsed by the Franklin Local Board in August 2022, with Governing Body approval scheduled for September 2022. To provide for additional iwi engagement and the local election cycle, final approval was postponed to March 2023. This plan has included engagement with mana whenua, the local community and relevant infrastructure providers. The engagement has identified specific values and objectives for shoreline management of Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East. In combination with the technical results of a coastal hazards exposure assessment, these objectives were used to determine a series of shoreline adaptation strategies.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan

27. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan extends from Pine Harbour in the east, to the Auckland Region boundary at Matingarahi, as outlined in Figure one below. It also includes Wharekawa and Whakatiwai Regional Parks to the south of the boundary which are both owned and managed by Auckland Council.

Figure 1: Shoreline area covered by the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan. Coastal areas included in the plan are delineated by the black unit cell boundaries, The hatched area indicates the wider stormwater catchment (i.e. the area that drains towards the coast).

Coastal hazard risk assessment

28. The SAP provides an assessment of the risk to council-owned land and assets from coastal hazards (including coastal inundation, coastal erosion, and rainfall flooding). Prediction of future climate change impacts on these hazards has also been incorporated. Results are presented across the short (20 year), medium (60 year) and long (100 year) term for the coastal areas of Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East.

29. The results of the risk assessment have been investigated in relation to exposure and risk to assets and are grouped under four wellbeing categories:

· social risk is discussed as applying to park and reserve assets

· economic risk is discussed in relation to the portfolio of assets and values identified as public infrastructure including the road corridor and three waters infrastructure

· environmental risk refers to the risk to ecological areas located on land within council owned land areas

· cultural risk is identified in relation to heritage sites using a set of indicators. This high-level analysis acknowledges that there are likely to be additional sites, which are not recorded and also have significant value to mana whenua. Ongoing engagement with local iwi representatives throughout the SAP development process is used to expand and validate the assessment and resultant adaptation strategies.

30. The results of the risk assessment are detailed in the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaption Plan provided as Attachment A and are summarised below.

31. In the short-term, the highest risk relates to the cultural wellbeing. There is a generally low social risk to park and reserve assets.

32. Due to the impacts of climate change, hazards and flood depths increase in the medium and long-term. This increases the hazard likelihood and in turn the risk. The risk assessment shows that there are varying levels of risk to council-owned land and assets with each of the hazards considered. For example, coastal erosion presents high economic risks in the medium to long term through the permanent loss of land and the associated impacts on infrastructure, including the units of Umupuia, Maraetai and Tuturau Bay.

33. The results of the risk assessment were used to inform discussions of the changing coastal environment with local iwi, infrastructure providers (Community Facilities, Healthy Waters, Auckland Transport and Watercare), amenity and open space specialists (Parks and Community Facilities) and the local community. They have also been used to support the discussion and development of appropriate long-term coastal adaptation strategies across the SAP extent.

Community engagement

34. Community engagement occurred between October 2021 and February 2022. A combination of in person and digital engagement and events were facilitated to enable focused discussion of SAP community objectives, strategies and adaptation options for the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East coastline.

35. In response to changing COVID-19 restrictions, a combination of approaches to community engagement were applied, including:

· Two online webinars that were livestreamed and uploaded to Auckland Council’s YouTube channel for future reference. The webinars introduced the shoreline adaptation plan work programme and key concepts including coastal hazards, climate change and adaptation options.

· Two public community engagement days hosted at Clevedon Markets and Sunkist Bay to promote the project and raise awareness of coastal hazards and climate change.

· Two online public events replaced scheduled in-person events at Maraetai Beach and Waitawa Regional Park due to COVID-19 restrictions. The events were run via a public zoom drop-in platform to enable live Q&A.

· Digital engagement through ‘AK Have Your Say’ and ‘Social Pinpoint’. The latter enabled the community to access an online interactive map to drop ‘pins’ identifying and commenting on areas they valued, and complete short surveys for specific areas.

· Two Wairoa clinic online forum events which focused on introducing the project and providing insight into the proposed community objectives.

36. The Social Pinpoint map was open for feedback throughout the engagement period, receiving submissions from almost 400 unique users. Community feedback from the ‘AK Have Your Say’ page included 26 survey submissions and 22 submitted questions. All feedback was collated and sorted into the following major categories: active recreation, passive recreation, environmental, transport, coastal engineering and assets, community connection, and maintenance and management issues. Comments related to these categories have been used to develop the community objectives for the Shoreline Adaptation Plan. The proposed community objectives are as follows:

· Resilience of assets in hazard zones is considered a priority in asset management decision-making to support service provision and ensure disruption is limited.

· Provide safe access with parking to the coast for a range of water-based activities at a range of tide levels (for example swimming, sailing/boating, kiteboarding and surfing).

· Identify existing locations for motorised boat launching where improvements will provide the greatest benefit to the wider network.

· Enhance opportunities for pedestrian and cycling movements along the coastline, integrated with the existing coastal walking and cycling experience throughout the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East setting.

· Have accessible places within coastal reserves where people can enjoy the environment in its natural setting.

· In the short term, work with Auckland Emergency Management to develop a community resilience network across Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East.

· Preserve and enhance the natural environment and ecosystems and support biodiversity.

· Work with Auckland Transport to develop a resilient road network for the area, which supports increased access for a diverse range of transport type and coastal access for recreation.

Adaptation strategies

37. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East coastline has been divided into 31 discrete coastal sections, defined by the driving coastal processes and geomorphology. A series of adaptation strategies were developed across the short, medium and long-term by aligning the results of the exposure assessment with local iwi feedback, infrastructure and asset owner input and community objectives. Recent flooding impacting Auckland, coupled with the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle does not alter the recommended adaptation strategies.

38. The resulting plan has recommended that most of the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East shoreline areas can be managed over the short to medium term with limited to no active intervention. Figure two below outlines the changing adaptation strategies across the coastline over time. Through the time horizons, there are some increasing extents recommended for hold the line and managed retreat to mitigate or avoid ongoing coastal hazard and climate change risk. Future investment is likely to focus on establishment of managed retreat options or where new or continued defence of the shoreline through hold the line is required.

P1887#yIS1

Figure 2: Adaptation strategies across the 35 coastal stretches of Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East

39. Coastal stretches identified as ‘hold the line’ in the medium to long-term have either a strong link to critical infrastructure, high amenity value or have limited space to provide for alternative management options. These coastal stretches include:

· Pine Harbour, Beachlands – a hold the line adaptation strategy has been applied here to ensure the recognition of the area as a critical transport hub and to maintain access. Limited intervention has been applied to maintain safe access and walking amenity for the community.

· Sunkist Bay, Beachlands – a hold the line strategy has been applied to retain access to this high amenity reserve and allow for the reconfiguration of non-coastal defence assets out of a reclaimed area over time. This stretch has limited public land, numerous private accessways and defences.

· Kawakawa Bay – hold the line against erosion in short to medium term (consideration of further cobble replenishment), longer term realignment of assets in response to sea-level rise.

40. Managed retreat of some coastal stretches is recommended to avoid ongoing and escalating coastal hazard risk. In many instances this relates to the setback of assets such as coastal walkways and infrastructure. This includes coastal stretches of Te Hiore Pā/Leigh Auton Reserve, western Omana Esplanade Reserve and western Maraetai Beach. In the longer term, this also includes stretches of Te Wai o Maruwhenua/Waiomanu Bay, Kakaramea/Magazine Bay, Umupuia, Kawakawa Bay, Ōrere Point and Tāpapakanga Regional Park. This SAP does not signal abandonment of ‘at risk’ areas but identifies a process to reduce maintenance and renewals costs by moving council assets out of exposed areas to accommodate natural coastal processes and build a more resilient shoreline.

41. In contrast to the more active adaptation strategies of managed retreat and hold the line, much of the coast can be managed through no active and limited intervention. Coastal stretches with an ongoing long-term strategy of No Active Intervention include Whakakaiwhara / Duder Regional Park, Tawhitokino, Waharau Regional Park and Whakatīwai Regional Park to preserve the natural character of the coast. An ongoing long-term strategy of limited intervention includes coastal stretches of Omana Regional Park to maintain access and amenity along the coast, the Wairoa catchment, Waitawa Regional Park and Matingarahi Point.

42. Areas of importance either due to their landscape or heritage value have also been considered. However, a separate adaptation plan for managing the shoreline response for specific cultural heritage sites is recommended.

Lessons learnt for Future Shoreline Adaptation Plans

43. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East SAP is the third of a series of Shoreline Adaptation Plans which will be rolled out concurrently over the next few years. The Shoreline Adaptation Plans) are the first major projects focused on adaptation of the coastline to the impacts of climate change. The pilots completed to date have provided lessons which will be incorporated into the future work programme, including:

· Public awareness of the potential impacts of climate change and the need to adapt is reasonably low. Significant work is required to upskill the public about this topic and prepare them for the future with climate change.

· Community engagement on climate change takes time and requires staff to be knowledgeable and well-versed in the topic. The engagement process for each plan needs to be open for feedback for a minimum of three to four months.

· Multiple methods of community engagement, including digital tools and in-person events is required to adequately capture community values and objectives.

· Iwi partnerships are a critical piece of building a resilient shoreline and should be established early and maintained. To effectively undertake mana whenua engagement a respective iwi engagement plan for each SAP should be drafted prior to engagement to help guide hui and wānanga.

Implementation

44. Shoreline adaptation plans are strategic guidance documents, not asset management plans. The implementation process of these plans will require collaboration from across Auckland Council departments. No financial investment decisions are made within the SAPs.

45. Signals and triggers related to the timing of adaptation responses have to be identified at the individual asset level and therefore are not included in these plans.

46. Adaptation decisions depend strongly on risk analysis and acceptable levels of risk. If Auckland Council adopts a framework for tolerable risk levels, the recommended strategies may require review.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47. The Shoreline Adaptations Plans programme is funded as part of the climate action investment package of the Recovery Budget 2021-2031 and is a core climate adaptation workstream.

48. As global temperatures rise, Auckland is predicted to experience between 0.6m and 1.66m of sea level rise by 2130 (dependent on the future CO2 emissions scenario). The impacts of climate change and sea-level rise are expected to increase the frequency, intensity and magnitude of natural hazards including coastal erosion, coastal inundation and rainfall flooding.

49. To prepare for the future with climate change, we need to plan adaptively. Shoreline Adaptation Plans will help reduce asset exposure. Identified within them is the need to work with nature by developing natural systems (such as wide beaches, well vegetated dunes and tidal marshes) that can help buffer the impacts of climate change.

50. Over the past few weeks, the impacts of climate change on Auckland have become increasingly evident (including Auckland Anniversary flooding, Cyclone Gabrielle and the National State of Emergency). The Shoreline Adaptation Plans consider the predicted impacts of coastal hazards and climate change in the short, medium and long term, over the next 100 years. Long-term climate change predictions are subject to elements of uncertainty. However hazards such as coastal instability are largely driven by episodic events as opposed to gradual, time-based responses.

51. Implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans will include the identification of signals, triggers and thresholds. These will be used to refine the recommended adaptive strategies into site-specific, best practice Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) in asset management planning. This will provide a more nuanced and locally relevant trigger to initiate a change in recommended adaptation strategy and provide for potential future changes in coastal hazard and climate change predictions. For example, the triggers initiating a change from ‘limited intervention’ to ‘managed retreat’ may include physical measures such as the frequency of inundation events or extent of land lost to erosion. There will also be economic considerations around the replacement of infrastructure or social and cultural impacts around the functional use of areas.

52. Shoreline Adaptation Plans also assist in educating the public about the impacts of climate change and the need to adapt. Building awareness and signalling the need to be prepared for coastal hazard events is an important part of long-term resilience. For that reason, SAPs are reported under the Community and Coast priority area of Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan to Auckland Councils Chief Sustainability Office.

53. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Pilot SAP outlines how Auckland Council owned land and assets in the shoreline area can be managed to mitigate the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change. Implementation of the plan will increase the resilience of the shoreline by decreasing the number of assets in hazards zones and support the development of natural systems that can act as a more sustainable future buffer.

54. Greenhouse gas emissions, associated with site- or area-specific works required to implement the SAPs will need to be considered at a site or project specific level when design options are scoped. Greenhouse gas emissions are not specifically addressed within each SAP. This is because their role is to identify a strategic approach to adapting the shoreline to build long-term resilience and acknowledge that hard defences (such as concrete seawalls) are not the only response available for managing the coast.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

55. Considering the non-statutory nature of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans, implementation of the plan will be a collaborative effort across Auckland Council departments, and council-controlled organisations. The SAP project team has worked in partnership with relevant departments to co-develop the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Pilot.

56. Strategies will be given effect to and integrated into all relevant council Asset Management Plans, Reserve Management Plans and Regional Parks Management Plans and associated decision making (such as landowner and leasehold approvals).

57. Implementation of the SAPs will be supported by monitoring of coastal assets and the surrounding coastal environment. This will inform triggers for changing management strategies. Monitoring will include coastal asset condition assessments, beach level surveys and tracking the rate of future coastal hazards and climate change impacts. Such activities are undertaken through the council as business-as-usual. Mana whenua will have the opportunity to lead or be involved in future implementation as partners in the SAP Programme.

58. SAP strategies will be pursued for integration into all relevant council Asset Management Plans to inform appropriate monitoring, maintenance, and renewal. For example, management of Parks and Community Facilities assets that provide a coastal defence or amenity function will be considered through the council’s Coastal Assets Renewals Programme. This programme is managed through the Resilient Land and Coasts Department and will ensure that strategies identified within the SAPs are implemented where possible. This will be supported by site-specific assessments of coastal processes, option feasibility and costings to identify a preferred solution that aligns with the overarching adaptation strategy of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan.

59. Watercare and Auckland Transport were involved in the development of the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Pilot and provided insight into infrastructure considerations around the coastline. These considerations were incorporated in the selection on adaptation strategies.

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

Local impacts and local board views

60. A workshop with the Franklin Local Board to introduce the SAP process and the need to adapt was held in October 2021. Local Board members Angela Fulljames and Malcolm Bell attended community engagement days and were included in the community engagement process for the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East plan. A second workshop summarising the full development process and outlining the results of the pilot was held with the local board in June 2022.

61. The community objectives were considered in the development of the adaptation strategies and will inform future projects in the shoreline area including coastal local board and renewals work programmes.

62. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Pilot was endorsed by the Franklin Local Board on 23 August 2022 (FR/2022/118).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

63. The Shoreline Adaptation Plans programme is designed in partnership with mana whenua. The project team meets regularly with the Infrastructure and Environmental Services mana whenua forum to provide updates and seek guidance on the delivery of the programme. The project team also meets frequently with relevant iwi or iwi groupings to support the development of each area-specific SAP.

64. For the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East SAP, the council partnered with local iwi Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngaati Whanaunga in the development of the plan. Te Ākitai Waiohua was also involved as an observer and attended hui alongside Ngaati Whanaunga.

65. Staff also engaged with the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board throughout the development of the plan. However, the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board have since requested that their input be withdrawn from the document. This will not preclude the council from continuing to engage with the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board and Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust on future implementation of the plan.

66. Between November 2021 and September 2022, over 11 hui with each local iwi grouping (as named above) were undertaken to understand the cultural values of the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East coastline. An additional wānanga was held on site at Umupuia Marae hosted by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. During these hui, iwi representatives provided cultural context to the coastline and provided specific themes related to shoreline management as well acknowledging and advocating for three key principles:

· the importance to recognise the autonomy of each iwi / hapū

· protection of the knowledge (mātauranga) and information and how this is shared

· naming of each iwi party who has been involved in the development of the SAP.

67. The themes and objectives gifted by mana whenua informed the development of the adaptation strategies and are a core foundation of the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan report. To further honour themes advocated for in the report, we have recommended that all future coastal projects on this shoreline:

· Value Whakapapa (Ancestry) by acknowledging and supporting the cultural and spiritual values of mana whenua and giving effect to the views of mana whenua regarding culturally significant sites or areas in any coastal management or engineering options.

· Value Taiao (Environment) by prioritising naturalisation of the shoreline and working to enhance and protect the natural environment. This includes restoration of the natural environment in areas where managed retreat has been recommended and considering nature-based options in areas of hold the line.

· Value Tangata Hononga (Connecting People) by recognising and supporting the interdependence of people and their environment, providing mana whenua with kaitiaki opportunities, and working with the local community on volunteering opportunities.

68. Information on how the Shoreline Adaptation Plan aligns with and supports the objectives of Te Ora ō Tāmaki Makaurau^{^[1]}, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, and the Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework (adopted by Auckland Council in 2021) has been included as a section in the SAP.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

69. The development of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans is regionally funded as part of the climate action investment package of the Recovery Budget 2021-2031 (GB/2021/79). Approximately $3.63 million has been allocated to the development of all 20 SAPs by mid-2025. No additional funding is requested.

70. The cost of developing this plan included preparation of a localised coastal hazard risk assessment, community consultation and feedback, mana whenua engagement, stakeholder engagement, review of adaptation strategies and report drafting. The pilot phase of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans has now been completed. Lessons learned from this pilot process are being incorporated and reflected in programme efficiencies (time and cost) for the delivery of the remaining Shoreline Adaptation Plans.

71. Mitigating coastal hazards will become increasingly costly for Auckland and New Zealand due to the impact of climate change. It will not be affordable or feasible to defend everywhere. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan will guide future shoreline projects to consider the escalating future risk and respond in both an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.

72. The adaptation strategies of the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan will be implemented across relevant council decision making. This includes the future maintenance and renewal of assets located along the coast and provision of any new coastal assets.

73. Where strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated from now. This is reflected in the Coastal Asset Renewals Programme for the 2022/2023 financial year. Some current renewals work aligns with the recommended strategies including at Sunkist Bay seawall, Maraetai Wharf, Kawakawa Bay Boat Club, boat ramp and wharf, and Ōrere Point. Where strategies require additional budget to be implemented, this will be subject to a regional prioritisation process for funding once all Shoreline Adaptation Plans have been completed.

74. The plan will also support the development of a comprehensive Asset Management Plan for coastal structures in the area. Over time, this will result in cost savings as a more holistic and strategic approach to coastal management is implemented. This will include the setback of assets as far as practicable from known coastal hazard zones in areas identified for managed retreat as an adaptation strategy. Such areas will subsequently require less ongoing operational maintenance.

75. The allocated long-term plan budget for renewals of coastal assets is approximately $29.2 million over three years between the 2020/2021 and 2023/2024 financial years. It is therefore anticipated that a significant increase in funding will be required for renewals in the future, particularly if the effects of climate change start to reduce the useful life of coastal assets. Once all SAPs across Auckland are completed, a regional prioritisation scheme will be developed to guide future funding requirements in response to climate change impacts. This will assist in informing future coastal renewal budgets to support significant coastal works recommended by managed retreat or hold the line strategies in response to future climate change impacts.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

76. Without strategic guidance, coastal asset and management decisions will be made on an ad-hoc basis and may not take the escalating risk of climate change into account. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan provides the strategic long-term vision for Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East coastal areas. Implementation of the plan will require multiple teams in the council and CCOs to work together.

Table 1: Risk and mitigations of the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan

Risk	Mitigation
Public opposition to the proposed adaptation strategies	The Shoreline Adaptation Plan has been developed in partnership with mana whenua and with extensive engagement with the local community, wider public and infrastructure providers.
Ongoing partnership with Ngāti Paoa Trust Board and Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust	Throughout the development of the Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan there has been ongoing engagement with the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board through a series of online hui. Following the decision of the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board to withdraw their input to the plan, further wānanga and iterations to the cultural context of the plan were made, and an offer for future hui made. Lessons learnt are being applied to the future engagement model of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme. This has been presented to the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board and all other iwi groups in Tāmaki Makaurau with the intention for ongoing engagement on the programme and local SAP area plans. The Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East Shoreline Adaptation Plan is a ‘living document’ and opportunities to re-engage with the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board and Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust on this Kaupapa are recognised along with through implementation of the SAP.
Coastal hazards may increase in frequency and intensity earlier than expected	The Shoreline Adaptation Plan has been developed using a conservative climate change scenario in the long term, and therefore staff consider this risk to be low. In addition, the SAP advocates for a Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathway approach which is inherently flexible to allow for uncertainty in the rate of change.
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan may not be applied across all business areas	The Shoreline Adaptation Plan project team has worked in collaboration across council to develop the plan. A Coastal Governance Group has also been established to oversee the implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans. Key to the implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans are the development of a Coastal Asset Management Plan and the Coastal Renewals Work Programme. Both projects are owned and managed by the Resilient Land and Coasts team alongside the Shoreline Adaptation Plan work Programme.
Insufficient budget to implement the Shoreline Adaptation Plan strategies	The full cost of implementing the high-level strategies recommended within shoreline adaptation plans will not be understood until all the plans are complete. However, the plans provide both a framework to guide future, operational post-storm responses, alongside a long-term, regional overview of coastal hazard risk using best-available information to inform future funding requirements.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

77. If approved, the adaptation strategies outlined in this Shoreline Adaptation Plan will be progressively integrated into council plans and strategies such as Asset Management Plans for implementation when these plans are reviewed.

78. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan Programme will continue to be rolled out across the region. The next two SAPs (Manukau South and Āwhitu Peninsula) were launched externally in mid-June 2022 and are currently in development. They will be presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee when finished.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Shoreline Adaptation Plan: Kahawairahi ki Whakatīwai / Beachlands and East
b ⇨	Franklin Local Board resolution

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Lara Clarke - Principal Coastal Adaptation Specialist

Dr Natasha Carpenter - Coastal Management Practice Lead

Authorisers

Paul Klinac – General Manager Resilient Land & Coasts

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Priority submissions for Auckland Council Group in 2023

File No.: CP2023/00457

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for staff to prepare submissions to priority government consultations during the first half of 2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Central government’s significant reform programme requires substantial resource from the Auckland Council Group to respond to. It is therefore helpful to agree the matters council will submit on during the first half of 2023 in advance, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and create a framework by which upcoming consultations can be evaluated. This provides:

· certainty to the group on allocating resources to agreed priority submissions

· an agreed way to take a group-wide approach to prioritising future consultations, for approval by committee (and by consequence what not to submit on)

· more clarity on committee work programmes as related to submissions.

3. Staff have therefore developed a process to identify and prioritise government consultations. All upcoming submission opportunities will be assessed against a set of criteria and a recommendation made to this Committee on the priority consultations.

4. This report seeks approval to prepare submissions on the following consultations in 2023: Emergency Management Bill, National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan review, the GPS Land Transport 2024, and the Climate Adaptation Act.

5. Staff will prepare these submissions when consultations open and follow the usual committee procedures for approval. Committee’s approval will be sought later in the year for consultations in the second half of 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Auckland Council Group to prepare submissions to priority government consultations in the first half of 2023, being the Emergency Management Bill, National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan review, the Government Policy Statement Land Transport 2024, and the Climate Adaptation Act.

b) tautapa / delegate approval for staff to prepare submissions to unexpected consultations due to changing government priorities to the Chair and Deputy Chair.

Horopaki

Context

6. Responding to central government consultations is one important route for communicating the issues, risks, and opportunities of proposed policy and legislative changes on Auckland and Auckland Council Group functions and services.

7. However, central government has a large reform programme underway which includes numerous consultations and opportunities for the council to submit. These take significant resource for the council to respond to and as such need to be prioritised.

8. There is no consistent approach to prioritising consultations, which can lead to the council spreading its resources and expertise across a range of submissions not equal in importance. The time taken to respond to consultations can detract from other priorities.

9. It is important that the council group speaks with one voice when responding to these types of proposals. As such the Auckland Council organisation leads on the preparation of submissions on policy and legislative proposals, seeking input from staff in council-controlled organisations. Local boards are given the opportunity to input and attach formal resolutions to the council’s submission. Staff also seek feedback from iwi.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. Auckland Plan Strategy and Research (APSR) Department developed a set of criteria to provide consistency and efficiency in prioritising consultation responses. The criteria are:

· To what extent is the consultation relevant to Auckland and Auckland Council group?

· To what extent does the proposal impact on the rights and interests of mana whenua and mataawaka in Tāmaki Makaurau?

· Will it make a difference if council makes a submission? Consider from a policy and technical perspective.

· Are there other routes available for providing feedback?

· Does council have existing policies or position statements on the consultation topic?

· Does council have expertise to provide feedback?

· Does council have the resource and time to provide feedback?

11. CCO Governance, Democracy and Engagement, Ngā Mātārae, Local Board Services, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat provided input to the criteria and will play an ongoing role in using the criteria to assess which central government consultations the council group should be focusing on. Upcoming consultations will be assessed to identify whether they are:

· priority: Auckland Council will allocate resources to prepare a submission

· watching brief: there is insufficient information available to make an assessment

· not a priority: Auckland Council will not allocate resources to the consultation.

12. Political approval will be sought on these priorities on an annual basis. However, unexpected consultations arise from time to time, often with very short submission periods. For this reason, delegation is also sought for the Chair and Deputy Chair to approve the preparation of submissions, when assessed as priority, should such unexpected consultations arise. The approval process for the content of submissions will follow the usual process through Committee.

13. The criteria have been used to assess consultations expected in the first half of 2023. Those consultations form part of three central government work programmes, which are:

· Emergency Management: the focus will be on a proposed Emergency Management Bill and a review of the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan

· Transport: the focus will be on indicative priorities for the draft GPS 2024

· Climate change reforms and related proposals: the focus will be on a proposed Climate Adaptation Act (part of the Resource Management system reforms), an Equitable Transitions Strategy, and the second emissions reduction plan

14. The findings of the assessment on these consultations are summarised below and provided in full in Attachment A.

· Priority submissions:

o Emergency Management Bill

o National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan - review

o GPS Land Transport 2024 – Indicative priorities

o Climate Adaptation Act

· Submissions for watching brief are:

o Equitable Transitions Strategy

o Emissions Reduction Plan 2 (2026-2030)

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. No adverse impact identified by using these criteria or approving priority submissions for the first half of 2023.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views guidance

16. Staff have engaged with relevant council and CCO staff to bring the list of submissions to this Committee for approval. This will also be done for all future lists of submissions.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. Staff have engaged with Local Board Services to bring the list of submissions to this Committee for approval. This will also be done for all future lists of submissions.

18. Council will engage with local boards when developing submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. Many government consultations will be of interest to and/or have an impact on Māori. This was considered in the development of the criteria, with assistance from Ngā Mātārae. Input from iwi will be sought on all submissions made as timeframes allow.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

20. This work can be done within existing budget provision and as part of business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

21. Government priorities change from time to time and there are unexpected consultations. To mitigate this risk, in these cases it is recommended that the decision to prepare a submission be delegated to the Chair and Deputy Chair. This is because short consultation timelines often do not allow for committee meeting dates and approval.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

1. Prepare priority submissions when consultations open and follow the normal committee procedures for approval.

2. Review and assess the central government work programme and consultations for the second half of 2023.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Central government consultations expected first half of 2023

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Adam Morris - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management - Appointment of Political Working Group

File No.: CP2023/00438

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To re-establish a Political Working Group to guide the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM).

2. To provide an update on progress with the NPS-FM implementation programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The NPS-FM 2020 is national direction that aims to significantly improve the way in which freshwater is managed in New Zealand. The NPS-FM includes a range of new requirements relating to the fundamental concept of ‘Te Mana o te Wai’ and the National Objectives Framework. The Framework is a core part of the NPS-FM, and includes a series of steps that every regional council or unitary authority must follow.

4. The council is required to notify changes to the AUP to implement the NPS-FM by December 2024.

5. Recent work in the NPS-FM programme has been focused on: developing Regional Policy Statement provisions; engagement on visions, values and freshwater management units; and the identification of baseline states. In the coming months, work will need to include the development of target attribute states (measurable components of water health) and proposals for limits on resource use and action plans in order to achieve relevant environmental outcomes and ensure that our waterways meet the prescribed national bottom lines for ecosystem health and human contact.

6. In the previous council term, a Political Working Group was established to oversee the implementation of the NPS-FM. It is recommended that this Working Group be re-established to guide decision making in the development of the NPS-FM plan change and related action plans.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the establishment of a Political Working Group to guide the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020.

b) whakaae / approve the draft terms of reference for the Political Working Group (included as Attachment A to the agenda report) for inclusion in the Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference 2022 – 2025.

c) whakaū / confirm the membership of the Political Working Group as:

i) Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

ii) Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

iii) Two councillors

iv) One Independent Māori Statutory Board member.

Horopaki

Context

Requirements of the NPS-FM 2020

7. The NPS-FM was introduced as part of the Government’s “Essential Freshwater” package in September 2020, along with the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater, the Stock Exclusion Regulations, and amendments to the RMA to require freshwater farm plans and provide for a faster freshwater planning process. The goals of the new national direction are to “protect and improve our rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands”; and specifically, to:

· stop further degradation of freshwater

· start making immediate improvements so that water quality improves within five years

· reverse past damage to bring our waterways and ecosystems to a healthy state within a generation.

8. The RMA requires that councils notify a plan change to amend regional policy statements and regional plans to give effect to the NPS-FM by 31 December 2024. Councils are also required to develop ‘action plans’ to coordinate non-regulatory activities.

9. The fundamental concept of the NPS-FM is Te Mana o te Wai, which includes a hierarchy of obligations that prioritises:

· first, the health and well-being of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems

· second, the health needs of people (such as drinking water)

· third, the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing, now and in the future.

10. Every council must develop long-term visions for freshwater in its region and include those long-term visions as objectives in its regional policy statement. Long-term visions:

a) may be set at Freshwater Management Unit (FMU), part of an FMU, or catchment level

b) must set goals that are ambitious but reasonable (that is, difficult to achieve but not impossible)

c) identify a timeframe to achieve those goals that is ambitious and reasonable (for example, 30 years after the commencement date).

11. The National Objectives Framework (NOF) is a core part of the NPS-FM, and includes a series of steps that every regional council or unitary authority must follow, including to:

· identify the FMUs in the region

· identify values for each FMU

· set environmental outcomes for each value and include them as objectives in regional plans

· identify attributes (measurable components of water health) for each value and identify baseline states for those attributes

· set target attribute states, environmental flows and levels, and other criteria to support the achievement of environmental outcomes

· set limits as rules and prepare action plans (as appropriate) to achieve environmental outcomes.

12. The NOF also requires that regional councils monitor water bodies and freshwater ecosystems and take action if degradation is detected.

13. FMUs are essentially the spatial arrangements adopted by the council for the management of freshwater. All freshwater water bodies and their related catchments must be within an FMU. While the NPS-FM is primarily concerned with the management of freshwater, it does also require an integrated management approach – ki uta ki tai – including consideration of the relationship of freshwater and its management to the coastal receiving environment.

14. The NPS-FM includes four compulsory values which must be identified and managed in each FMU, namely:

· Ecosystem health: the extent freshwater bodies support an ecosystem, which comprises five components of water quality, water quantity, habitat, aquatic life and ecological processes (each of which must be applied)

· Human contact: the extent to which an FMU supports people being able to connect with the water through activities like swimming, waka, boating, fishing or mahinga kai

· Threatened species: the extent to which a FMU that supports a population of threatened species has the critical habitats and conditions necessary to support the presence, abundance, survival and recovery of the threatened species

· Mahinga kai: kai is safe to harvest and eat. In FMUs that are valued for providing mahinga kai, customary resources are available for use, customary practices are able to be exercised to the extent desired, and tikanga and preferred methods are able to be practised.

15. The other values that must be considered in managing FMUs are:

· Natural form and character: the particular natural qualities that people value

· Drinking water supply: water quality and quantity is sufficient for drinking water supply

· Wai tapu: places where ritual and ceremonies are performed or have special significance to tangata whenua

· Transport and tauranga waka: water bodies that are navigable for identified means of transport, along with places to launch waka and water craft

· Fishing: for areas valued for fishing, the numbers of fish are sufficient and suitable for human consumption

· Hydro-electric power generation: this does not apply to Auckland

· Animal drinking water: water quality and quantity meet the needs of farmed animals

· Irrigation, cultivation and production of food and beverages: water quality and quantity are suitable for irrigation and food production requirements

· Commercial and industrial use: water quality and quantity can provide for commercial and industrial activities.

16. For each of the values which apply within an FMU, the council must identify appropriate attributes to assess the extent to which these values are provided for. The NPS-FM sets out national bottom-line states that need to be met for the ecosystem health and human contact values. Target attribute states must be set at or above these baseline state for each attribute, meaning water quality must be maintained or improved. For the human contact value, the target must be above the baseline state unless the state is already identified as being in the highest quality band.

17. The relationship between the elements of the National Objectives Framework is set out in Figure 1.

nof infographic full title

Figure 1 Summary of NPS-FM National Objectives Framework (MfE infographic).

Previous establishment of a political working group

18. A report to the Planning Committee meeting on 4 March 2021 set out a high-level implementation plan for the NPS-FM, and proposed that a working group be established. The Committee resolution was:

Resolution Number PLA/2021/12

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the high-level implementation plan outlined in Table 1 as a basis for Auckland Council’s implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

b) appoint a National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 Working Group to oversee the development of the Council’s implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020, comprising of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and a representative of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

c) note that final decisions on the Council’s implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 will be made by the whole of the Planning Committee.

d) request six monthly regular reporting to the Planning Committee, with an additional report in June 2021.

19. Update reports were provided to the Planning Committee in August 2021 and June 2022.

20. The Working Group met in May 2021 (to discuss the initiation of engagement with mana whenua), and in June 2022 (to discuss the community engagement on visions, values and freshwater management units that occurred in June and July 2022).

Update on implementation progress

21. A summary of the NPS-FM programme is shown in Attachment A. Engagement with mana whenua and stakeholders is on-going throughout the programme. Initial community engagement on visions, values and FMU’s was undertaken in June and July 2022. A second stage of community engagement is planned for October and November 2023. The AUP plan change will then be notified for public submissions in late 2024.

22. The NPS-FM programme has, to date, focused on engagement and the foundational workstream, covering matters such as:

· Te Mana o te Wai

· RPS provisions

· visions

· values

· environmental outcomes

· sub-FMUs and the AUP structure

· development of the baseline state report for compulsory attributes.

23. The implementation approach is based on the following principles:

· Timing efficiency – the required Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan changes will be notified at the same time (i.e. not a staged approach). A decision needs to be made by this Committee (through subsequent reporting) regarding the timing of related district plan changes.

· A region-wide approach to plan development – including all of Auckland in the engagement process and in drafting the planning provisions (i.e. not a catchment by catchment approach), and using bespoke management responses, processes and provisions where they are necessary.

· Ongoing engagement with mana whenua and stakeholders – continuous series of hui with iwi; regular communications with stakeholders.

· Stages of community and mataawaka and stakeholder engagement – two phases of community engagement, but no engagement on a full draft

· Integration between plan changes and action plans – action plans will be developed at the same time as plan changes, rather than sequentially.

24. Feedback from the community and mana whenua has been strongly supportive of the proposal to have three FMUs based around the coastal receiving environments: Kaipara, Manukau and Hauraki. (Attachment B has a map of the proposed FMUs.) This proposed approach provides the opportunity to both address the management of freshwater for its own sake, while also explicitly considering its relationship to the coastal environment. There is also wide recognition that there is a need to manage some areas/types of waterbodies in a more refined way through policy tools such as AUP overlays or controls.

25. Mana whenua have also supported the proposed approach to Te Mana o te Wai – building on the council’s Water Strategy vision: Te mauri o te wai, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water, is protected and enhanced. If te mauri of te wai is degraded there can be no Mana o te Wai.

26. The NPS-FM programme involves staff from several council departments and teams, including: Plans and Places, Research and Evaluation (RIMU), Natural Environment Strategy, Healthy Waters, Environmental Services, Regulatory Services, and Engagement. The programme’s Steering Committee includes representatives from Auckland Transport and Watercare, Legal Services and Nga Matarae.

27. Recent technical work that supports the wider development of the council’s response to the NPS-FM includes:

· Expansion of the State of the Environment monitoring network

· Development of the ‘baseline state report’

· Publication of technical reports on the Freshwater Management Tool and its baseline state assessment for rivers

· Development of a draft Fish Passage Action Plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

28. The complexity of the changes required by the NPS-FM means that there will be many aspects that require political consideration and decision making. It would be beneficial to have on-going guidance from a Political Working Group with a strong understanding of the requirements of the NPS-FM.

29. The purpose of the NPS-FM Political Working Group would be to:

· guide the development of the policy direction of the plan change (or concurrent plan changes) to the Auckland Unitary Plan and related action plans

· make interim decisions in order to provide guidance on policy issues as these arise in developing the plan change (or concurrent plan changes) to the Auckland Unitary Plan and related action plans.

30. Draft terms of reference for the recommended NPS-FM Political Working Group are included in Attachment C.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. The fundamental concept of the NPS-FM Te Mana o te Wai is about restoring and preserving the balance between the water, the wider environment, and the community. This concept is in line with the natural environment priority of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which sets the goal:

“Oranga taiao, oranga tāngata: a healthy and connected natural environment supports healthy and connected Aucklanders. The mauri (life essence) of Tāmaki Makaurau is restored”.

32. The NPS-FM includes the following policy direction in response to climate change:

Policy 4: Freshwater is managed as part of New Zealand’s integrated response to climate change.

33. The NPS-FM also requires councils to have regard to the foreseeable impact of climate change when setting limits on resource use, when setting environmental flows and levels, and when assessing and reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of plan provisions under section 35(2A) of the RMA.

34. The implementation of the NPS-FM will help to promote the resilience of freshwater ecosystems to the impacts of climate change. The development of freshwater action plans will require sustainable land and water management practices to enhance the mauri and health of waterways, which is in line with actions prioritised in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. The NPS-FM is relevant to all of the council’s functions. All relevant council departments and Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) are involved in the NPS-FM implementation, including through supporting the NPS-FM engagement, providing technical advice, and review of policy responses developed to give effect to the NPS-FM.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. Under the Local Government Act 2002, local boards are responsible for identifying and communicating to Auckland Council the interests and performances of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local Boards have a detailed understanding of their areas including freshwater values and issues and are in a position to provide important input to the development of NPS-FM responses.

37. Prior to the public engagement in June / July 2022, a memo titled “Implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 for Auckland” was provided to all local boards. The memo advised the key principles, consultation and timeframe requirements of implementing the NPS-FM, and the opportunities for local board input through the process.

38. A webinar was presented to local boards in a meeting on 3 June 2022 and planning staff presented at several individual local board meetings where requested. Almost all of the local boards provided feedback on visions, values and FMU’s following the close of public engagement.

39. There will be future opportunities for local board involvement prior to the next community engagement in October / November 2023.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. The NPS-FM requires the council to “actively involve tangata whenua (to the extent they wish to be involved) in freshwater management” including in identifying Māori values and decision-making processes relating to Māori freshwater values.

41. Engagement with mana whenua in Auckland is being undertaken through an on-going process of hui with mana whenua entities throughout the NPS-FM implementation programme. Since July 2021, 43 hui have been held with the 19 iwi entities, ranging from one to four hui held with each iwi entity.

42. Engagement with the mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau about the NPS-FM has also been undertaken in the broader context of the government’s Three Waters Reform and the development and implementation of the council’s Water Strategy, to enable mana whenua to provide a more holistic consideration of the management of water.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. There are no additional financial implications from the appointment of a Political Working Group as recommended in this report.

44. Programme planning to implement the NPS-FM has been completed, which has identified $9.4m in unbudgeted costs that will be required over the next 4 years to support plan development, technical analysis, public engagement, and the operation of an independent hearing panel.

45. Additional costs identified relating to the current financial year will be met through existing budgets and a re-prioritisation of work programmes. The remaining $7.7m required from FY24 to FY26 has been included in the draft FY2023/2024 annual budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46. The government has set a deadline of December 2024 for the council to publicly notify the AUP plan change to implement the NPS-FM. Given the scale and complexity of the work, and limited resources, there is a risk that the council may not achieve this deadline.

47. This risk is being mitigated through comprehensive programme management and across-council leadership of the policy development processes.

48. The NPS-FM programme is expected to generate a high level of mana whenua and community interest due to the changes that may be required to achieve improvements in Auckland’s freshwater bodies.

49. This will be managed through an extensive engagement programme that provides numerous opportunities for input prior to the notification of the plan change (or concurrent plan changes).

50. Both of these risks could be further addressed through ongoing guidance from a Political Working Group.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. The re-establishment of a Political Working Party will enable ongoing political guidance of the development of proposals to discuss with mana whenua and stakeholders, and when the council seeks community feedback on the NPS-FM implementation programme later in 2023.

52. The Committee and Local Boards will have further opportunities to review the proposed plan change(s) and action plans as they evolve. This will occur before the plan change to the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan is approved for public notification (that approval will be sought in the second half of 2024) to meet the NPS-FM deadline for notification by 31 December 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	NPS-FM implementation programme timeline
b ⇨	Draft Freshwater Management Units in Auckland
c ⇨	Draft NPS-FM Political Working Party Terms of Reference

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

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

Kath Coombes - Team Leader - Regional Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Appointment of representatives to Ark in the Park Governance Group

File No.: CP2023/00437

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To appoint two representatives to the Ark in the Park Governance Group.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ark in the Park is a community-led conservation project in the northern part of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park that is managed in partnership between Forest and Bird and Auckland Council, with the support of Te Kawerau ā Maki.

3. Ark in the Park works to restore the ecology of the area to its natural state through controlling non-native pests and predators and reintroducing native species which have become extinct from the area.

4. Auckland Council has a partnership agreement with Forest and Bird for this project (see Attachment A).

5. As specified in the partnership agreement, the management of the project is overseen by a governance group made up of:

· two representatives from the Governing Body of the Auckland Council

· one representative from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board

· one representative of the Executive of Forest and Bird

· two representatives of the Waitākere Branch of Forest and Bird.

6. In line with the partnership agreement, staff recommend the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, as a committee of the whole of the Governing Body, appoints two representatives to the group. These representatives can be either councillors or Independent Māori Statutory Board members.

7. Staff recommend that appointed representatives have a connection with the Waitākere Ranges, or an interest in the protection of indigenous biodiversity.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) kopou / appoint two members to the Ark in the Park Governance Group for the 2022 to 2025 electoral term

Horopaki

Context

8. The Ark in the Park Open Sanctuary Project aims to enhance biodiversity in the Waitākere Ranges, while conserving the natural, recreational, historical and cultural features of the Ranges.

9. The project covers approximately 2,270ha of the Upper Waitākere River catchment within the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

10. The Ark in the Park project is identified as a commitment under Auckland Council’s Regional Parks Management Plan (September 2022). It also enables the council to deliver on the goals of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

11. The Ark in the Park project contributes significantly towards achieving objectives of Auckland Council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy, notably:

· Objective 1: Conserve the greatest number and most diverse range of Auckland’s indigenous ecosystems and sequences.

· Objective 2: Achieve long-term recovery of the greatest number of threatened species whose range includes the Auckland Region.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Partnership agreement between Auckland Council and Forest and Bird

12. The Ark in the Park project is managed in partnership between Forest and Bird and Auckland Council.

13. The partnership agreement for the project (Attachment A) specifies that it should have a governance group composed of:

· two representatives from the Governing Body of the Auckland Council

· one representative from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board

· one representative of the Executive of Forest and Bird

· two representatives of the Waitākere Branch of Forest and Bird.

14. The purpose of the Ark in the Park governance group is to oversee and review the overall direction of the project, approve the annual Ark plan and long-term restoration plan.

15. The Forest and Bird representatives on the governance group are to be advised. On 8 December 2022 the Waitākere Ranges Local Board appointed member Mark Allen as their lead representative and Liz Manley as alternate representative to the governance group for the 2022-2025 term (resolution number WTK/2022/141).

16. The Governance Group will meet twice yearly or as may be otherwise agreed between the parties. The meeting commitment over the last term was approximately once per annum.

Preferred option – appoint two representatives to the group

17. In accordance with the partnership agreement, staff recommend that the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee appoint two representatives to sit on the Ark in the Park Governance Group for the 2022-2025 electoral term.

18. Staff recommend that appointed representatives have an association with the Waitākere Ranges or an interest in the protection of indigenous biodiversity.

19. The other option available to the committee is to not appoint representatives. This option is not recommended as it would mean that the council is not complying with the partnership agreement.

21. It would also mean that a regional perspective for the council is not represented on the Governance Group, in the case that any decisions are required.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. The ongoing operation of the Ark in the Park project protects a substantial area of mature native forest in the Waitākere Ranges. This provides habitat for a host of native animal species and supports their resilience in the face of climate change effects.

21. Maintenance of the forest ecosystem also provides carbon sequestration and helps regulate the hydrology of the Waitākere River catchment. This contributes to resilience in extreme weather events.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. The Ark in the Park work programme is developed in consultation with the relevant departments of the council, including Regional Parks and Environmental Services.

23. The project manager also liaises with other impacted parts of the council family, such as Watercare, when required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board have appointed local board member Mark Allen as their lead representative and Liz Manley as alternate representative to the governance group for this term at their 8 December 2022 meeting (resolution WTK/2022/141).

25. The Ark in the Park work programme is well aligned with the aspirations of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, in particular the following outcomes identified in the Local Board Plan 2020:

· Outcome 1: The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area is protected and enhanced, and connections with surrounding communities are strengthened

· Outcome 3: We work to respect, protect and restore the environment

26. To give effect to these aspirations the local board invests a significant component of their annual budget to local environmental projects. These projects restore and enhance the natural environment in partnership with their communities. Ark in the Park complements these local board projects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. A specific objective of the project is to “acknowledge the role of Te Kawerau ā Maki as mana whenua for Te Wao Nui a Tiriwa.” To achieve this, the project manager and Western Principal Ranger, Parks liaise directly with Te Kawerau ā Maki representatives to seek their advice and recommendations.

28. This objective is also achieved through wider initiatives that take place in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. Iwi involvement in the Ark in the Park project includes attendance and ceremonial involvement with wildlife translocation events such as the release of pōpokotea (whitehead) and kōkako.

29. The current Ark in the Park five-year plan includes the following goals in relation to iwi involvement:

· seek opportunities to work with Te Kawerau ā Maki

· foster the relationship with Te Kawerau ā Maki

· provide opportunities for mentoring rangatahi

· acknowledge the role of Te Kawerau ā Maki in media communications about the project.

30. Representatives from the Governing Body could be either councillors or Independent Māori Statutory Board members.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. A full-time project manager employed by Forest and Bird manages the day-to-day aspects of the project. Auckland Council contributes $60,000 per year, which is paid to Forest and Bird and covers part of the salary for that role.

32. Environmental Services and Parks department budgets provide operational funding for council staff salaries and resources to support the Ark in the Park activities.

33. In addition to the governance group, a management committee consisting of council staff, Forest and Bird employees, and project volunteers meets six times a year to guide Ark in the Park operations.

34. The decision to appoint Governing Body members to the governance group does not have any specific financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. There are minimal risks associated with the recommended decision.

36. If the Governing Body does not appoint representatives to the group, the main risk is a lack of regional representatives on the body in case of a required decision.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. When representatives are appointed to the group, staff will liaise with them to advise the date of the first governance group meeting. Meetings occur as required, typically once a year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Ark in the Park partnership agreement

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tracey Parsons - Team Manager Mainland Central/West, Natural Environment Delivery

Authorisers

Rachel Kelleher - General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

02 March 2023

Establishment of the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group

File No.: CP2023/00322

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To kopou / appoint two Governing Body representatives to the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group and whakaae /approve the working group’s draft terms of reference.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee approved a refresh and consolidation of the open space, sport and recreation policy framework in August 2022 [PAC/2022/68].

3. The establishment of a joint political working group was also approved consisting of one Independent Māori Statutory Board representative, two local board representatives and two Governing Body representatives.

4. The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee has delegated responsibility for relevant regional strategy and policy, and strategic regional oversight of regional parks, parks and reserves, sports, and recreation.

5. Staff are seeking the appointment of two Governing Body representatives to the joint political working group and approval of the working group’s draft terms of reference (Attachment A).

6. The joint political working group’s purpose is to provide input into the design and content of the new policy framework, prior to consideration by local boards and the committee. It is not a decision-making group.

7. The Independent Māori Statutory Board intends to appoint its representative to the working group at its board meeting on 6 March 2023.The Local Board Chairs’ Forum has appointed Margi Watson (Albert-Eden Local Board) and Sandra Coney (Waitākere Local Board).

8. There is a moderate delivery risk as the members could be limited in their ability to engage with the working group due to competing demands on their time. This can be mitigated by manageable meeting frequency and ensuring that meetings are efficient and meaningful.

9. It is anticipated that a refreshed and consolidated policy framework will be ready for implementation by the end of 2024.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) kopou / appoint two Governing Body representatives to the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Independent Māori Statutory Board appoints its representative to the joint political working group, scheduled to place on 6 March 2023.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Local Board Chairs’ Forum appoints the local board representatives to the joint political working group and has appointed Margi Watson (Albert-Eden Local Board) and Sandra Coney (Waitākere Local Board).

d) whakaae / approve the draft terms of reference for the joint political working group as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

The open space, sport and recreation policy framework is being refreshed and consolidated

10. In August 2022, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee approved a refresh and consolidation of the open space, sport and recreation policy framework [PAC/2022/68].

11. To provide input into this process, it also approved the establishment of a joint political working group made up of one Independent Māori Statutory Board representative, two local board representatives, and two Governing Body representatives.

12. The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee has delegated responsibility for relevant regional strategy and policy as well as strategic regional oversight of regional parks, parks and reserves, sports, and recreation.

13. The working group will have the opportunity to hear directly from an advisory rōpū comprising of sector representatives and a Māori rōpū. The rōpū are designed to ensure advice and input into the refresh and consolidation from a range of sectors and interests.

14. Auckland Council’s open space, sport and recreation policy framework guides planning, management and investment decisions for parks and open spaces and sport and recreation. It is made up of five strategies, policies, and plans:

· Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan (2013)

· Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013)

· Open Space Provision Policy (2016)

· Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014-2014 (2014, refresh 2017)

· Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-39 (2019).

15. The existing framework has evolved organically over time, with different strategies, policies and plans developed to deal with specific issues, challenges, or opportunities.

16. An analysis of the framework’s strengths, limitations, gaps, and opportunities concluded that while the current framework provided valuable direction for decision-making and was working well, it was also complex and would benefit from being simplified and consolidated.

The refresh and consolidation will take place across four phases

17. The scope of the approved refresh and consolidation is expected to:

Retain Auckland Council leadership of the open space, sport and recreation policy framework

Enable collaboration with open space, sports and recreation interests and sectors

Enable integration using a te ao Māori framework

Reflect changes in Auckland Council’s legislative, strategic and fiscal environment

Align the components of the framework to achieve better coordination of long-term decision-making and forward planning by:

· delivering a cohesive set of outcomes linked to the Auckland Plan 2050

· applying shared investment principles throughout the framework

· setting an overarching outcomes intervention logic that ties all the components of the framework together

· developing a single monitoring framework across the domains of sports and recreation and parks and open space

· improving integration with relevant council policies, such as Thriving Communities, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri and Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau.

18. The refresh and consolidation is being undertaken in four phases of work, with completion expected at the end of 2024. The phases and indicative timeline are outlined below:

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Joint political working group to provide feedback, direction on policy consolidation

19. The role of the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group is to provide input and oversight throughout the refresh and consolidation process, notably into the design and content of the new policy framework.

20. Local board, Governing Body and Independent Māori Statutory Board representatives on the working group will have the opportunity to provide feedback and direction on the refresh and consolidation, including on:

· issues and opportunities for the refresh and consolidation

· policy purpose and objectives

· outcomes intervention logic

· framework design and structure (number and hierarchy of strategies, policies, and plans)

· content of individual strategies, policies, and plans

· monitoring and evaluation framework.

21. The joint political working group provides a platform for in-depth discussion of key issues and opportunities relating to the refresh and consolidation. All three parties will collectively provide input prior to consideration by local boards and decision-making by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

22. The draft terms of reference provide further details of the role and operation of the working group (Attachment A).

23. The working group is not a decision-making entity. The feedback and direction provided will support the development of the new policy framework and advice will be reflected in reports to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. Refreshing and consolidating the open space, sport and recreation policy framework provides the opportunity to address any potential policy gaps around climate change and to strengthen integration with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan priorities for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Staff from relevant council departments and council-controlled organisations will be kept updated throughout the refresh and consolidation process and given opportunities to contribute input and insight.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The open space, sport and recreation policy framework is made up of regional strategies, policies, and plans.

27. Local boards have delegated decision-making responsibility in relation to the number and location of new local parks and new sport and recreation facilities within agreed budget parameters, as well as their use and development.

28. Staff have assessed the refresh and consolidation of the policy framework against the ‘Local Board involvement in Regional Policy, Plan and Bylaws: Agreed Principles and Processes 2019’ as high interest and to impact local governance. The level of local board input is:

Relevance to local boards	Level of local board input on:
Relevance to local boards	Options	Draft Policy	Final Policy and Public Feedback
Impacts local governance^[1]	ü	ü	ü
High interest^[2]	û	ü	ü
Low interest^[3]	û	û	ü

29. The 21 local boards will be involved through consideration of the:

· draft policy for feedback to the committee

· proposed final policy and public feedback for formal views provided to the committee.

30. Local board member representation in the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group will ensure a local board perspective and guidance is provided on any options and throughout the policy refresh and consolidation process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Refreshing and consolidating the open space, sport and recreation policy framework provides an opportunity to:

· embed te ao Māori as an integrating framework

· align the new framework with the Auckland Plan 2050 priorities around Māori identity and wellbeing

· further align it with the following issues of significance identified by the Independent Māori Statutory Board:

o sites of significance

o distinctive identity

o environmental resilience, protection, and management.

32. A Māori rōpū is also being established to support the policy refresh and consolidation. The rōpū will provide advice and input on embedding te ao Māori as an integrating framework, and alignment with Māori values, priorities, and outcomes.

33. Staff will also engage with mana whenua in accordance with their engagement preferences. throughout the policy refresh and consolidation process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The main cost associated with establishing the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group is staff time, resourced through existing departmental budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. There is a moderate delivery risk as the members could be limited in their ability to engage with the working group due to competing demands on their time. This can be mitigated by working with Democracy and Engagement staff to ensure the frequency of meetings is kept to a manageable level and undertaken in an efficient way.

36. Staff will also ensure that the mahi of the group is meaningful, such as working on cross cutting/sectoral issues, options, and tradeoffs, and shaping robust advice to the committee.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. Once all members have been appointed, staff will schedule meetings. The working group will likely meet seven times between now and the end of 2024. At its first meeting a detailed timeline of meetings will be provided, and the chair and deputy chair will be selected.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group Terms of Reference

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Planning, Environment and Parks Committee - Forward Work Programme

[1] The wellbeing framework developed by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in response to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri

[1] Governance means review impacts assets or services that a local board has a decision-making role.

[2] High interest means review is of major interest to one or more local communities

[3] Low interest means review does not impact local governance and is not high interest.

Chairperson	Cr Richard Hills
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Angela Dalton
Members	IMSB Member Edward Ashby	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Andrew Baker	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Mayor Wayne Brown	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Chris Darby	Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Julie Fairey	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM	Cr Ken Turner
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Lotu Fuli	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr Maurice Williamson
	Cr Shane Henderson

Date	Subject
17/2/2023	Auckland Council’s Submission – Spatial Planning Bill
17/2/2023	Auckland Council’s Submission – Natural and Built Environment Bill
21/2/2023	Memorandum - Auckland Unitary Plan – Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification Proposed Plan Change 78 - Legal submission of counsel – Strategic Overview Proposed Plan Change 78 - Primary statement of evidence – David Mead Proposed Plan Change 78 - Primary statement of evidence – James Fairgray Proposed Plan Change 78 - Primary statement of evidence – Noel Reardon Proposed Plan Change 78 - Statement of evidence – Watercare Services
23/2/2023	Memorandum - Food scraps/rukenga kai collection services rollout
27/2/2023	Memorandum – Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy Monitoring Report 2022

Date	Subject
9/2/2023	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group - Minutes
9/2/2023	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group – Minutes attachments
22/2/2023	Planning, Environment and Parks Committee confidential workshop – Future Development Strategy – no attachment

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Council’s Submission – Spatial Planning Bill, dated 17 February 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Auckland Council’s Submission – Natural and Built Environment Bill, dated 17 February 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Memorandum - Auckland Unitary Plan - Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification, 21 February 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Proposed Plan Change 78 - Legal Submission - Strategic Overview (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Proposed Plan Change 78 - Primary statement of evidence David Mead (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Proposed Plan Change 78 - Primary statement of evidence - James Fairgray (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Proposed Plan Change 78 - Primary statement of evidence - Noel Reardon (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Proposed Plan Change 78 - Statement of evidence - Watercare Services (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Memorandum - Food scraps/rukenga kai collection services rollout, 23 February 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Memorandum – Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy Monitoring Report 2022, 27 February 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group - Minutes, 9 February 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇨	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group - Minutes attachments, 9 February 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

Author	Vanessa Blakelock - Executive Officer - Chief Planning Office
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

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