Agenda of Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier Natural Environment-Islands monthly update – February 2023 report	9
b ⇩	Ecology Vision report - February 2023	17
c ⇩	Aotea Great Barrier Environmental Trust local board update – March 2023	19

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

28 March 2023

Helicopter Activity - Compliance and Monitoring: findings and options

File No.: CP2023/01724

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Aotea / Great Barrier local board members with a summary of the findings of a Compliance and Monitoring Report about helicopter activity in the Auckland region with a focus on Aotea Great Barrier, Waiheke, and Waitemata Local Board areas; and to outline and seek comment on an assessment of options available to address helicopter activity based on that report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Planning Committee resolution PLA2022/40 for the meeting of 5 May 2022 (Attachment A) directed that a compliance and monitoring investigation be undertaken to determine compliance levels with consents conditions and to provide an overview of patterns of activity on Waiheke and central Auckland; and for an assessment of options for managing helicopter activity based on the investigation findings to be reported back to the committee.

3. The Compliance and Monitoring Report has been completed. A copy is provided as Attachment B to this report for information purposes.

4. The Compliance and Monitoring Report and Assessment and analysis of options will be reported (as separate reports) to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting on 30 March 2023. For the purposes of this report, the findings of the Compliance and Monitoring report and options analysis have been summarized.

5. Regarding compliance, the Compliance and Monitoring Report identifies that there is a high level of compliance with consents conditions by the consent holders. Consent holders are adhering to flight paths; and flight take-offs and landings are within the consented limits. Non-compliance is largely limited to changes in helicopter type to newer models. The standard of record keeping is considered reasonable and no evidence of deliberate under recording of flights was found.

6. The investigation into the pattern of helicopter activity showed that Waiheke helicopter activity is comparable to other parts of Auckland.

7. Discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority have identified that the levels of helicopter activity are not unsafe in terms of the relevant regulations.

8. Regarding complaints, the Compliance and Monitoring report identifies that the level of complaints (Auckland wide) received to council’s complaints register about helicopter activity is low. There were 11 complaints received in 2020; six complaints received in 2021; and nine complaints received in 2022. No complaints were received in relation to the Aotea /Great Barrier local board area.

9. Four options have been investigated to address helicopter activity, based on the findings of the Compliance and Monitoring report. The options are set out below:

Option 1 - Defer until AUP review. This option defers review of planning regulations until the next review of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) commencing from 2026.

Option 2 - Early Implementation of National Planning Standard 15 (NPS15) for helicopter noise measurement. This would manage noise effects in line with the national standards and align the Auckland Council District Plan – Hauraki Gulf Islands Section (HGI Plan) and AUP. This option amends provisions in the HGI Plan to remove use of the ‘3-day rolling average’ method when assessing compliance with noise standards. It does not change the activity status. The retention of the Restricted Discretionary Activity category would not address the local boards’ request for a wider consideration of effects for all applications. The implementation of NPS15 would however make it harder for applications to meet the noise standards necessary to qualify as a Restricted Discretionary Activity and increases the number of applications which will trigger Discretionary Activity status under which the assessment of effects is unrestricted in terms of its scope (noting that the assessment of Restricted Discretionary activities is restricted to specified matters of discretion (noise and visual effects).

Option 3 - A more detailed plan modification to HGI Plan – helicopter rules; introducing Non-complying activity status in residential zones; and changing activity status of Restricted Discretionary Activities to become Discretionary Activities (where not in a residential zone). This option essentially removes the Restricted Discretionary Activity category from the HGI Plan to make them Non-Complying Activities or Discretionary Activities as outlined above. The scope for assessment of effects under Discretionary and Non-Complying Activity status is unlimited. This option would widen the scope of assessment of effects for helipads.

Option 4: Plan change to AUP/ Plan modification to HGI Plan – helicopter rules - introducing Prohibited Activity status for helicopter activity in residential zones (HGI Plan and AUP); and changing activity status of Restricted Discretionary Activities to become Discretionary Activities (HGI Plan only).

10. It is relevant to note here that options 2 and 3 which involve proposed amendments to the Hauraki Gulf Islands Plan would respond to the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Notice of Motion resolutions of 22 March 2022 GBI/2022/25 which sought amendments to rules to increase the regulation of helicopter activity in the HGI Plan. It is noted that the local board did not seek Prohibited Activity status (option 4) other than as an interim method. In terms of widening the scope of matters for assessment to include greater consideration of environmental effects, cultural effects and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement - Option 3 which removes Restricted Discretionary Activity category would achieve this outcome to a higher degree than Option 2 which retains but tightens the Restricted Discretionary Activity category (making it harder to be assessed as a Restricted Discretionary activity and tipping a greater number of helipad applications over into the Discretionary/Non-complying Activity category).

11. Subject to receiving and reviewing any comments from the local board in response to this report, Option 2 is the preferred overall option, while it is noted that option 3 is essentially the option requested by the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) note the findings of the Compliance and Monitoring report.

b) re-confirm previous resolutions of 22 March 2022 GBI/2022/25; or advise of changes after considering the contents of this report.

Horopaki

Context

12. Concern has been expressed by some Auckland residents, public interest groups and three local boards about the number of and noise generated by helicopters and helipads in the Auckland area, the regulatory framework and process of considering resource consent applications, and whether consent holders are complying with consent conditions.

13. A report was provided to the Planning Committee on 5 May 2022 responding to resolutions from the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board, Waiheke, and the Waitematā Local Board:

- Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board resolutions of 22 March 2022 GBI/2022/25

- Waiheke Local Board resolutions of 15 December 2021, WHK /2021/178 (a) to (f)

- Waitematā Local Board resolutions of 15 December 2021, WTM 2021/298 (a) to (c)

14. Planning committee resolution PLA2022/40 (for the meeting of 5 May 2022) directed that a compliance and monitoring investigation be undertaken into compliance with consents conditions and to provide an overview of patterns of activity of helicopter activity with a focus on Waiheke and central Auckland; and that options for managing helicopter activity based on the investigation findings be assessed and reported to the committee.

15. The Compliance and Monitoring Report and an Options Report assessing four options to manage helicopter activity, based on the findings of the Compliance and Monitoring report will be reported to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 30 March 2023.

16. A summary of the findings of the Compliance and Monitoring report and the four options assessed are provided below.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Compliance and patterns of activity

17. Flight log data has been obtained and analysed for a one-year period (April 2021 to April 2022. The key findings of the report are summarised below.

18. Investigation of compliance with consent conditions showed a high level of compliance by consent holders with resource consent conditions. Consents holders are adhering to flight paths and flight numbers are within the consented limits. Non-compliance is largely limited to deviation from helicopter model, generally due to upgrading of helicopter type to a more modern aircraft. It is noted that the modern helicopters are generally quieter than those replaced.

19. Flight patterns research identifies busy areas in Auckland (based on the presence of commercial helipads). The levels of activity expressed as a percentage of all helicopter activity is as follows: Waiheke (3%) Mangere (3%), Mt Wellington (2%), Waitakere (2%), Papakura (2%); North Shore (50% and Howick (25%).

20. Flight tracking on consents in the Hauraki Gulf Islands including Aotea Great Barrier, and for the Waitematā Local Board area showed very low volumes of helicopter traffic and flights were often associated with emergency services or maintenance works.

21. Between 1 January 2020 – 31 December 2022, there were 26 complaints about helicopter noise or nuisance logged through council’s official system (Refer Attachment C). There were 11 complaints in 2020; 6 complaints in 2021; and 9 complaints in 2022. The suburbs with the highest number of complaints were Waiheke (8), Herne Bay (7) and Kumeu (2). The remainder were individual complaints for suburbs Mairetahi, Matakana, Mount Eden, New Windsor, Onehunga, Riverhead, Rodney, Takapuna, Waiau Pa. No complaints were received in relation to the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board area.

22.

23. The CAA have reviewed aircraft movements and do not have any specific concerns with regards to flight safety.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Options

24. Having regard to the findings of the Compliance and Monitoring report, four options have been assessed to address helicopter activity in relation to the concerns raised by the local boards. It is important to note that under all options, the current level of noise activity would remain as existing use rights. The following options therefore relate to the likely level of noise reduction required for new helipad consent applications. These are:

Option 1 - Defer until AUP review.

25. This option defers a review of helicopter planning regulations until the next review of the AUP commencing from 2026 under current legislation.

Option 2 – Early Implementation of National Planning Standard - NPS15 for helicopter noise measurement.

26. This option is for amendments to the HGI Plan only for the early implementation^{^[1]} of the mandatory directive contained in NPS15(1) that specifies use of New Zealand Standard 6807:1994 – Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas to exclude 4.3 use of averaging.

27. This option would implement NPS15 in the HGI Plan - Part 13 Transport by deleting the text at Rule 13.8.2 which specifies averaging (specifically, the use of 3-day rolling average) for the measurement of helicopter noise; and adding new text to provide clarification about the noise measurement method required under NPS15. As the three-day rolling average is not used in the AUP no change to the AUP would be required.

28. This option could occur in a short timeframe because s58I(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) specifies that an amendment required by the National Planning Standards must not be subject to the processes set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA; and a public notice is released not later than 5 working days following, advising that amendments have been made. This process means that the amendments implemented are not open to challenge through submissions or appeals.

Option 3 - Plan modification to HGI Plan – helicopter rules; introducing Non-complying activity status in residential zones; and changing activity status of Restricted Discretionary Activities to become Discretionary Activities

29. This option is for a plan modification to the HGI Plan only, to bring the HGI provisions into closer alignment with the AUP across the issues of activity status, notification guidance, and the implementation of NPS15 – helicopter noise measurement. This option would involve the introduction of Non-Complying activity status to helicopter activity in the residential zones to achieve a consistent approach with the AUP in relation to urban areas (the AUP applies Non-Complying activity status in residential zones). (The AUP currently applies Non-Complying status in residential zones).

30. This option would also involve increasing the activity status of helicopter activity that is a Restricted Discretionary Activity^{^[2]} (other than in residential zones) to become a Discretionary Activity. The Discretionary Activity status rather than Non-complying recognises the Hauraki Gulf Islands separation by sea from mainland Auckland; and supports the intention that underpins the current provisions to provide for a range of transport modes including enabling access to remote properties and in association with commercial activities including tourism.

31. This option essentially removes the Restricted Discretionary Activity category from the HGI Plan to make them Non-Complying Activities or Discretionary Activities as outlined above. The scope for assessment of effects under Discretionary and Non-Complying Activity status is unlimited. This option would widen the scope of assessment of effects for helipads.

32. Amending the status from Restricted Discretionary Activity to Discretionary effectively deletes the averaging provision in the noise standard. Consequently, the HGI Plan and AUP are brought into alignment in relation to implementation of the NPS15 helicopter noise measurement directives that ‘averaging’ not be applied^{^[3]}.

33. The removal of Restricted Discretionary Activity would also align the HGI Plan with the AUP on the issue of notification, removing the presumption of non-notification for some helicopter activity. The HGI Plan Restricted Discretionary Rules presume non-notification (subject to assessment of whether special circumstances apply – determined on a case-by-case basis). This option would remove the Restricted Discretionary Activity category and therefore also removes the non-notification provisions included in that rule.

Option 4: Plan change to AUP/ Plan modification to HGI Plan – helicopter rules - introducing Prohibited Activity status for helicopter activity in residential zones (HGI Plan and AUP); and changing activity status of Restricted Discretionary Activities to become Discretionary Activities (HGI Plan only).

34. This option would remove any ability to establish helicopter activity in residential zones in both the AUP and HGI Plan, by making this a Prohibited Activity. This option would also amend the HGI Plan rules to remove the category of Restricted Discretionary Activities and provide for these as Discretionary Activities instead (as outlined in Option 3 above). This would bring the helicopter provisions of the HGI and AUP into closer alignment.

35. For the AUP, the proposed application of Prohibited Activity status in residential zones involves adding helicopters as a Prohibited activity in all residential zone’s activity tables.

36. For the HGI Plan this option is essentially the same as Option 3 except that helicopter activity in residential areas is proposed to be a Prohibited Activity rather than a Non-complying Activity. The replacement of RDA to become DA is the same as outlined in Option 3.

37. An assessment of the options against benefits, costs, effectiveness/efficiency, and risk is set out in the table below.

Table 1: High Level Assessment of Options 1 to 4 against benefits, costs, effectiveness/efficiency, and risk
	Benefit	Cost	Effectiveness/efficiency	Risk
Option 1 Defer until AUP Review	Economic benefit - does not incur costs of additional plan changes	Least financial cost, however possible cost to people (social/cultural effects) from noise levels and flight frequencies if new helipads are created under existing provisions. Possible opportunity cost (economic) for businesses that cannot obtain consents	Retains misalignment of AUP and HGI noise measurement methods	Noise measurement may impact on determination of activity status.
Option 2 Early implementation of NPS15	Implements NPS15 ahead of AUP review. Immediate effect – (in accordance with s58I(3) of the RMA the implementation process Must Not use Schedule 1 process) Aligns AUP and HGI noise measurement methods. This option does not change activity status categories, but strengthens the Restricted Discretionary Activity category (removal of 3-day averaging lifts the “bottom line” of compliance assessment against the noise standards) Addresses noise effects by reducing minimum distance to notional boundary; and (Potentially) reduces flight numbers. Environmental and social benefits associated with more applications triggering Discretionary Activity status (if unable to meet noise standard for RDA) noting that scope for assessment of effects is unlimited for Discretionary activities.	This option retains Restricted Discretionary Activity category and therefore does not expressly provide for a wider assessment of effects. There is a possible cost to people (social/cultural effects) from noise levels and flight frequencies if new helipads are created under existing provisions. Administrative costs to prepare text amendments, and update HGI Plan and notify changes made. Streamlined Implementation process significantly reduces cost of changes to HGI Plan - (the directive under s58I(3) to not use Schedule 1 process. There are therefore no submissions or appeals processes involved. A conservative estimate places the starting cost for Option 2 at circa $5K.	Narrow scope focus will implement NPS15 and align AUP and HGI noise measurement methods. This option does not change activity status categories but strengthens the Restricted Discretionary Activity category as removal of 3-day averaging when measuring compliance with noise standards sets a higher “bottom line.” This would potentially reduce the number of take-offs and landings on a busy day and/or increase setback distances to notional boundaries from which compliance with noise standards is measured	Low risk. In accordance with s58I(3) of the RMA the implementation process Must Not use Schedule 1 process. (i.e., there is no public consultation) The amendments so introduced have immediate effect and cannot be challenged.
Option 3: Plan modification to HGI Plan – helicopter rules; introducing Non-complying activity status in residential zones; and changing activity status of Restricted Discretionary Activities to become Discretionary Activities	Brings AUP and HGI into closer alignment with both plans apply Non-complying activity status in residential zones. Also Implements NPS15 (through deletion of Restricted Discretionary Activity). Deletion of Restricted Discretionary activity category would result in a wider assessment of effects for helipad applications as Discretionary and Non-Complying Activity status ) (noting the scope for assessment of effects for these status’ is unlimited). There is unrestricted scope for consideration of cultural, environmental and other matters under the Coastal Policy Statement.	Economic and social costs to helipad operators – helipad applications will be more complex, with higher risk of being declined. Economic cost to council/ratepayers from Costs of initiating a Plan modification. Significant research cost to prepare evidence to standard required to support proposed changes. Significant pre-engagement process required with all stakeholders e.g., helicopter/tourism operators and wider community. Higher cost than Option 2 due to requirement to use Schedule 1 process. Further costs incurred due to increased complexity. It should be noted that there will overlap with AUP review which duplicate process including relitigating any decision made. For a complex plan change such as Option 3 a conservative estimate places the starting cost at $250K^{^[4]}.	Likelihood of extended plan change processes (submissions and hearing) and appeals to decisions processes will be unlikely to be resolved ahead of the AUP review In this context, and in the interests of avoiding duplication of process, the AUP review is a more efficient/effective process to undertake a wider review of the regulatory framework for managing helicopter activity.	Likelihood of extended plan change processes (submissions and hearing and possibly Environment Court appeals). Appeals to decisions processes will be unlikely to be resolved ahead of the AUP review. Compliance and monitoring report findings for a low level of complaints and high compliance with consent conditions; and CAA advice on safety (no issues raised). Combined, these factors indicate that the statutory tests for (justification of) a plan change may not be met.
Option 4: Plan change to AUP/ Plan modification to HGI Plan – helicopter rules - introducing Prohibited Activity status for helicopter activity in residential zones (HGI Plan and AUP); and changing activity status of Restricted Discretionary Activities to become Discretionary Activities (HGI Plan only).	Applies a moratorium on helicopter activity.	Higher cost than Option 3 noting the evidential base that is necessary to support this approach. (two plan changes) – a conservative estimate places each plan change with a starting cost at $250K^{^[5]}.	Unlikely to succeed at all.	As with option 3. A very high level of evidence is needed to justify prohibition. The current level of evidence is not considered to meet the threshold necessary to support this level of regulation. A higher level of risk applies as justification of Prohibited activity status is a very high legal test. Compliance and Monitoring report findings for high compliance and low level of complaints indicates the tests would not be met.

Discussion

38. Considering the existing rules and assessment criteria, high levels of compliance with consent conditions and low level of complaints registered and noting that the level of activity is not considered unsafe by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), a comprehensive change to helicopter provisions is considered to have low justification ahead of the AUP review commencing in 2026.

39. Nevertheless, four options have been identified and if the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee considers some change in approach is needed then Option 2 is recommended – ‘Early implementation of NPS15’. This is considered to be the most effective and efficient option with highest benefit, least cost, and least risk of the 4 options. This option does not involve changes to activity status. It would however make compliance with noise standards more difficult to achieve, particularly in residential areas. Helipad applications might not meet required noise standards – which they otherwise might have met when applying the rolling average noise measurement method. The non-compliance with the noise standards would result in a helipad application becoming a Discretionary activity (rather than a Restricted Discretionary Activity which is the status that would apply if the noise standard were met).

40. While noise is able to be considered under the current Restricted Discretionary Activity status, the 3-day averaging sets a lower “bottom line” against which any noise assessment takes place. Given the concern with noise, and the fact that ultimately the National Planning Standards will not enable the 3-day averaging it is considered that the Restricted Discretionary Activity category should be updated to align with NPS15. This would reset the “bottom line” and would result in narrowing the range of helicopters able to be considered as Restricted Discretionary Activity in terms of their ability to comply with the required noise standards. This option would align the HGI and AUP noise measurement methodologies and results in strengthening the HGI Plan assessment criteria applicable to determination of activity status.

41. The impact of the rolling average on setback distances of helipads to nearest nominal boundaries was reported in the 5 May 2022 report to the Planning Committee. The report highlighted that both the AUP and HGI Plan apply Ldn 50dB highlighting that for the AUP noise standard compliance is based on a single (24 hour), while the HGI Plan noise standard uses a rolling three-day average. The report went on to identify the effect of the use of each method on helipad location setback distances to nominal boundaries:

Applying the AUP rules, an indicative setback distance to comply with 50 dB Ldn for one flight (landing and take-off) is a minimum of approximately 100m from the helipad to the nearest notional boundary. In comparison, using the HGI Plan Ldn three-day rolling average, the minimum setback distance could be reduced by around 50m for one flight (i.e., the setback is approximately 50m).

42. The effect of the reset to the “bottom line” by Option 2 would be to increase the setback distance to the nearest nominal boundary by approximately 50m as outlined above (factors such as helicopter type, flightpath, duration of ground idle and topography will determine actual setback distance).

43. It is considered that in the context outlined, Option 2 ‘Early implementation of NPS15’ is an appropriate interim measure for the HGI Plan; and it is considered that a full review of helicopter provisions should be deferred until the review of the AUP which is scheduled to commence in 2026.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. The Government’s first Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) released by 16 May 2022 sets out how New Zealand will meet its first emissions budget (2022-2025) and set the path towards meeting long-term climate targets.

45. Auckland Council’s climate plan, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, has called for a 64 percent reduction in transport emissions by 2030. Council’s Transport Emissions Reduction Plan, August 2022 outlines concrete actions to dramatically reduce transport emissions by 2030. The plan identifies that aviation emissions account for 7% of Auckland’s emissions profile and sets a pathway for this to be reduced by 50% by 2030. It should be noted that commercial airlines are the highest contributor in the emissions profile and are the target category for aviation emission reduction. The level of helicopter activity would represent a very small quotient in the emissions profile for Auckland.

46. The Government’s ERP and the Councils TERP will be relevant to the assessment of helipad applications and may be considered in any determination as to whether ‘special circumstances’ are triggered in association with a resource consent assessment.

47. These plans will also have relevance to any future changes proposed to the regulatory framework of the AUP and HGI Plan.

Greenhouse gas emissions - Resource Management Amendment Act amendments in force from 30 November 2022

48. RMAA amendments relating to greenhouse gas emissions came into force on 30 November 2022. The amendments made by the RMAA provide for climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to be considered in an application for resource consent for a helipad. It should be noted however, that where the helipad resource consent application has a restricted discretionary status, these are permissible considerations only if they are inside the scope of the mattes over which the council has restricted its discretion. Where the helipad resource consent application has a Discretionary or Noncomplying activity status ‘the effects of climate change’ may be relevant under section 7(i) in the context of council’s Part 2 assessment (albeit the relevance of those effects will depend on the specifics of the application in question).

49. In terms of the plan change options discussed in this report it should be noted that Option 2 which retains Rule 13.8.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity and that the Matters of Discretion for this rule does not provide for consideration of climate change or greenhouse gases. A policy and rule framework relating to greenhouse gas emission reduction is likely therefore to need to be the subject of a separate plan change process. Option 3 which proposes removing the Restricted Discretionary Activity category and replacing it with Discretionary Activity status (in non-residential zones) and Non-complying status (in residential zones) would enable consideration of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. This matter would be fully considered as part of the AUP review commencing in 2026.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50. The Resource Consents and Compliance and Monitoring departments prepared the Compliance and Monitoring report referred to in this report and have contributed to the preparation of this report.

51. Eke Panuku, Auckland Transport and Auckland Unlimited would be consulted as part of any process involving changes to the provisions for Helicopters in the AUP and HGI plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

52. This report responds to resolution from the Planning Committee May 5, 2022, PLA2022/40(e) which directs council officers to report on options to manage helicopter activity based on the findings of the Compliance and Monitoring investigation which is the subject of PLA2022/40(c).

53. The Compliance and Monitoring Report and Assessment and analysis of Options will be reported (as separate reports) to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting on 30 March 2023. For the purposes of this report, a copy of the Compliance and Monitoring report is provided as Attachment A. The Compliance and Monitoring Report and the options analysis have been summarized in this report.

54. Overlapping of reporting timeframes precludes inclusion of the Aotea /Great Barrier local board comments into the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee report. Any comments received from the local boards will be provided to this committee in a verbal update.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. Mana whenua would be consulted as part of any process involving changes to the provisions for Helicopters in the AUP and HGI plan.

56. It is noted that the report provided to the Planning Committee on 5 May 2022 responding to resolutions from the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board identified concerns from Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea about the consents process capacity to provide for mana whenua’s kaitiaki role, and to give adequate protection of cultural sites and values. The lack of a schedule in the HGI Plan protecting sites and places of archaeological and cultural significance was highlighted. It is noted that council’s Cultural Heritage team is currently working on a proposed plan modification to address this issue and has been in consultation with Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai o Aotea about proposed sites for inclusion in the schedule 12.

57. Also highlighted in the notice of motion is that Mana whenua have also sought consideration of suspension on private helipad consent applications on Aotea to allow the planning process to factor in mana whenua’s kaitiaki role, management of compliance and wider concerns.

58. Mana whenua input into the resource consents process was discussed in the 5 May report, where it was noted that all consent applications received by council are provided to mana whenua on a weekly basis, providing an opportunity for mana whenua to review applications and highlight matters of concern. Where applicable these may be provided for as special circumstances in the determination of notification and substantive assessment.

59. The 5 May 2022 report also noted that a suspension of consent applications (i.e. a moratorium) is not provided for under the RMA. The council is obliged to receive and process resource consent applications, avoiding unreasonable delay as directed by s21 of the RMA.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

60. Given existing mandatory work being undertaken (e.g. implementing the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and National Policy Statement on Urban Development), the Plans and Places department does not have the resources available (people or budget) to prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan or AUP plan or both. Plan changes must follow the Schedule One process in the Resource Management Act. The process involves notification, submissions or hearings and appeals processes.

61. Option 2 Implementation of NPS15 is also not currently budgeted for. It is a low-cost option as it must be implemented without using the Schedule One process.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62. Option 1 ‘Defer until AUP review is the option with highest risk.

63. Option 2 (preferred option) has the least risk as it is limited to the implementation of NPS15 and is directed towards dealing with helicopter noise. The implementation process specified in s58I (3) of the RMA states that Schedule 1 must not be used. This means there is no public consultation process. As such, amendments to implement NPS15 would occur in a short timeframe and are not open to challenge through submissions or appeals.

64. Options 3 and 4 are considered to be at higher risk from appeals and subsequent court processes. This is particularly possible for Option 4. Factors elevating risk for these two options include that the justification of these plan change options is considered low. It is considered that there is insufficient evidence to meet relevant statutory tests. The evidence indicates that existing rules for helicopter activity provide for an adequate assessment of effects (subject to implementation of NPS15). Additionally, the results of the Compliance and Monitoring Report show high levels of compliance with helicopter consents and low levels of complaints. The justification for a plan change is therefore considered low.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board consider the findings of the Compliance and Monitoring Report and Assessment and Analysis of Options

66. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board confirm its previous resolutions remain unchanged; or advise of any changes.

67. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board provide comments on the Analysis of Options to the reporting officer. Note that any comments received from the local boards on the options assessment will be provided to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee at its meeting on 30 March 2023 in a verbal update. This is due to overlapping of reporting timeframes precludes inclusion of the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board comments into the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Planning Committee Resolution PLA/2022/40	35
b ⇩	Helicopter Compliance and Monitoring Report, Proactive Compliance Unit, 2023	37
c ⇩	Council Complaints Registry - Complaints received re: Helicopter noise / nuisance from 2020 to 2022	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alison Pye - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

28 March 2023

Seeking views on the proposed approach for Katoa, Ka Ora - Speed Management Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland 2024-2027

File No.: CP2023/03371

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal views on the approach for developing Katoa Ka Ora, Auckland’s Speed Management Plan 2024-2027.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (AT) have adopted the Vision Zero goal of eliminating road transport related deaths and serious injuries (DSI) within the Auckland road network by 2050.

3. Setting safe speed limits that recognize the function, safety, design, and layout of roads is a fast and cost-effective way to reduce DSI. AT is conducting a phased review of speed limits and has completed three phases of changes to date.

4. Katoa, Ka Ora is a speed management plan for the Auckland region. It is a plan to set safe and appropriate speed limits in order to reduce road deaths and serious injuries.

5. AT workshopped Katoa, Ka Ora a Speed Management Plan for Auckland with local boards in February and March 2023. This report seeks formal views on the five development approaches for the speed management plan.

6. Local boards provided formal views in May 2022 on speed limit changes. If local board views have changed, AT will make any amendments needed before a proposal is mapped. We expect Katoa, Ka Ora to be publicly consulted in mid-2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) provide views on the proposed approaches for development of Katoa, Ka Ora a Speed Management Plan for Auckland per the form in Attachment A.

Horopaki

Context

7. AT is Auckland’s road controlling authority. Part of this role is reviewing and ensuring that speed limits across Auckland are set at levels that are safe and appropriate for road function, safety, design, and their use.

Alignment with Central Government Policy

8. Waka-Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency adopted a ‘Vision Zero’ approach to road safety in 2019 when it launched the ‘Road to Zero’ national strategy that aims to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on New Zealand’s roads to zero by 2050.

9. The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 (the Rule) sets out requirements road controlling authorities must comply with when setting speed limits.

10. The Rule requires road controlling authorities to use reasonable efforts to have at least 40 per cent of speed limit changes for roads outside schools completed by 30 June 2024. The remainder must be completed by 31 December 2027, and these changes must be built into speed management plans.

11. The Rule groups schools into two classifications. The majority of Auckland schools are classified as Category One, these require speed limits of 30km/h (fixed or variable) in the area outside of the school.

Alignment with Auckland Council Policy

12. Auckland Council’s Planning Committee requested AT to accelerate the road safety and speed management programmes and work with partners to make Auckland a Vision Zero region in 2018.

13. Since receiving endorsement from Auckland Council and from the AT Board, AT has progressively reviewed roads across Auckland and reduced speeds on many roads.

14. In the most recent phase of speed limit changes (Phase 3), the focus has been on town centres, roads near schools and rural marae. Local boards received localised reports on public feedback in early May 2022 and provided feedback at their May business meeting. This feedback was used in preparing final recommendations that went to the AT Board.

15. Speed limit changes approved by the AT Board have been implemented during December 2022- March 2023.

Auckland Transport’s role

16. AT manages more than 7,300 kilometres of roads for Auckland Council.

17. This role includes setting speed limits and since ‘Vision Zero’ was adopted, AT has been progressively reviewing and amending speed limits to align with the strategy. Changes have been made only after engaging with both the community and their representative local board.

18. Road deaths have reduced 30 per cent where speed limits have changed in the 24 months following the June 2020 Auckland speed limit reductions. In comparison, over this same period, the rest of the network has seen a 9 per cent increase in road deaths.

19. The Safe Speeds Programme focuses on speed limit review. Physical speed management measures like speed tables or raised crossings require careful consideration and planning because of costs and funding constraints. Following speed limit changes, roads are monitored and evaluated to help prioritise engineering investment decisions.

20. 30km/h is the internationally accepted speed to greatly reduce the chances of people walking or cycling from being killed or seriously injured if they are struck by a vehicle.

21. Speed limit changes made in the first three phases of the Safe Speeds Programme (between June 2020 and March 2023) were completed under the AT Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 and the Speed Limits Amendment Bylaw 2022.

22. The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 is the current legislation, and it requires all road controlling authorities to have a speed management plan. The AT plan is Katoa, Ka Ora a Speed Management Plan for Auckland, with development of the plan currently in a discussion phase with local boards.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. Following AT’s Katoa, Ka Ora a Speed Management Plan presentation on Tuesday 7 March 2023, AT is seeking formal views from the local board on proposed mapping approaches for speed management.

24. The presentation slide pack is included with this report as Attachment B.

25. The proposed approaches will be used along with the eight working principles when public consultation takes place on Katoa, Ka Ora, Speed Management Plan for Auckland, later in 2023.

26. The draft working principles are provided in Table One below.

Table One – Draft working principles

Draft working principles used to guide the development of

Katoa, Ka Ora Speed Management Plan

1. Tiakitanga. The top priority of speed management is to keep people safe and alive on Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland’s roads.

2. Easy to understand. Speed limits are a critical part of an integrated safe road system; we will ensure they are easy to understand for all.

3. Safe children. Safe speeds around schools will ensure the safety of children (and all ages and people).

4. Safe speed limits. Speed limits align with government guidance . We consider complex factors ranging from the function of our roads and streets* to how many people travel outside of vehicles.

5. Safe infrastructure. Investment in engineering and safety improvements will be prioritised on roads that have high safety needs and provide active mode benefits.

6. Partnership. We work with our Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi and other partners in governance, design, delivery, education, communication, enforcement and monitoring.

7. Healthy communities. Safe speeds support more walking and cycling; this improves health and is better for the environment.

8. Measure results. We constantly monitor the roads to evaluate any changes required to make our roads and streets safe.

*AT’s Future Connect and Roads and Streets Framework tools to be used.

Proposed mapping approaches

27. There are two groups of proposed approaches.

· Consistent Approach (Approaches One and Two) – these require consistency across all local boards to have a regional approach for Aucklanders.

· Tailored Approach (Approaches Three, Four and Five) – these approaches allow for a tailored approach for each local board.

28. The proposed approaches are detailed more in Table Two below.

Table Two: Proposed Approaches for developing Katoa, Ka Ora, Speed Management Plan

Consistent approaches

Approach One

An easy-to-understand approach

Includes:

· treating blocks of roads/ local road areas to ensure consistent speed limits across the same types of roads e.g., similar urban residential roads don’t have limits of 30, 40 and 50 km/h in adjacent streets

· matching the speed limit to the use and design of the road, i.e. slower speeds for areas that have higher amounts of people walking and cycling such as residential roads, near schools and/or town centres, and for roads that are designed for lower speeds

· filling in ‘gaps’ so there are not small pockets of untreated roads which is inconsistent for drivers

· treating roads that could be rat runs, e.g., drivers take short cuts through local residential streets or traffic is pushed from one road to another.

Approach Two

A high benefit cost ratio approach, proposing methods that provide higher return on investment.

Includes:

· permanent changes for local roads

· variable changes at school gates for arterial roads (high movement roads) and high-speed rural roads

· changes for high-risk roads, or town centres on high-risk roads where support has been identified from previous engagement

· complementing planned infrastructure or developments, e.g. new housing areas.

Tailored approaches

Approach Three

An approach that is responsive to requests from partners and communities for specific speed limit reductions. These include requests from mana whenua, local boards, schools and community groups.

Approach Four

An approach that covers a high percentage of roads in the local board area for this phase of the programme.

Approach Five

An approach that implements approved changes early in the local board area for this phase of the programme.

29. Auckland Transport is seeking local board views on each approach to understand benefit to the community, prioritisation of community requests, preferred percentage of cover and timing of implementation.

30. Attachment A contains a form for local boards to provide their views on the proposed approaches.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. The primary climate change benefit of safe and appropriate speed limits is that they support and encourage walking, cycling and micromobility by reducing the risk to vulnerable road users, making these modes more attractive.

32. A key action required in the Auckland Council Transport Emissions Reduction Plan is to ‘rapidly deliver safe speeds across urban Auckland’ in order to create more pleasant urban environments, revitalise local centres and make it safer for children to travel independently.

33. A recent road safety perceptions study was completed in town centres where speed limits were reduced and safety improvements introduced. Overall, 19 per cent of people surveyed say they participate in at least one active mode activity (e.g., walking or cycling) more often since the projects have been completed. This is a direct contribution towards encouraging people to walk or cycle instead of using cars that produce carbon emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. The Safe Speeds Programme has been endorsed by the Auckland Council Planning Committee. We have requested to workshop Katoa, Ka Ora a Speed Management Plan for Auckland with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. AT workshopped with all local boards during February/March 2023 to discuss the proposed changes kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face).

36. Summaries of community, school and mana whenua requests were provided to local boards in February/March 2023 to support their consideration of this topic.

37. Auckland Transport is seeking formal views from local boards through this report. The presentation slide pack from the workshops is included as Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. Māori are overrepresented in DSI statistics making up 12 per cent of Auckland’s population and 16 per cent of road deaths and serious injuries.

39. Engagement with iwi at the northern, central and southern transport kaitiaki hui has taken place regarding the wider programme since 2021. Detailed engagement about speed around rural marae has recently been completed as part of Phase Three and is currently being implemented.

40. Mana whenua are, in general, supportive of the Safe Speeds Programme and the positive safety, community and environmental outcomes arising through safe and appropriate speed limits.

41. Ongoing engagement regarding further requests are being reviewed and considered for inclusion in the full Katoa, Ka Ora Speed Management Plan. These requests have been shared with local boards at the recent workshops in February/ March 2023.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. Although there are no specific financial implications arising from local boards providing views on Katoa, Ka Ora Speed Management Plan, the introduction of safe speed limits has considerable social cost implications.

43. Reducing the harm caused by road crashes impacts on the community by reducing hospital costs, insurance costs and Accident Compensation Corporation costs, all of which are of direct financial benefit to the communities that the local board represents.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. Public understanding regarding the ‘why’ for safe speeds needs continued communication. A comprehensive communication and marketing plan is being developed to share with Aucklanders that ‘safe speeds save lives’.

45. Possible funding constraints may require the scale of the plan or delivery to be slowed or delayed until future phases of the Safe Speeds Programme. Clear updates will be given should there be changes to funding throughout the duration of the programme.

46. Public views expressed during consultation may differ to the views expressed by the local board in their resolution. As AT have done in previous consultations we will come back to the local board and provide interim reports, before a further resolution is sought.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47. The Safe Speeds Programme Team will review and consider all feedback provided by local boards and will use this along with feedback from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Mana Whenua Treaty Partners and our obligations as a road controlling authority to help develop Katoa, Ka Ora Speed Management Plan for Auckland.

48. A report will be provided to local boards to show how feedback has been used to help shape the final plan that goes out for public consultation.

49. Public consultation is planned for mid 2023, but dates are subject to change. Dates will be confirmed after the Regional Transport Committee approval of the draft plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Form for Aotea/ Great Barrier Local Board to provide views on proposed Approaches One to Five	67
b ⇩	07.03.23 workshop material on Katoa, Ka Ora for Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board	69

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Marlene Kotze, Auckland Transport Programme Director

Jacqui Fyers - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

28 March 2023

Evaluation of the 2022 Auckland Council Elections

File No.: CP2023/03114

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To evaluate the 2022 Auckland Council elections and to provide opportunity for feedback from the local board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. An evaluation of the Auckland Council 2022 elections is attached in Attachment A.

3. This follows a submission to Parliament’s Justice Committee last month. That submission focused on assessing the need for legislative changes. This evaluation incorporates key points from that submission but focuses on Auckland Council’s election processes.

4. The report suggests the council consider moving from the postal voting method to a combination of postal and booth voting whereby booths are staffed on election day and do not close until 7 pm. This is a response to criticism that it was difficult to cast a special vote for those who wanted to cast their vote on the final day.

5. This would incur a cost of more than $20,000 and would delay the announcement of election results.

6. Feedback is being sought on this proposal and on any other aspects of the Auckland Council election process that can be improved.

7. The report gives advance notice of other decisions relating to the 2025 elections.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Kohuki / consider its feedback on the evaluation of the Auckland Council local elections 2022.

Horopaki

Context

8. An evaluation of the council’s elections is carried out following each triennial election. The evaluation usually coincides with an inquiry conducted by a parliamentary select committee and is reported at the same time as a draft submission to the committee.

9. The Justice Committee invited submissions to its inquiry with a submission closing date of 14 February 2023, which was earlier than expected. A draft submission was presented to local boards in February for their comment.

10. Whereas the intent of the submission to the Justice Committee was to consider any changes to legislation that might improve the elections, this current evaluation is about the council’s own elections and how they might be improved.

11. The evaluation is attached and includes much of what has already been reported in the draft submission together with information relevant to Auckland’s own elections.

12. The evaluation and any further comments the local board has will be reported to the Governing Body.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The local government voting process is straightforward using the postal voting method:

· voters do not have to register separately for the residential roll – the Parliamentary electoral roll is used

· voting documents are posted to each elector’s address as provided on the Parliamentary electoral roll

· a voter completes their voting document and either posts it back or deposits it in a ballot box; at the last election 136 of these were located at Countdown supermarkets, train stations and other council facilities

· voters have almost three weeks to do this.

14. Nevertheless, there was some criticism on social media about it being difficult to cast a special vote on election day itself (there were queues at some special voting centres).

15. Staff believe that the main reason for people needing to cast special votes is that they did not receive their voting documents in the mail, for example where their residential address on the electoral roll was not up to date.

16. It is the responsibility of the Electoral Commission to maintain the electoral roll. There is a period, prior to nominations being called, for the roll to be updated. This includes the Electoral Commission mailing each elector’s registered address with a request to update their details if they are not correct. However, if the elector has moved, they will not receive this notice unless it is forwarded. The Electoral Commission may remove the elector from the roll or mail their voting documents to the wrong address.

17. Improving the process for reminding electors to update their address details on the electoral roll lies with the Electoral Commission.

18. Another solution is to provide more time for voting on election day itself so that those who need to cast a special vote, and who leave it until election day, have more time to do so. The Local Electoral Act and Regulations provide three authorised voting methods:

· postal voting

· booth voting

· a combination of booth voting and postal voting.

19. If the council resolved to adopt a combination of booth voting and postal voting, voting would close at 12 noon for those using the postal and ballot box options but would not close until 7 pm for those wishing to visit a voting booth in order to cast their vote on election day.

20. There would be an additional cost. A sufficient number of voting booths would need to be staffed on election day. The cost of staff for each booth would be approximately $1,000 (based on 4 staff working a 10-hour day being paid the current living wage of $23.65 per hour). One booth in each local board area would have a total staff cost of over $20,000. It might be necessary to provide more than one booth in the rural local board areas. Venue costs could be minimised if council facilities are used.

21. Staff would appreciate feedback on whether local boards support the option of moving from postal voting to a combination of postal and booth voting.

Decisions required for the 2025 elections

22. A number of decisions need to be made for the 2025 elections.

23. If the council wishes to change the electoral system from First Past the Post to Single Transferable Vote it must do so by 12 September 2023 (Local Electoral Act 2001, section 27).

24. The Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill, when enacted, will require the council to resolve by 20 December 2023 whether to have Māori representation. There must be prior engagement with Māori and the community before making this decision. If the decision is to have Māori representation then the council must provide for Māori wards when it conducts its review of representation arrangements.

25. The council is required to conduct a review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections. This includes reviewing the number of councillors, whether they are elected at large or by ward and, if by ward, the number of wards, their names and their boundaries. It also includes reviewing the number of members on each local board, and whether they are elected at large or by subdivision. The names of local boards can also be reviewed. The proposed process for doing this will be reported later this year.

26. The council may also resolve to change the order of names on voting documents. It will need to do this prior to the Electoral Officer notifying the 2025 election.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The key aspect of this report investigates the provision of booth voting on election day to make it easier to cast special votes. The climate impact of people travelling to a booth is likely to be mixed, depending on where they are located.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. There are no impacts on the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Local board comments in response to the evaluation report will be conveyed to the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. Demographic data shows that turnout for electors of Māori descent was lower than the average turnout. An analysis conducted by Auckland Council’s Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) suggested that a range of interrelated factors may be contributing to these discrepancies, including:

· differences in the perceived relevance of local government to the everyday life of different communities

· differences in family and work commitments and an ability to pay attention to local politics in light of other life priorities

· differences in civics education

· the complexity of the local government system and voting process, along with differences in knowledge about local government across communities in Auckland

· for some communities, a lack of identification with and ability to see one’s identity reflected in the local governance system

· a distrust of and disengagement from the local government system, particularly amongst Māori

· the existence of a social norm of non-voting in some families, neighbourhoods and communities.

31. The issue of Māori representation is being considered. The Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill, currently proceeding through Parliament, will require the council to make a decision on Māori representation by 20 December 2023.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. Moving from postal voting to a combination of postal voting and booth voting would incur additional costs. These are not quantified but based on likely costs of staffing booths on election day additional costs would be more than $20,000.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. Voter turnout has been steadily low over the last couple of elections, however, there is the risk that if the council does not improve the voting experience, where there has been criticism, that voter turnout will decrease further.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. Feedback from the local board is due on 18 April 2023 and will be reported to the Governing Body.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Evaluation of Auckland Council’s 2022 Local Elections	99

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Jacqui Fyers – Acting local area manager, Aotea / Great Barrier & Waiheke Local Boards

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

28 March 2023

Local Government New Zealand – membership of Auckland Council

File No.: CP2023/03108

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide local boards with information that enables them to provide feedback to the Governing Body when it considers Auckland Council’s ongoing membership of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Mayor of Auckland leads the development of the annual plan. The mayor is promoting a reduction of expenditure and in this context has asked for consideration of the council’s ongoing membership of LGNZ. This will be considered by the Governing Body at its meeting on 23 March 2023.

3. The council currently pays a subscription of approximately $400,000. In addition, there are costs associated with attending the annual conference and other activities. That expenditure could be applied to other council services.

4. Although Auckland Council is large enough to continue without using the resources and services provided by LGNZ, key questions are: should New Zealand have an association of local government? And, if so, should Auckland Council support this even though it might not need to use any of the resources or services provided by LGNZ?

5. This report provides information that will assist local boards to provide feedback to the Governing Body by 15 March 2023.

6. Due to the feedback deadline being earlier that the local board’s business meeting, the board provided feedback on 15 March by delegation (Resolution GBI/2022/121). The feedback is appended as Attachment A to the report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) ratify the local board feedback submitted on Wednesday 15 March 2023 for the Governing Body’s consideration of Auckland Council’s ongoing membership of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), as Attachment A to the report.

Horopaki

Context

7. LGNZ is constituted as an incorporated society (New Zealand Local Government Association Inc). The members of the society are individual councils.

8. The objectives of LGNZ, under the constitution, are summarised as:

· promote the national interests of local government

· advocate on matters affecting the national interests of local government

· dialogue with government, parliamentarians and government agencies

· provide information to members

· research matters on behalf of member authorities

· provide advice and training opportunities

· hold conferences.

9. The components of LGNZ are:

· National Council, which is the governing body of LGNZ

· National Council Committees, to guide best practice

· Zones, which are geographical groups of councils and Auckland Council

· Sector Groups, which are groups of councils based on local government sectors (metropolitan, provincial, regional, rural).

10. The president and vice-president are elected at an annual general meeting (AGM) by ballot of member councils.

11. The National Council comprises the president and 17 members who are generally appointed by zones and sectors. Provision has been made in the LGNZ constitution for three members of Auckland Council on the National Council, one of which is reserved for a representative of Auckland Council’s 21 local boards. The National Council employs the chief executive.

12. Zones and sectors generally:

· make appointments to the National Council

· provide advice to the National Council

· disseminate information to members

· assist the National Council with dealing with issues

· receive updates from LGNZ on issues facing local government.

13. Auckland Council is not a member of a geographical zone of councils. It is its own Zone, recognising the 21 local boards in the Auckland Council model. The Auckland Council Zone meets four times per year and is attended by representatives of the 21 local boards and the Governing Body. The LGNZ President and Chief Executive, or their nominees, report to the Zone on the key issues facing the local government sector and being addressed by the National Council.

14. Auckland Council gets a number of benefits from its interactions with LGNZ. These benefits include keeping abreast of national issues affecting local government, influencing local government issues on the national agenda, providing sector leadership, and elected representatives being able to connect and network with their peers from across the country.

15. Auckland Council’s annual subscription for 2022/2023 is $350,352.26 excluding GST and covers an April to March financial year.

Composition of the National Council

16. The National Council comprises:

· the President

· the chair of Te Maruata

· one member elected by each of zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

· three members elected by the Metropolitan Sector Group (except Auckland Council)

· two members elected by the Regional Sector Group

· one member appointed by each of the provincial and rural groups

· the Mayor of Auckland

· one elected member appointed by the Auckland Council governing body

· one elected member appointed by the Auckland Council local boards.

17. Committees of the National Council include:

· Te Maruata

· the Young Elected Members’ committee

· the Community Board Executive Committee (an advisory committee)

· other committees set up by the National Council from time to time.

18. Although the members of LGNZ are the councils, the LGNZ constitution provides for one position on the National Council to be appointed by Auckland Council local boards.

19. A decision about the ongoing membership of LGNZ is made on behalf of Auckland Council as a whole and is made by the Governing Body.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. The Mayor of Auckland has a statutory role of leading the development of, among other things, the annual plan. Local boards will be aware that the mayor is proposing an annual plan that seeks to reduce council expenditure.

21. In this context, the mayor has asked that the ongoing membership of LGNZ is considered. The subscription together with related costs such as conference attendance is over $400K. That amount could be used for other council purposes.

22. Before the formation of Auckland Council, the eight legacy councils each paid their subscriptions to LGNZ. The subscription paid by Auckland Council is not the sum of those subscriptions, but a lower amount. As the subscription has already been discounted (by about $200K), seeking a further significant reduction is not considered to be an option.

23. LGNZ’s latest annual report (for 2021/22) shows that its gross surplus (revenue less direct costs) was just over $2 million and its net surplus before tax (after deducting operating expenses) was $341,007.

24. There are 78 councils in New Zealand with populations ranging in size from 600 (Chatham Islands) to 1.7 million (Auckland). The average population size per council is approximately 85,000 (about the size of an Auckland Council ward). After Auckland Council the next largest council in terms of population is Canterbury Regional Council with a population of 655,100. The largest city is Christchurch with a population of 389,130. Auckland Council is considerably larger than any other council in New Zealand.

25. LGNZ comprises and represents all councils in New Zealand. It is the body that central Government Ministers consult when seeking a view from the local government sector.

26. LGNZ provides resources such as policy advice, elected member development and conferences that are available to the whole sector.

27. Auckland Council, on the other hand, is large enough to provide policy advice and elected member development without calling on LGNZ services; although in the past there has been a collaboration between LGNZ and Auckland Council at a staff level and on National Council and its committees at the elected member level.

28. LGNZ’s latest annual report notes that LGNZ has coordinated a sector response to major reforms, including the RMA reforms and Three Waters. LGNZ has also organised webinars about issues raised by the Future for Local Government Review.

29. In the future, there is the possibility of major local government reforms arising from the report of the Future for Local Government Review Panel. If this happens, it could be beneficial for Auckland Council to be a part of a sector approach to those reforms, in which case a future council might choose to rejoin LGNZ if the current council resigns its membership.

30. Issues around climate change will likely become more important in the future and it may be important to coordinate a sector approach to these.

31. Key questions are: should New Zealand have an association of local government? And, if so, should Auckland Council support this even though it might not need to use the resources or services provided by LGNZ?

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. As a consequence of the pandemic. LGNZ has held some meetings online but not all. If Auckland Council resigned its membership of LGNZ there would be less air travel between Auckland and Wellington by those attending meetings.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. There are no impacts on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. LGNZ exists primarily for elected members (as compared to Taituarā which exists for local government managers). Under the constitution, councils are the members of LGNZ. The constitution recognises local boards by providing a position on the National Council to be elected by Auckland Council’s 21 local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. The LGNZ National Council has a committee known as Te Maruata. It promotes the participation of Māori in local government and provides a network for Māori elected members.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The current expenditure on LGNZ activities, approximately $400,000, could be used on other Auckland Council activities.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. There is a risk, if Auckland Council is not a member of LGNZ, of Auckland Council not being able to influence the position of the sector on various policy matters. This risk is considered to be low as Auckland Council is large enough to be seen by central government as an important local government participant to be communicated with separately to the sector as a whole.

38. There is a risk to LGNZ that if Auckland Council resigns its membership that this will adversely impact LGNZ’s financial position.

39. Being part of LGNZ has the benefit that the council can socialise Auckland issues with the elected representatives of other councils. There is a risk that Auckland Council could lose the understanding and support of other councils if it withdraws from LGNZ. Loss of support by other councils could affect Auckland Council’s relationship with central government.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. Local board feedback was due on 15 March 2023. The deadline was earlier that the local board’s business meeting and so the board provided feedback by delegation (Resolution GBI/2022/121). The local board feedback is appended as Attachment A to the report.

41. All local board feedback was collated on 15 March and reported to the Governing Body.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20230314 Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board feedback on Local Government New Zealand – membership of Auckland Council	125

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Oliver Roberts - Planning & Operations Manager

Jacqui Fyers – Acting local area manager, Aotea / Great Barrier & Waiheke Local Boards

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20230314 Urgent decision on Aotea Education Trust funding request	131

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	March 2023 Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Hōtaka Kaupapa (Policy Schedule)	141

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20230221 Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record	147
b ⇩	20230307 Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record	149
c ⇩	20230314 Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record	151

[1] The National Planning Standards are not required to be implemented until the next review of the AUP.

[2] This option would retain the HGI Plan permitted activity category which provides for rural activity, fishing, and utilities operation. All other helicopter activity (private and commercial uses) is provided for as restricted discretionary activity subject to meeting specified criteria (otherwise becoming Discretionary Activities).

[3] The AUP does not specify method, the NZ Standard NPS15 as a national standard applies.

[4] Based on Council initiated Plan Change - Te Wairoa sites of Significance

[5] Based on Council initiated Plan Change - Te Wairoa sites of Significance

Chairperson	Izzy Fordham
Deputy Chairperson	Patrick O'Shea
Members	Laura Caine
	Chris Ollivier
	Neil Sanderson

Author	Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Jacqui Fyers – Acting local area manager, Aotea / Great Barrier & Waiheke Local Boards

Author	Kathy Cumming - Aotea / Great Barrier Island Community Broker
Authorisers	Jacqui Fyers – Acting local area manager, Aotea / Great Barrier & Waiheke Local Boards