Agenda of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

04 May 2023

Auckland Unitary Plan - consideration of private plan change request - Riverhead South

File No.: CP2023/03750

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide how to process the private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan from Riverhead Landowner Group (the applicant) in respect of land to the west of Riverhead.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The plan change request from the Riverhead Landowner Group relates to approximately 80.5 hectares of land located generally to the west of the existing Riverhead urban area. The proposal is that the land will be rezoned from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to a mix of residential zones with a small Business - Local Centre and a Business - Neighbourhood Centre. The rezoning is proposed to provide capacity for approximately 1500-1800 dwellings.

3. The private plan change relates to district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan. A copy of the private plan change request and Section 32 report are included as Attachments A and B respectively.

4. Auckland Council must decide how a private plan change request is processed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991^{^[1]} the council may either:

a) adopt the request as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council, or

b) accept the private plan change request in whole or in part, or

c) reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, if one of the limited grounds for rejection is satisfied, or

d) deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent, or

e) a combination of options a) to c).

5. Consideration of the detailed merits of the change request is not relevant at this stage of the process. However, on a coarse assessment, the plan change request raises issues in regard to the funding, financing and provision of transport infrastructure and services. While there may be potential grounds for rejection relating to these issues available under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, having regard to the relevant caselaw and the requirements of this clause at this point in the process, it is recommended that the Council exercises its discretion and not reject the plan change request.

6. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and publicly notified for submissions so that a detailed assessment of the merits of the plan change can be undertaken and a decision made by independent hearing commissioners.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) not reject the private plan change request by Riverhead Landowner Group (included as Attachments A and B of the agenda report) under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, on the basis that:

i) the grounds to reject a private plan change request under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 are limited and:

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

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

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

D) having regard to relevant case law at a coarse level of assessment, it is arguable that aspects of the private plan change relating to the funding, financing and provision of transport infrastructure and services may not be in accordance with sound resource management practice. However, given the detailed technical nature of the arguments, on balance it is considered that these are best considered as a merits-based assessment through the plan change submission and decision-making process. The Council could reject the private plan change request for processing under this ground, but it does not have to, and it is recommended that the Council exercise its discretion not to reject the private plan change request under this ground.

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

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

b) whakaae / accept the private plan change request by the Riverhead Landowner Group, having had particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report, included as Attachment B of the agenda report, pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, for the following reasons:

i) the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report considers different options and concludes that the proposed rezoning of land is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991.

ii) accepting the private plan change request enables the matters raised by the applicant (and any submitters) to be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process.

iii) it is not appropriate to adopt the private plan change. The private plan change proposal is not a matter under consideration in council’s policy work programme. The private plan change does not address a gap in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016, introduce a new policy direction, nor does the private plan change have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region.

iv) it is not appropriate to deal with the private plan change as if it was a resource consent application because the extent of land covered, and the development processes involved in urbanisation at the scale proposed is well beyond the scope of a consentable resource consent application in the Future Urban Zone. A resource consent would also require considerably more detail that is not appropriate to require at this stage in the proposed development of the affected land.

c) tautapa/ delegate authority to the Manager Regional, North, West and Islands Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by the Riverhead Landowner Group pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Site and surrounding area

7. The plan change request relates to approximately 80.5 hectares of land located generally to the west of the existing Riverhead urban area. The proposal is that the land will be rezoned from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to a mix of residential zones with a small Business - Local Centre and a Business - Neighbourhood Centre. The rezoning is proposed to provide capacity for approximately 1500-1800 dwellings. The Riverhead Landowner Group, who is the applicant, owns approximately 64% of the land within the plan change area

8. The plan change area is bound by the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway and Cambridge Road to the east, the Rangitopuni Stream to the north, and rural zoned land to the west and the south. The locality of the Plan Change area is shown in Figure 1 below.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Plan Change location shaded yellow

9. The current land use within the plan change area is predominantly horticulture with some agriculture (grazing). Various residential and commercial (horticulture-related) buildings are present across the plan change area.

10. The topography of the plan change area is largely flat with the land in the northern portion of the plan change area sloping gently towards the north. Horticultural and past farming activities have removed most of the indigenous vegetation from the plan change area. There are no significant ecological areas mapped within the plan change area.

11. Waterbodies are concentrated within the northern portion of the plan change area where there is a large historic wetland across the extensive flat northern terrace, which would have once been a river floodplain. In addition, there are two small wetlands to the north-east of the plan change area. There is one extensively modified intermittent stream on the site which receives flow from the northern-central part of the site and directs it to the northern low-lying floodplain/wetland area. The stream discharges from the wetland to the unnamed tributary of the Rangitopuni Stream, which sits just outside the northwest boundary of the area, via an excavated drain (which is also classed as intermittent stream).

12. There are a number of overland flow paths that traverse the plan change area. In addition, the northern portion of the plan change area(approximately 8 hectares) is subject to flooding.

13. State Highway 16 (SH16) is located approximately 2 km south of the plan change area and can be accessed via Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Old North Road or Riverhead Road. SH16 provides connections to Kumeu to the west, and Westgate to the south. It also provides a connection to State Highway 18 (via Brigham Creek Road or Trig Road) which provides a connection to Albany and the North Shore. Waka Kotahi has lodged a notice of requirement for and will be upgrading this road including a new two-lane roundabout at the intersection with the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway that will increase the capacity of this intersection and for existing traffic will bring this up to level of service A. ( free flow of traffic).

14. In terms of land use and built form in the immediate locality, the surrounding area is characterised by a mix of zonings. To the west and the south of the plan change area are large rural landholdings. To the north is the former Riverhead State Forest. The existing Riverhead township is located to the east.

15. Riverhead township has a current population of approximately 3,000 people and is predominantly comprised of lower-density suburban residential properties. The northern part of the existing township, north of the Riverhead War Memorial Park, is an older and more established area with allotments typically around 800m2 or larger and with Residential - Single House zone being the predominant zoning, dwellings are typically single storey detached dwellings. To the east and south of the Riverhead War Memorial Park, development is more recent, but the pattern of development is also typically 800m2 sections with single storey detached dwellings.

Private plan change content

16. The plan change seeks to rezone approximately 80.5 hectares of Future Urban zoned land for urban development, which will comprise approximately:

· 1.8ha Business – Local Centre zone;

· 0.7ha Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone;

· 4.3ha Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone; and

· 74ha Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone.

17. The proposed zoning pattern is shown in Figure 2 below. The application states that the intention of the proposed zoning is to provide for the establishment of a new residential area in Riverhead that offers more housing choice than the current settlement, which is predominantly low density residential while at the same time responding to the local rural and low density context.

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 – Proposed Zoning

18. Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone has been applied surrounding the Business - Local Centre zone. This area would accommodate a proposed retirement village.

19. The Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone has been applied around the periphery of the THAB zone in order to enable three-storey development, transitioning down to two-storeys throughout the remainder of the plan change area.

20. The MHU zone has been applied throughout the remainder of the residential area, but with a two- storey (8m) height limit (achieved by way of a sub-precinct). This is to enable two-storey suburban development with a similar built character to the existing Riverhead settlement while enabling greater density and housing choice to use greenfield land more efficiently.

21. Two centres are proposed to serve the plan change area. The Business - Local Centre zone is applied at the intersection of Riverhead Road and Coatesville-Riverhead Highway. A Business - neighbourhood centre is proposed along Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, close to the Hallertau Brewery and a future key east-west connection.

22. It is proposed to apply the Stormwater Management Area Control – Flow 1 (SMAF 1) across the majority of the plan change area. In SMAF areas future development is still enabled but is subject to standards to reduce storm water runoff to protect aquatic biodiversity and other values from further decline and to enhance values where possible. Generally, the rules are based on the extent of impervious surface proposed.

23. The plan change proposes a ‘Riverhead Precinct’ which the applicant proposes will manage the effects of urbanisation on the local environment and to ensure that a quality-built environment is achieved. The ‘Riverhead Precinct’ comprises two sub-precincts summarised below and shown on the Riverhead Precinct Plan at Figure 3.

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 3 – Proposed Precinct Plan

24. Sub-Precinct A is zoned Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone and provides for the greatest height and residential densities at a key intersection adjacent to the Business - Local Centre zone and public transport facilities. A wider range of non-residential activities is provided for at ground floor; and

25. Sub-Precinct B is zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone and provides for a transition in building height between Sub-Precinct A and the surrounding Residential - Mixed Housing Urban area where height has been limited to two storeys to respond to the existing built character of the Riverhead settlement.

26. A package of provisions, including policies, activity standards, development standards, and associated matters of discretion and assessment criteria are proposed to achieve the objectives of the precinct and the wider Auckland Unitary Plan. The full set of provisions is set out within Attachment A however a summary is provided below:

· More permissive activity statuses for restaurants, cafes, retail, and healthcare facilities within the Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone;

· A transport infrastructure staging rule to coordinate the occupation of buildings with the delivery of required infrastructure including the planned upgrades to SH16;

· A road widening setback rule along Riverhead Road to provide for future widening;

· A riparian planting rule requiring a 10m native vegetation riparian buffer each side of a permanent or intermittent stream to mitigate the effects of urbanisation on water;

· A stormwater quality rule to ensure impervious areas are treated and that development incorporates inert building materials to increase the quality of stormwater runoff;

· A rural interface setback rule to provide a buffer between residential activities within the precinct and the neighbouring Mixed Rural zone;

· A fencing rule to require lower height/greater permeability fences where adjoining publicly accessible open space, to ensure development positively contributes to the visual quality and interest of those spaces;

· A height rule that limits height within the majority of the Mixed Housing Urban zone to 8m (two-storeys) to respond to the existing Riverhead settlement, with three storey development adjoining the Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone and the Business - Local Centre zone to enable a transition in height between the five and two storey development in the adjacent areas;

· Additional assessment criteria to ensure there is adequate wastewater/water supply infrastructure to service development;

27. The reasons given by the applicant for the plan change request include the following:

The purpose of the Plan Change is to enable the provision of additional housing in Riverhead along with a Local Centre, a Neighbourhood Centre and a network of open spaces. The Applicant is the majority owner of the Plan Change area and intends to develop their landholdings in a manner consistent with the proposed zoning framework, which this Plan Change request will enable.

The Plan Change is consistent with the objectives of the Council’s planning documents and, in this regard, the reasons for the Plan Change are justified and consistent with sound resource management practice.

28. The applicant provided the following information to support the plan change request:

· private plan change request, including drafted changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan

· section 32 evaluation report

· specialist reports:

o Riverhead Structure Plan

o AUP Objectives and Policies Assessment

o Neighbourhood Design Assessment

o Centres Assessment

o Transport Impact Assessment

o Ecological Assessment

o Stormwater and Flooding Assessment

o Water and Wastewater Servicing Assessment

o Correspondence with Chorus and Vector

o Archaeology Assessment

o Contamination Report

o Geotechnical Report

o Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment

o Arborist Report

o Consultation Report.

29. Following a request for additional information under Clause 23 of Schedule 1 to the RMA the applicant provided updates to a number of these documents and updated the requested plan provisions to reflect the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) included in the RMA. Council specialists have indicated that they now generally have sufficient information to make an assessment of the request.

Decision-maker

30. Council allows a delegation to Plans and Places’ tier four managers or the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee to make decisions on how to process private plan change requests. In this instance the plan change request is being presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee for a decision due to the scale of the plan change proposal, its timing relative to the council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and issues associated with the funding, financing and delivery of transport infrastructure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Statutory context: Resource Management Act 1991

31. Any person may request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal plan.^{^[2]} The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1, of the Resource Management Act 1991. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted,^{^[3]} and procedural steps added^{^[4]} including the opportunity to request information.

32. Council must decide under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 which is the most appropriate processing option for each private plan change request. In making this decision council must have particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report when deciding. The clause 25 decision is the subject of this report and clause 25 of Schedule 1 is set out in full in Attachment C.

33. It is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient information for the request to be considered. It is therefore considered that the insufficient information grounds for rejection in clause 23(6) of Schedule 1 are not available in this instance.

34. The options available under clause 25 are evaluated in the next sections of this report. Particular regard has been had to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report in undertaking the assessment of clause 25 options.

Options available to the council

Option 1: Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council itself

35. Council can decide to adopt the request, or part of the request. Council would then process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change.

36. If the plan change:

a) includes a rule that protects or relates to any natural or historical resource specified in section 86B RMA, or

b) provides for or relates to aquaculture activities

it may be appropriate for the plan change to have legal effect from notification. If there is a proposed rule of this kind, immediate legal effect could be desirable to prevent a “goldrush” of resource (over)use that could occur until the plan change is made operative.

37. Only a Council initiated, or an adopted private plan change, can have immediate legal effect.

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

39. The request does not address a gap in the Auckland Unitary Plan’s planning provisions. It addresses the applicant’s ambitions for the future of land, some of which it owns.

40. The private plan change proposal is not a matter under consideration in council’s policy work programme. The private plan change does not address a gap in the Auckland Unitary Plan, introduce a new policy direction, nor does the private plan change have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region. There is no case for the Council to adopt the requested plan change.

41. Council meets all costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted. Council should not carry these costs if the request is primarily of benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public, or have other public policy benefits.

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

43. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be adopted.

Option 2 – Reject the request, in whole or in part

44. Council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one or more of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1.

45. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 [of the RMA]; or

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

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

46. The objective of the plan change is to change zoning to enable the urban development of land that has been zoned in the AUP as Future Urban zone. The request includes a section 32 evaluation report which is supported by specialist assessments on a full range of relevant matters, that assess the environmental effects of the proposed plan change. It is considered that the request is not frivolous or vexatious as the private plan change:

a) is considered thoroughly in the application materials

b) is supported by expert independent opinion, and a section 32 analysis, and

c) cannot be said to have no reasonable chance of succeeding.

47. The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request. The applicant group owns much of the land subject to the request and accordingly it is not a speculative venture. The applicant is not requiring council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or the subject of extensive community engagement or investment. Accordingly, it is not considered that the private plan change request is vexatious or frivolous.

48. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

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

49. The provisions which are the subject of the requested plan change have been in place since the AUP became partly operative in 2016. It is now more than two years since that occurred. Staff are not aware of any other request to deal with the matters the subject of this request since the AUP was made partly operative.

50. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

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

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

52. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management?

53. The term ‘sound resource management practice’ is not defined in the RMA.

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

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

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

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

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

56. The RMA’s purpose is set out at section 5 and the principles are set out at sections 6 to 8. Regarding these RMA Part 2 matters, the private plan change proposes changes to the zoning of land to allow new urban development. Issues of national importance of relevance to the plan change include the appropriateness of development near streams and significant ecological areas, public access to and along streams and the management of significant risks from natural hazards. At a coarse level it would appear that the plan change request has examined these matters.

57. The applicant supplied technical reports and a section 32 evaluation report in support of the private plan change request. Staff and experts engaged by the Council have evaluated the proposed plan change at a coarse level. There are some potential issues with effects on a wetland and flooding in the north of the plan change area and issues relating to transport provision and in particular public transport provision.

58. The land is zoned Future Urban zone. The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearing Panel (AUPIHP) considered the potential for flooding in the northern part of the land as this land was requested to be added to the FUZ at Riverhead. The AUPIHP noted in respect of this request that;

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan as notified included at Riverhead a Rural Urban Boundary and future urban-zoned area to the west of Cambridge Road. Aberdeen Adventures Limited and others requested this Rural Urban Boundary be extended north- west to the Wautaiti Stream to include an additional area of about eight hectares. Engineering evidence was provided to demonstrate how this additional area could be used to more efficiently develop this and the adjoining areas and improve the amenity of development in this area. The Panel was persuaded by this evidence and recommends an extension of the Rural Urban Boundary to include this area. ^{^[5]}

59. With respect to flooding, at a coarse level, the request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice. If accepted for processing, the details of how the plan change could deal with flooding in respect of the northern eight hectare area will be the subject of detailed reporting and decision making through the hearing process. The applicant’s assessment reports recognise the potential for flooding in the northern area. The avoidance of development in some areas is recommended by Healthy Waters. The advice from Healthy Waters is that development within the eight hectare area is not supported unless the area is to be utilised as a well designed (council approved) Riverhead Stormwater Catchment focused flood mitigation site with a community amenity function.

60. The applicant’s background material acknowledges that parts of the northern area will require restrictions on development, however the plan change leaves the identification of which specific land that may not be suitable for development largely to the development consent phase. In particular the proposed precinct makes subdivision a Restricted Discretionary activity with “Stormwater and Flooding” one of the matters for discretion to be considered in any assessment of a subdivision application. Assessment criteria for any such application for subdivision then includes: “Whether the proposal ensures that development manages flooding effects upstream and downstream of the site and in the Riverhead precinct so that the risks to people and property (including infrastructure) are not increased for all flood events up to a 100-year ARI flood event”.

61. Another criterion is “The location, size design and management of any interim flood attenuation areas that may be necessary to ensure that development does not increase flooding risks prior to upgrades of culverts”. Where the land is identified as being within a flood plain or overland flow path, the rules in Section E36 of the AUP relating to natural hazards in flooding will also apply. These rules control the nature and extent of structures and development that can occur in these areas.

62. At this time there is a degree of disagreement between the applicant and staff within Healthy Waters over how specific any restriction should be shown within the plan change, but not that there should be no such restriction. As such, how flooding is dealt with is considered to be a matter that can be addressed through the plan change submission and hearing process. Similarly in respect of the northern wetland, the plan change relies on existing provisions in the AUP and the National Environmental Standards for Fresh Water (NES: FW) to manage effects rather than providing specific bespoke provisions. The Council’s ecologist advises that while there are concerns, these matters can be worked through.

63. With respect to transport, and as discussed in greater detail in paragraphs 72 to 85 in the following section of this report, at a coarse level, it is arguable that aspects of the private plan change may not be in accordance with sound resource management. However, given the detailed technical nature of the arguments, on balance it is considered that these are best considered as a part of a full merits based assessment through the plan change submission and decision-making process.

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

65. Based on the above reasoning, some aspects of the private plan change (particularly with regard to unfunded transport infrastructure) may not be in accordance with sound resource management. As a result, the Council could reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice. However, the Council does not have to reject the private plan change request on that basis, and there is a discretion available to the Council. It is recommended that the Council exercise its discretion and that the plan change not be rejected on the grounds that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.

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

66. Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Regional and district plan provisions must give effect to the regional policy statement and higher order RMA documents, plus not be inconsistent with any (other) regional plan. The relevant sections in Part 5 are determined by the nature of the private plan change.

67. It is noted that there are aspects of the NPS: UD that the proposal will need to be considered against, including the extent to which it integrates infrastructure planning and funding decisions (Objective 6a), strategic approaches to planning (Objective 6b), supporting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Objective 8a) and some aspects of a well-functioning urban environment – including providing good accessibility via public or active transport (Policy 1c), and supporting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Policy 1e).

68. There is a need to balance these other provisions together with Policy 8. There are nuances to this particularly in terms of integrating infrastructure planning and funding decisions with development that are best addressed through the submission and hearing process.

69. The private plan change is also proposing development ahead of the timing set out in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) (i.e. 2028-2032), and this is problematic in terms of funding and financing infrastructure. However, on a coarse assessment this is not inconsistent with the NPS: UD, particularly Policy 8 which recognises that there may be situations where plan changes may occur ahead of time and that Council decisions should be responsive to such plan changes. Accordingly it is considered, that overall, the proposal at a coarse level cannot be said to inconsistent with the NPS: UD.

70. The most relevant part of the Auckland Unitary Plan in regard to this test is Chapter B2 – Tāhuhu whakaruruhau ā-taone - Urban growth and form (Regional Policy Statement) of the Auckland Unitary Plan. This chapter seeks a quality compact urban form that enables a high-quality urban environment and that urbanisation be contained within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB), towns, and rural and coastal towns and villages.

71. On the face of it at a coarse level, the request to provide urban zones to the land is consistent with the main direction of the Regional Policy Statement. The land is all zoned Future Urban and is located within the RUB. There are various policies in chapter B2 which are relevant and with which the proposals are broadly consistent. For example, B2.2.2(4) which states “Promote urban growth and intensification within the urban area 2016 (as identified in Appendix 1A), enable urban growth and intensification within the Rural Urban Boundary, towns, and rural and coastal towns and villages, and avoid urbanisation outside these areas.” Policy B2.2.2(7) which refers to enabling rezoning of land within the RUB to “provide for a range of housing types and employment choices for the area” is also among a number of others that are relevant. While the proposed development is more intensive than the current development in Riverhead and even includes the application of the Terrace House and Apartment Building zone and the MDRS provisions, at the coarse level assessment required at this stage of the process, it is not possible to conclude that the proposal is contrary to the Regional Policy Statement. However, that does not preclude the more detailed and nuanced assessment that takes place through the submission and hearing process making such a finding.

72. The main issues will be the provision of infrastructure, whether the layout and provision for connections through the area are appropriate, the management of natural hazards and the intensity of development proposed. In respect of infrastructure, the applicant is proposing to provide new local transport upgrades as the land is developed. The extent to which these are sufficient can be considered through the analysis of submissions and detailed plan change review. It is noted that there are no committed or funded public transport service improvements at this time.

73. An important consideration is the effect of additional traffic from the potential new development enabled by the plan change on the wider transport network, and most notably the operation of SH16. NZTA Waka Kotahi are planning an upgrade to SH16 in the vicinity with the upgrade project to be completed in 2024/2025. The project extends from the end of the North Western Motorway from the Brigham Creek Road/Fred Taylor Drive/SH16 roundabout through to Waimauku - a 10km stretch. The section from Brigham Creek Road to the Taupaki roundabout will be four-laned with a new two-lane roundabout at the SH 16 /Coatesville Riverhead Highway intersection. It will also include wire rope median barriers and a 3-metre-wide shared path from Brigham Creek Road/Fred Taylor Drive/ SH 16 roundabout to Kumeu. The section from Huapai to Waimauku involves installation of wire rope median barriers and shoulder widening.

74. The project has committed National Land Transport Plan funding of $137.4 M over 2021/2022 out to 2024/2025.The documentation associated with the project notice of requirement indicates that it will deliver efficiency improvements to SH16 in the shorter term addressing current congestion and providing additional capacity for a number of years. In the longer term however, as the Future Urban zoned land in Kumeu – Huapai is developed, additional projects identified by the Supporting Growth Alliance (SGA) will be needed to cater for the estimated population of 25,000 that will be based in Kumeu- Huapai.

75. The impact of this is discussed in the integrated traffic assessment (ITA) from the applicant and in the review report from Commute Transportation Consultants commissioned by Auckland Transport and copied to the Council’s traffic consultant. This report notes that:

“It is critical that these SH16 works are completed before any activities on the plan change site are operating (noting construction effects could be managed prior subject to further assessment e.g., through resource consent processes). We note that Table 6 of the Flow ITA states that the SH16/ Coatesville- Riverhead Highway intersection must be upgraded prior to occupation of any dwelling within the plan change.

Given development and construction timeframes, development is not likely, in any event, before the upgrades are completed.

76. The plan change has been assessed to see whether it is sufficient to ensure that any development does not proceed prior to the necessary works being completed. Proposed standard IX.6.1 sets out the staging requirements. IX.6.1(1) states;

(“1) Prior to occupation of a dwelling within the Riverhead Precinct, the following transport infrastructure must be constructed and operational:

(a) Upgrade of the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway / Main Road (SH16) intersection to a roundabout, as part of the SH16 Brigham Creek to Waimauku project, led by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.”

77. This is followed by a range of works to be undertaken by the applicant in various parts of the roading network closer to and within the plan change area. This includes intersection and local road corridor upgrades along with the provision of walking and cycling facilities on these roads. It includes upgrades along the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway where this fronts the site and similarly along Riverhead Road. The proposed precinct provisions require that any application to depart from this standard is a restricted discretionary activity. Given the fundamental nature of standard IX.6.1 there is room to argue that departure from this standard should have a higher activity status of at least discretionary or non-complying activity status. This does not mean that the plan change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice or contrary to part 5 of the RMA, but it is a detail that could be raised through the submission and hearing process if the proposed plan change is accepted for processing.

78. The Commute review prepared for AT in August 2022 concludes that the remaining key concerns are:

· The likely increase in public transport demands during the peak hours as a result of enabled development (doubling of dwellings within Riverhead);

· The performance of the SH16/ Coatesville-Riverhead Highway roundabout in the morning peak hour, and whether the Waka Kotahi design is sufficient to accommodate the plan change (noting that the road upgrading is anticipated regardless of this private plan change process). This affects AT as far as potential queuing onto its road network;

· The need for any safety upgrades to existing transport infrastructure along Coatesville- Riverhead Highway between the plan change area and SH16 given the magnitude of the increase in traffic movements (circa 45%), and also whether any upgrade is required to the Riverhead Road/ Deacon Road intersection.

79. Te Tupu Ngātahi Supporting Growth Alliance (SGA) is a partnership with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport, in collaboration with Auckland Council, to identify network requirements for future urban areas for the next 30 years and route protect key routes. The North West Detailed Business Case (DBC) identifies the upgrade of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway and also Riverhead Road is needed to support the Riverhead FUZ.

80. The upgrade would require:

· provision of active mode facilities on both corridors

· safety improvements to Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, particularly to remediate substandard vertical curves

· land acquisition costs.

81. It is noted that given that the plan change request includes the whole Riverhead FUZ area, the SGA recommendations are what the alliance considered necessary to fully support that development from a transport infrastructure perspective. The plan change is broadly consistent with what SGA recommends for Coatesville-Riverhead Highway and Riverhead Road where these corridors front the FUZ land. However, the discrepancy is that SGA also recommends upgrading the rest of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway to SH16 and Riverhead Road to Kumeu so that Riverhead has safe transport connections to and from it, rather than being an island of development connected by rural roads.

82. This represents a funding and infrastructure provision shortfall against what arguably is needed to support the plan change. The applicant’s supporting information and modelling however concludes that these upgrades are not needed to enable the proposed plan change development.

83. Recently the Supporting Growth Alliance has lodged several Notices of Requirement (NoRs) to provide upgrades to the roading network to cater for the 30-year growth anticipated in the Future Urban zoned land in the northwest. This includes an alternative SH16 around Kumeu, north of the SH16/ Coatesville- Riverhead Road intersection, and other upgrades of the existing SH16 through Kumeu. These NoRs are for route protection purposes only.There is no funding or certainty of timing/delivery of these projects at this point.

84. In summary, transport works are planned and funded for upgrading of SH16 (including the Riverhead/Coatesville Highway intersection) by Waka Kotahi and are due to commence in 2024. Other transport upgrades are proposed to be implemented by the developer as part of the plan change standards. The SH16/Coatesville-Riverhead Highway intersection improvements are a critical precursor to any further development occurring in Riverhead. The proposed plan change provisions require this. While the proposed works on SH16 by NZTA Waka Kotahi will alleviate existing congestion and provide additional capacity, the plan change proposal will generate additional traffic and the impact of this on the wider network needs to be assessed in further detail.

85. The NZTA Waka Kotahi documentation associated with the planned SH16 safety and efficiency works acknowledges the efficiency improvements will last for some years but in the longer term the SGA projects will be necessary. The applicant considers that the SH16 upgrades by NZTA Waka Kotahi along with its own upgrades to the local roading network will be adequate to accommodate its planned development including the effects on the wider network in both the short and long term. The extent of any effects is likely to be influenced by the timing of wider development in the Future Urban zone in Kumeu-Huapai and the surrounding rural area and this will dictate how long the capacity the SH16 safety and efficiency projects provide will last before the SGA projects are necessary. This is a matter that is best addressed in the submission and hearing process which enables agencies such as NZTA Waka Kotahi to participate.

86. Watercare Services Limited advise that they have no fundamental issues with the plan change but there are some details to be worked through.

87. The land is subject to a wetland and some potential flooding in the north of the Precinct. This appears to be a discrete issue and relates to only a well defined 8 hectare part of the plan change area. It is noted that the RPS Chapter B10 Environmental Risk specifies a number of approaches to managing environmental risk and the notification and hearing of the plan change would enable consideration of various approaches. The provisions of E36 relating to Natural Hazards and Flooding will also apply as will the SMAF 1 provisions.

88. The plan change does not introduce any new or novel planning techniques or seek to introduce any new subject matter that is not relevant to council’s regional or territorial functions and the corresponding requirements of RMA plans.

89. The coarse level assessment necessary at this stage indicates the private plan change request will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA. It is considered that the conclusions in the request documentation would be best evaluated via the submissions and hearing processes so that these matters can be considered in full.

90. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

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

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

92. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Option 3 – Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

93. The council may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 would then apply accordingly.

94. It is considered that the plan change process is the most appropriate process because the activities enabled through the request (i.e. urban subdivision and urban scale residential and business development) would be very complex to manage by way of a resource consent. In addition, the AUP anticipates that a plan change (either Council initiated or private) is the correct means to provide for the urbanisation of the land. Given the objectives, policies and rules of the FUZ, a resource consent application that sought to provide for a full range of urban activities would have almost no chance of success.

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

Option 4 - Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part

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

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

98. If the private plan change is accepted, the plan change will be notified for submissions, and the matters raised in this report can be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process.

Conclusion: options assessment

99. The private plan change request has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include clause 25 Schedule 1 matters, having particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation, and case law^{^[6]} that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request. It is recommended that the private plan change request be accepted in whole under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

101. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself. The clause 25 decision is unrelated to any greenhouse gas emissions. The decision requested is a decision of short duration.

102. At this coarse level of assessment, it is not possible to determine whether there would be a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions. However, given the scale of the plan change in terms of anticipated increases in population in this area and the absence of current and planned public transport to serve it, it is expected that there will be an increase in emissions generated by additional road users. Such impacts can be considered in the future hearing report on the private plan change request, and any submissions received. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (does it encourage car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding and stress on infrastructure).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

103. Views have been sought from Council groups and from specialists within and external to Council including Watercare Services Ltd, Healthy Waters, Auckland Transport and Parks Planning.

104. Watercare advise that they have no fundamental issues with the plan change but there are some details to be worked through. Watercare will be able to lodge a submission on the plan change if accepted by the committee and publicly notified.

105. Auckland Transport has also been in consultation with the applicant in respect of the private plan change request. Auckland Transport’s concerns with the lodged plan change request are discussed earlier in this report. Staff at Auckland Transport have indicated that AT will be making a submission on the plan change if accepted.

106. As noted above Healthy Waters have advised that development within a number of catchments in the north is not supported due to the flood risk within the site, unless the area can be utilised as a well-designed (council approved) Riverhead Stormwater Catchment focused flood mitigation site with a community amenity function. This is a matter that can be address during a detailed assessment of the merits of the plan change.

107. Parks Planning have advised that there are no high level matters to raise.

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

Local impacts and local board views

108. If accepted, the views of the Rodney Local Board will be sought on the content of the private plan change request after the submission period closes. All formal local board feedback will be included in the hearing report and the local board will be able to present its views to hearing commissioners, if the local board chooses to do so. These actions support the local board in its responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area, in relation to the content of Auckland Council plans.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

110. While not a legal requirement, plan change applicants should engage with iwi authorities in preparing a private plan change request as a matter of best practice. It is also best practice for an applicant to document changes to the private plan change request and/or supporting technical information arising from iwi engagement.

111. Riverhead Landowner Group advises that it is has engaged with the following iwi authorities with an interest in the area (see below) providing the opportunity for feedback before the request was formally lodged with council.

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngātiwai

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Trust Board)

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Rehua

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Te Patukirikiri

· TeUri o Hau

· Waikato - Tainui

112. Responses were received from a number of iwi authorities. Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua attended hui with the applicant. Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara advised that they were generally comfortable with the provisions, but it was agreed that Te Kawerau ā Maki would undergo a first review of the precinct provisions. The feedback provided by Te Kawerau ā Maki has been incorporated into the proposed precinct provisions, and the applicant has advised that further engagement will be carried out. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara provided a letter which confirms no further feedback will be provided on the proposed precinct provisions at this time, and that it is anticipated that further engagement will be carried out as the proposed plan change and precinct provisions are further developed.

113. If the committee accepts a private plan change request as recommended, iwi authorities will be directly engaged with and will have the opportunity to make submissions once the plan change is notified.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

114. If the request is adopted, council would pay all costs associated with processing it. The council would be required to cover this unbudgeted expenditure; there would be less funding available to progress the council’s policy and planning work programme.

115. If the request is accepted or, if the request is dealt with as a resource consent application, the applicant would pay all reasonable costs associated with processing it on a user-pays basis.

116. With respect to broader financial issues, the applicant has committed to funding the infrastructure required within the plan change area to service the plan change area including new stormwater, water and wastewater infrastructure, along with upgrades to several local roads adjacent to the plan change area and the provision of bus infrastructure. The upgrading of SH16 including the SH16/ Coatesville – Riverhead Highway intersection is funded by Waka Kotahi and the plan change does not enable the occupation of land until this work is operational.

117. Auckland Transport currently has no plans to increase the public transport service to Riverhead and therefore no funding is available. There may be some unfunded costs for safety upgrades on the Coatesville - Riverhead Highway between Riverhead and SH16 and wider transport funding and financing issues. If accepted, these matters can be explored in detail during the hearings process.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

d) deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent.^{^[7]}

119. It is recommended that all of the private plan change request is accepted. The applicant requested the private plan change be accepted. The risk of a legal challenge by the applicant utilising the clause 27 appeal rights is negligible. No avenue for appeal would be available.

120. The plan change does present a potential risk of land being zoned for development without the necessary controls being in place to address flooding issues in the northern part of the plan change area. There is also a risk of the plan change enabling development ahead of the necessary transport infrastructure and services being in place. As discussed earlier in this report, this is a matter that would benefit from a detailed assessment of the merits of the plan change. Accepting the plan change would enable this to occur.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

121. If accepted, the private plan change must be notified within four months of its acceptance.

122. No further evaluation and decision will be required regarding extent of notification noting that the applicant has requested public notification.

123. Iwi authorities and other directly affected parties will be directly notified.

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

125. Council will need to hold a hearing to consider any submissions, and local board views, and a decision would then be made on the private plan change request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Clause 25 recommendation

126. This private plan change request requires decision-making pursuant to clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, to determine whether it will be adopted, accepted, rejected or dealt with as if it were a resource consent application.

127. It is recommended that the private plan change request from Riverhead Landowner Group to rezone land to the west of Riverhead from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to a mix of residential zones with a small Local Centre and a Neighbourhood Centre be accepted under Clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the reasons set out in this report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Requested Plan Change Provisions
b ⇨	Section 32 Report
c ⇨	Clause 25, Schedule 1 - Resource Management Act

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Peter Vari - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

04 May 2023

Draft Tāmaki Makaurau Future Development Strategy – approval for consultation

File No.: CP2023/04031

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a high-level overview of the content of and approach in the draft Future Development Strategy, including key differences from the 2018 Development Strategy, and to seek the committee’s approval of the draft strategy for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS UD) requires an update to the Future Development Strategy (FDS). The revised FDS (Attachment A) will replace the current Development Strategy in the Auckland Plan 2050. A key purpose of the FDS is to inform the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

3. Significant changes are proposed. These address key strategic goals of council around climate change, managing the cost of infrastructure funding and delivery, promoting natural environmental outcomes, and better managing natural hazard risk.

4. The draft FDS confirms and refines the council’s well-established 'quality compact' planning approach. There is a greater focus within Auckland’s existing urban area on achieving more quality, higher density and mixed-use development near stops on the rapid transit network, and near centres and key employment areas.

5. The draft FDS amends some timeframes for when future urban land may be ready for development, and introduces a triggers-based approach to development readiness, based on the availability of infrastructure. The draft also recommends reducing the extent of land in some future urban areas to reduce the exposure to significant natural hazard risks in these areas. These changes will furthermore assist the council in its goals of mitigating and adapting to climate change.

6. The draft FDS reconfirms the council’s multi-nodal approach, with the aim to create greater sub-regional resilience by expanding both employment and housing activity in these nodes.

7. Over the shorter term (10 years), the draft FDS identifies supporting the Auckland Housing Programme in Mt Roskill, Māngere and Tāmaki, an identified live-zoned area within Drury-Ōpaheke, and the Westgate and city centre nodes as the spatial priorities for council investment. The draft FDS further proposes that, in addition to these six spatial priorities, funding should also be made available to invest in local upgrades and improvements (accessibility and sustainability). The draft FDS does not identify the locations for these local upgrades (and explains why).

8. The draft FDS contains several actions to support its implementation and help achieve its goals. These include potential statutory and non-statutory planning approaches. The details of these actions, and their potential implementation timeframes, are not yet known. They also need to be aligned with other council programmes such as Mahi Tahi Tatou, current flood recovery work, the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway etc. Still, the supporting actions are included in the draft FDS for consultation purposes. Following finalisation of the Future Development Strategy, a comprehensive implementation plan will be developed with supporting action forming the basis, noting that associated resourcing is a matter for Annual Plan and Long-term Plan decision making.

9. Public consultation on the draft FDS will occur over a four-week period from early June 2023. A range of approaches will be taken to maximise the potential for good levels of community engagement, in a cost-effective manner. Ongoing engagement with mana whenua is occurring.

10. Following consultation a summary report will be prepared. Consultation feedback will be taken into account in the development of the final FDS for the committee’s approval.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the draft Future Development Strategy, as contained in Attachment A to the report, for public consultation

b) tautapa / delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee the authority to approve minor amendments and correct any errors and omissions prior to public consultation.

Horopaki

Context

11. The purpose of the FDS is to provide the basis for strategic and long-term planning of growth and development in Auckland. It should inform the integration of land use planning with infrastructure planning and funding decisions. Importantly, it informs the preparation of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

12. Under the NPS UD, the FDS must set out how Auckland will achieve a well-functioning urban environment. The FDS must also state how and where sufficient development capacity will be enabled to meet housing and business land demand over the short, medium and long-term.

13. Much has changed in Auckland and Aotearoa New Zealand since the Development Strategy was adopted as part of the Auckland Plan 2050 five years ago. While the NPS UD provides the statutory basis for the update, there are several reasons why the FDS requires updating, including:

· Climate change: Auckland has made firm commitments to climate change mitigation under Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan (2020): halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The NPS UD also emphasises the need for planning approaches to support reductions in emissions. The RMA was amended in 2020 to require council to consider the National Emissions Reduction Plan and the National Adaptation Plan in its planning framework.

· Natural hazards: the flood events of early 2023 underscored the importance of strategic planning about where development should and should not occur, and how it should occur, to reduce exposure to risk posed by natural hazards. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan commits the council to taking a precautionary approach to adapting to the impacts of climate change.

· Planning directives from central government: while the intensification mandates under the NPS UD and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 will assist council in achieving housing capacity and other goals, they will also create challenges that need to be addressed.

· Fiscal challenges: exacerbated by the pandemic and high levels of inflation. Plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan that are unanticipated or brought forward ahead of time can generate significant funding challenges and financial risks for council and disrupt existing and planned infrastructure work programmes.

14. The NPS UD prescribes the mandatory aspects of a well-functioning urban environment that must be expressed in a FDS. However, it also provides scope for councils and their communities to add to these aspects and frame a community-specific expression of well-functioning environments.

15. The quality of the natural environment and planning to address natural hazards are key aspects missing in the mandatory aspects of well-functioning urban environments under the NPS UD. The draft FDS adds these as they are important considerations in planning for growth and development in a holistic manner.

16. A key requirement of the NPS UD is for the FDS to include a clear statement of hapū and iwi values and aspirations for urban development. Staff engaged with iwi in 2022 and 2023 in order to develop this statement. The statement currently in the draft FDS includes values and aspirations that have been drawn from engagement, previous feedback and other sources such as iwi management plans. This statement is currently with mana whenua for review.

17. Further engagement with iwi is ongoing to inform the development of this statement and the final FDS.

18. The NPS UD requires the council to use the special consultative procedure for consultation on the draft FDS. This procedure requires a consultation period of not less than one month. It is proposed that the consultation period will run for four weeks, from early June 2023.

19. A range of cost-effective consultation approaches will be adopted. These include:

· a landing page on the AKHaveYourSay website, containing information and a submission form with prompting questions

· targeted engagement with key stakeholders, including community partners who will help us attain higher response rates from hard-to-reach demographic groups, such as Pasifika and Māori.

· some targeted drop-in sessions in locations where significant change is proposed in the draft FDS

· advertisements in banners on the New Zealand Herald and Stuff websites

· advertisements in local community newspapers

· a social media and radio advertisement campaign.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Strategic framework of the Future Development Strategy

20. A political Steering Group, under the auspices of the former Planning Committee, gave early guidance and direction on the development of the FDS. This was approved by the Planning Committee at its 4 August 2022 meeting. Resolution number PLA/2022/95 provides a high-level outline of that initial strategic direction. This can be seen in Attachment B.

21. The diagram below sets out the strategic framework of the FDS.

Future Development Strategy Strategic Spatial Framework
Our vision	Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s built environment will underpin the development of prosperous, inclusive, and vibrant communities. Quality development will help to regenerate the environment and deliver our commitments to greenhouse gas emission reduction as we grow and change.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi	Honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and enabling Te Tiriti outcomes
Hapū and iwi values and aspirations for urban development	Mauri, Rangatiratanga, Mana Motuhake, Mātauranga Māori, Kaitiakitanga, Manaakitanga
Over-arching challenges	1. Spatial planning in an uncertain and changing environment 2. Halting the ongoing degradation of the natural environment 3. Achieving equitable growth and change 4. Investing in infrastructure in a financially constrained environment
Spatial outcomes	· Tāmaki Makaurau is viewed as an interconnected living system · Development achieves high quality living environments · Disparities in our communities and investments are addressed · Development results in resilient built systems, natural environment and communities
Principles for a quality compact approach to growth and change	1. Support greenhouse gas emission reduction
	2. Adapt to the impacts of climate change
	3. Make efficient and equitable infrastructure investments
	4. Protect and restore the natural environment
	5. Enable sufficient capacity for growth in the right place at the right time
Inputs to our spatial response	Conceptual growth scenarios Constraints on development Development capacity
Our spatial response	Spatial scales Spatial environments Prioritising areas for development Approach to natural hazard constrained areas
Implementation	Supporting actions to implement this Future Development Strategy

22. This framework was informed by many sources, including: council’s wider strategic direction and policy goals, workshops with elected members, mana whenua values and aspirations, and legislative requirements. Monitoring evidence, technical analysis of various growth scenarios and housing and business development capacity were also key inputs.

Growth scenarios

23. In framing the development of the FDS, potential growth management approaches were considered. Four scenarios were developed which ranged from expansive and more compact forms of growth.

24. These scenarios were assessed against social, economic, cultural and environmental criteria. In general, the more intensive scenarios performed the best, across most criteria. The findings from the growth scenario work informed the basis for the spatial strategy set out in the FDS.

Housing and Business Capacity Assessment

25. The NPS UD requires that the FDS is informed by a Housing and Business Capacity Assessment. An assessment was done in 2021 with further work done as part of Plan Change 78 to understand how much additional housing capacity the plan would enable.

26. This work has now been updated. Over the next 30 years, from 2023 to 2053, the population is expected to continue to grow, by around 30 per cent, or 520,800 people to a total of 2,230,800 based on a medium projection (customised projection from Statistics NZ for Auckland Council).

27. This projection indicates that total households in Tāmaki Makaurau will grow by 34 per cent requiring just under 200,000^{^[8]} additional dwellings, to bring the total number of dwellings to around 773,000 dwellings. More dwellings than the required 200,000 will be needed to allow for the redevelopment of existing sites and dwellings etc.

28. The total plan-enabled housing capacity is 2,345,500^{^[9]} which is several times greater than the expected demand for dwellings (by 1,572,500). However while much of this enabled capacity is or will be commercially feasible, not all of it needs to be immediately (or ever) infrastructure ready. It is important however that as much sufficient^{^[10]} feasible development capacity as possible is infrastructure ready - where it is likely to be taken up.

29. Therefore, the FDS does not need to focus on creating additional housing development capacity. Rather, the focus for the FDS needs to be on the quality aspects of accommodating growth: where and how development occurs. Still, the draft FDS directs that, where plan-enabled capacity is reduced or constrained, over time forgone capacity should be offset by creating additional capacity in good locations elsewhere, so that overall capacity is broadly maintained. Natural hazard risk is the main reason capacity may be reduced or constrained.

30. Further work was also done on business capacity. The estimated total employment is expected to increase by 30.6%^{^[11]} or 282,600 jobs over the 2023 to 2053 period.

31. However, initial results from the council’s Business Capacity Assessment, which explores these factors in more detail but is still in draft form, indicate there is likely to be at least sufficient plan-enabled business capacity on an aggregate region-wide basis. Shortfalls in some sub-regions, or for specific business sectors, particularly for land extensive sectors could occur in the short to medium-term. Over the medium to long-term these are planned to be addressed by the provision of additional business-zoned land, including through the provision of centres in new development areas.

Proposed amendments to the FDS

32. The draft strategy puts forward several amendments to the approach of the 2018 Development Strategy in the Auckland Plan 2050. These include:

· inclusion of iwi values and aspirations – an emphasis on mauri provides opportunities for change that will support all Aucklanders to thrive

· strengthening the concept of quality compact – further shifting the emphasis to intensification in the existing urban areas with less reliance on expansion into future urban areas

· urban areas – intensification of existing urban areas and focusing investment in infrastructure on a smaller number of spatial priorities, but emphasising the need for smaller scale investment at a local level to improve accessibility and sustainability

· future urban areas – removal (in whole or part) of some areas for urban development and changes in development readiness timeframes to some areas. Also, replacing the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy with the FDS

· spatial prioritisation based on nodes, joint priorities (Auckland Housing Programme), a defined area within Drury-Ōpaheke, and local planning priorities

· strengthening climate change considerations

· greater emphasis on achieving better natural environment outcomes.

33. The following sections provide more information on these changes in approach. Iwi values and aspirations are addressed throughout these sections.

Strengthening the quality compact concept

34. The quality compact philosophy has underpinned planning in Auckland since the 2012 Auckland Plan. Since 2020 a number of central government mandates mean even greater emphasis is given to urban intensification.

35. Although many of the mandated changes support and build on the quality compact approach, some create challenges or risks to it. In particular, the medium density residential standards’ (MDRS) unfocused approach to intensification across wide parts of the urban area introduces the following challenges:

· makes it harder for council to plan for growth and development, in terms of investment in infrastructure, and community facilities and services

· may result in a significant amount of development occurring in locations across Auckland where public transport services and general accessibility are poor with limited potential for improvements – resulting in more traffic congestion and higher emissions.

36. The updated FDS focuses on the ways in which council can provide a strong framework to maximise the amount of quality, higher density development occurring in and near centres, and near stops on the rapid transit network, rather than being able to prevent what the MDRS enables.

37. Mana whenua strongly support a quality compact approach.

Urban area

38. As part of the quality compact approach to accommodating growth, most growth is anticipated within Auckland’s existing urban areas. This is in line with previous policy.

39. Having sufficient capacity for this growth over the 30 years of the plan, the emphasis in the existing urban section of the draft FDS is on increasing sustainability of neighbourhoods. This includes supporting intensification in centres and walkable catchments, encouraging a broader range of services to meet communities’ day-to-day needs locally, and improving accessibility to/within centres and neighbourhoods via walking, cycling and public transport.

40. The draft FDS also more strongly emphasises the need to enable and incentivise more quality, high-density and mixed use development near centres and stops on the rapid transit network. These are locations where the council will take a less direct approach to planning and investment than in the spatial priority areas, but will provide a stronger policy framework for private sector initiatives.

41. As growth is enabled in most of Auckland’s neighbourhoods there is much less certainty as to where and when growth will occur. The draft prioritises infrastructure provision in a small number of spatial priorities that would result in long-term benefits. This will help to focus and make better use of resource and achieve multiple outcomes. These priorities include the Auckland Housing Programme areas. They will, in time, also support major projects, such as Auckland Light Rail, that are currently in the planning stage.

42. The small number of spatial priorities is in recognition that funding will also be required for local level upgrades and initiatives, particularly accessibility and sustainability initiatives.

Changes to future urban areas

43. Complementing this stronger approach to intensification in existing urban areas is the approach of changing the timing of ‘development readiness’ for some future urban areas and reducing the spatial extent of some. At a high level, the basis for this includes:

· some land areas that are prone to significant natural hazard risk, which will increase with ongoing climate change

· poor access to employment and services in some locations, likely to result in high levels of private vehicle usage (at least until frequent public transport infrastructure and services can be provided), with the potential to lead to higher levels of congestion and higher emissions

· significant challenges in funding infrastructure investment to support growth and the need to better align development readiness with the ability to fund infrastructure.

44. In addition, there is less need for high levels of development capacity in future urban areas, given the large uplift in capacity that will be realised through Plan Change 78.

45. The draft FDS systematically addresses all future urban areas, and indicates whether the spatial extent is reduced, whether timing for live zoning is changed, or whether further investigation is required. All timings are now based on triggers.

Future urban policy approach

46. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) sets out the ‘where and when’ of the urban zoning of future urban land. It takes a sequenced approach to rezoning, aligning it with council’s funding of infrastructure to support development.

47. The FULSS as a standalone document will be removed, and the information currently contained within it is reframed and sits within the draft FDS. This better integrates strategic approaches and confirms status under the RMA.

48. Timeframes for sequencing in the draft FDS are broader and more indicative. Critically, the strategy for timing of rezoning is based on infrastructure triggers.

49. As well as bringing this sequencing information into the FDS, the draft FDS recommends that this sequencing strategy is embedded into the Regional Policy Statement. This will provide greater decision-making weight to sequencing strategy on plan change applications.

Spatial prioritisation

50. Infrastructure investment is one of the few remaining tools available to the council to focus development. The draft FDS proposes that in future, infrastructure investment is based on the best areas for growth in a region-wide and maximising-investment sense.

51. The draft brings together spatial priorities for existing urban areas and future urban areas in one place. It identifies three different types of spatial priorities, these are:

Nodes: to provide greater sub-regional sustainability.

Joint priorities between the council and central government: these focus on the Auckland Housing Programme where long-term projects cover significant areas and bulk infrastructure is needed to enable regeneration, housing, jobs and recreation areas.

Local areas and communities: to provide for smaller scale projects that strengthen communities throughout the region, for instance town centre revitalisation led by Eke Panuku, environmental outcomes (e.g. naturalising waterways) or improving accessibility (e.g. better walking connections).

52. Within the priorities framework, the draft FDS sets out short to medium term priorities, to be considered in the council’s 2024-2034 Long-term Plan. The priorities are:

· the Auckland Housing Programme areas of Mt Roskill, Tāmaki and Māngere

· the city centre, focusing on completing the two new train stations (Maungawhau and Karangahape) and associated investment and development on the City Rail Link

· Westgate, where infrastructure is needed to support future rapid transit

· a defined area within Drury-Ōpaheke where development has already started.

53. Identifying longer-term priorities is less certain. This is particularly so as there are a number of major projects (Auckland Light Rail, Waitematā Harbour Crossing, North-west Rapid Transit, potential Port relocation etc.) in the planning phase. They will have transformational, city-shaping impacts on Auckland’s urban form and the way people and goods move around.

54. However, these projects are currently unfunded and details such as routes and timeframes are not yet known. This uncertainty means forecasting more location-specific impacts and market responses remain highly speculative at this stage, making longer-term prioritisation equally speculative. As more detail and certainty regarding these projects emerge responses and priorities can be revised.

Stronger emphasis on climate change

55. Significant changes in terms of climate change considerations have arisen since the Development Strategy of 2018. These include central government statutory and legislative changes, and new plans and initiatives developed by Auckland Council.

56. The NPS UD has a strong focus on planning approaches that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This requirement aligns with the 2020 RMA amendments that require council to consider the National Emissions Reduction Plan and National Adaptation Plan in its regional policy statement. Both the RMA and the NPS UD also emphasise the importance of climate change adaptation and resilience.

57. The council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan in 2020. The plan provides a long-term approach to climate action, with a target to halve regional greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and reaching net zero emissions by 2050. It also calls for a precautionary approach to adapting to the impacts of climate change.

58. Council’s Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway (TERP) was adopted in August 2022. The TERP provides a pathway for achieving a modelled 64 per cent reduction in Auckland’s transport emissions by 2030. An important aspect of this is aligning both land use and policy aspects of the TERP in the FDS to 2030.

59. The draft FDS takes a stronger approach to addressing the causes and impacts of climate change, aligning with mana whenua feedback. This is done in several ways. A key part is further developing the quality compact approach, where development is focused in locations where active transport and good, high frequency public transport options are more available or can reasonably be expected to be made available. This is supported by elements such as enabling greater mixed use, improving environmental outcomes and increasing local accessibility.

60. In terms of adapting to the impacts of climate change, the draft FDS takes a precautionary approach to climate related natural hazards, albeit at a regional level, and proposes further work to refine this at a local level.

Greater emphasis on natural environment outcomes

61. The draft FDS takes a much stronger approach to addressing natural environment outcomes. This aligns with mana whenua feedback and is part of making the FDS a more integrated and holistic planning strategy, where a range of factors are addressed alongside growth and development capacity.

62. Though this was already possible under existing statutory frameworks, the introduction of the NPS FM further underlines this. Among other matters, the NPS FM encourages managing the freshwater resource within a coordinated and sequenced approach to urban growth management.

63. The draft FDS also focuses on Auckland’s urban ngahere, both for its intrinsic qualities but also for what it can offer in terms of absorbing carbon, increasing climate resilience, amenity and wellbeing.

Relationship between the Future Development Strategy and RMA processes

64. The council continues to receive private plan change applications in locations that are zoned Future Urban Zone which are out of sequence with the current Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) and the council group’s ability to fund infrastructure. As well as recently received private plan change applications, staff are aware of other imminent applications that are also out of sequence.

65. Private plan change applications will always present challenges to the council in terms of alignment with the sequencing strategy in the FDS and the affordability of infrastructure. This is particularly so when the application is received earlier than proposed by the FULSS

66. This creates confusion and uncertainty for the community, the council and stakeholders and may weaken the coherence of the strategy that is being developed.

67. The council’s initial consideration and decision whether to accept, reject or adopt private plan change requests or treat them as an application for resource consent under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, is made in the context of a very wide first ‘gate’ of a “coarse merits assessment”. In law, unless there are clear grounds to reject the private plan change request, it makes it very difficult for the council to do anything other than accept private plan change requests for the submission, detailed assessment and hearings process. This second part of the process is much broader and deeper than the initial gateway decision.

68. Council does, on occasion, lodge its own submission on a private plan change request once notified, seeking that the private plan change request is declined or potentially changed in some way, unless there is a way to fund and provide required infrastructure. Notwithstanding this, to date hearings commissioners have seldom declined a private plan change application on these grounds.

69. Options to meaningfully address this matter of out of sequence private plan changes, and the risks it poses to council’s (and other partners’) ability to fund infrastructure, are limited. The draft FDS proposes that priority locations for investment should be strictly adhered to and that, once confirmed through the 2024-34 LTP, the council should adhere to funded programmes.

70. In addition, actions to support implementation of the draft FDS include a plan change to the Regional Policy Statement to strengthen the statutory decision-making framework (over and above the FDS) that applies to plan changes in future urban areas.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

71. The council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan in 2020. The plan provides a long-term approach to climate action, with a target to halve regional greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and reach to net zero emissions by 2050. It also calls for a precautionary approach to adaptation.

72. Land use and planning decisions, particularly those around urban form, development and infrastructure, are fundamental to climate action. These decisions influence and lock in our emissions trajectory and our ability to deal with the risks and impacts of a changing climate for decades to come. These land use planning decisions fundamentally affect how Auckland will achieve its climate goals set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan in the short, medium and long term.

73. For example, in relation to transport emissions, more expansive urban forms generally lead to longer travel distances. Longer trip lengths typically result in higher transport emissions and less propensity for mode shift. Land use decisions also affect exposure to climate change impacts such as coastal inundation and erosion which is exacerbated by sea level rise.

74. The approach taken in the draft FDS focuses on planning for more intensive urban development close to existing centres and stops on the rapid transit network. This is one of many important approaches which together seek to maximise the number of Aucklanders who walk, cycle and use public transport, thereby reducing transport related emissions.

75. The draft FDS also proposes to create stronger links between development in future urban areas and the ability to fund public transport infrastructure and services. Development without these services will be car dependent, increasing VKT and likely lock in travel behaviours that may be hard to change once, or if, public transport services are provided. The draft delays the live zoning of some future urban areas and links live zoning to infrastructure triggers. These aspects are expected to result in relatively positive climate outcomes compared to the current trend (mitigation).

76. The draft further proposes to remove some future urban areas, that have significant natural hazard risks, from urban development. It also identified additional future urban areas to be further investigated to determine their suitability for urban development based on natural hazard risk. These aspects are expected to result in relatively positive climate outcomes compared to the current trend (resilience).

77. The draft FDS also considers natural hazard risk in existing urban areas. It identifies and prioritises locations with potential natural hazard risk, combined with population density and levels of deprivation, as the initial focus for adaptive planning to determine appropriate responses.

78. The draft FDS sets the strategy and direction. Achieving its direction and the climate change outcomes sought is dependent on following through in implementation. This includes actions aligned with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, particularly actions around the built environment and the protection and enhancement of the natural environment, and the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway’s targets to reduce vehicle kilometres travelled and transport greenhouse gas emissions.

79. It is expected that, if the “Principles for a quality compact approach to growth and change” (as applied in the direction set in the draft FDS), are applied with ambitious implementations actions as proposed in (but not limited to) the FDS, then some of the adverse effects on climate mitigation and resilience could be avoided or mitigated. However, the FDS needs to be implemented with ambitious, bold climate policies and regulations across different domains, as well as local implementation action.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

80. As a first order strategy, and legislative requirement, the FDS impacts all parts of the council group whose activities relate to growth or development. It provides Auckland-wide direction and integration of the council’s approach to growth and development and guides subsequent strategies, operational plans, programmes of work and investment decisions.

81. Achieving the alignment of resources and outcomes sought by the FDS requires the involvement, sharing of information and ongoing support from staff across the council group throughout its implementation.

82. Development of the draft FDS included information, expertise and involvement of staff from across the council and its Council-Controlled Organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

83. The Auckland Plan is the long-term strategic plan for Auckland. The FDS provides more detailed information on how, where and when growth is anticipated. This is a relevant matter to local boards as growth and development can have significant impacts at a local board level and informs local board plans.

84. Local boards were provided a memo with background on the FDS in January 2022. Boards were briefed on the FDS (July 2022) and made local board resolutions that provided feedback on the initial strategic direction at their business meetings in July and August 2022. These resolutions were considered through the development of the draft FDS.

85. Local board chairs were invited to all Planning, Environment and Parks Committee workshops during strategy development. Chairs received the workshop material ahead of the workshops.

86. The consultation process will allow local communities to provide feedback on the draft FDS. Communities who may be especially impacted by a proposal in the FDS will likely have a particular interest in providing feedback. The proposed consultation approach aims to cater to these communities.

87. Following consultation, a summary of feedback from consultation and information specific to each local board will be made available. Local boards will have the opportunity to review this and provide further input to the FDS before the final version is adopted. This feedback will be provided as an appendix in the PEP Committee report seeking adoption of the strategy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

88. Council has committed to achieving Māori outcomes through Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, influenced by the Māori Plan and Issues of Significance, and Auckland Plan 2050. These documents provide guidance in understanding the priority areas for Tāmaki Makaurau Māori and a number of these priority areas are relevant to the development and implementation of the FDS, for example:

· involving Māori early in the decision-making process

· Māori housing aspirations

· protection of existing natural resources

· allowing for kaitiakitanga

· benefits to Māori, for example, housing, economic opportunities, and improved access

· impacts of climate change, for example, on marae, whānau, and sites of significance

· opportunities to showcase Māori identity.

89. The priority areas already identified, along with a review of past Māori engagement and feedback, was compiled. This provided a starting point for engaging with Māori, in a way that supports their capacity to genuinely participate in the development of the FDS.

90. The engagement has helped the council understand Māori values and aspirations for urban development and has helped shape the overall growth approach, as well as the spatial outcomes and principles for growth and change.

91. A key theme was the importance and integration of mātauranga Māori at all levels of decision-making, recognising mauri as a life-sustaining principle of all living systems. Mana whenua were consistent in advocating for a holistic view of maunga to moana. This is much broader than a catchment approach – it is a lens that sees Tāmaki Makaurau as an interconnected living system.

92. Engagement was initiated through an invitation to each of the mana whenua organisations. A panel with a range of Māori planning expertise and resourcing for up to two representatives was available for each organisation. Collective and individual hui were held and feedback was received through these engagements.

93. The emerging themes were reinforced by Iwi Management Plans and environmental documents, and input into previous council engagements including Te Tāruke-a-Tāwhiri, Auckland’s Water Strategy, and Thriving Communities Strategy. This analysis formed the basis of the hapū and iwi values and aspirations in the consultation document but requires further engagement with mana whenua. This statement of values and aspirations for urban development is currently with mana whenua for review.

94. Views were sought from Māori researchers, marae, community organisations, the homeless and rangatahi and what was received was shared with the relevant teams.

95. Ongoing engagement is occurring with iwi and mataawaka and this will continue throughout the consultation period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

96. Costs for developing the FDS largely fall in Financial Year 23 and funding is provided in the 22/23 Annual Budget. There is also some funding in 23/24 for engagement and consultation aspects of the programme.

97. One of the purposes of the FDS under the NPS UD is to assist with the integration of planning decisions under the RMA with infrastructure planning and funding decisions. The NPS UD also strongly encourages councils to use the FDS to inform its Long-term Plan, particularly its Infrastructure Strategy. This is done through setting the strategic direction for growth. To guide the Long-term Plan the FDS needs to be adopted by the end of the third quarter of 2023.

98. Once the FDS is adopted, it informs an update to the council’s growth model and therefore plays a significant role in future asset and service planning, especially assets and services related to growth. As well as the Long-term Plan, it will inform Annual Plans and Regional Transport Plans.

99. However, the strategy does not in itself make financial decisions. These are made through the Long-term Plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Risk	Assessment	Mitigation/Control measures
The FDS is not bold enough to support achieving the council’s strategic goals around climate change mitigation	Medium-High risk Achieving significant change in land use requires a long-term approach, and land use change takes time. Even with the proposed emphasis on prioritising growth in existing urban areas and reductions in the future urban areas, the draft FDS retains large areas of future urban land. Given council’s ambitious climate change goals, the retention of these large areas of future urban land will create risk to achieving those goals, especially with regard to reductions in transport emissions.	The FDS proposes a number of measures to promote and incentivise more urban development near centres and rapid transport in the existing urban area. The market has also been moving significantly in this direction (and is likely to continue to do so). Sequencing timing for many of the future urban areas has been extended significantly, to dates well beyond 2030 (TERP). Land use policy will need to be supplemented by a strong policy framework - for instance transport demand management and initiatives to achieve mode shift. It is likely that Auckland’s car fleet would have transitioned significantly towards an electric vehicle fleet by 2040, which will help mitigate transport emissions impacts.
The council receives negative feedback from stakeholders, including landowners, on the proposals on topics such as intensification in the existing urban area or reducing the extent of future urban areas and / or timing	Medium – High risk Consultation on the FDS is intended to gauge the community’s views on a range of matters addressed in it. Some of those views will be supportive, and some of them oppositional. All views need to be considered.	The consultation process enables council to receive feedback, and potentially reconsider certain aspects of the FDS before it is finalised. This ensures a robust decision-making process is followed and reduces risks later in the process.

Risk

Assessment

Mitigation/Control measures

The FDS is not bold enough to support achieving the council’s strategic goals around climate change mitigation

Medium-High risk

Achieving significant change in land use requires a long-term approach, and land use change takes time.

Even with the proposed emphasis on prioritising growth in existing urban areas and reductions in the future urban areas, the draft FDS retains large areas of future urban land.

Given council’s ambitious climate change goals, the retention of these large areas of future urban land will create risk to achieving those goals, especially with regard to reductions in transport emissions.

The FDS proposes a number of measures to promote and incentivise more urban development near centres and rapid transport in the existing urban area. The market has also been moving significantly in this direction (and is likely to continue to do so).

Sequencing timing for many of the future urban areas has been extended significantly, to dates well beyond 2030 (TERP).

Land use policy will need to be supplemented by a strong policy framework - for instance transport demand management and initiatives to achieve mode shift.

It is likely that Auckland’s car fleet would have transitioned significantly towards an electric vehicle fleet by 2040, which will help mitigate transport emissions impacts.

The council receives negative feedback from stakeholders, including landowners, on the proposals on topics such as intensification in the existing urban area or reducing the extent of future urban areas and / or timing

Medium – High risk

Consultation on the FDS is intended to gauge the community’s views on a range of matters addressed in it. Some of those views will be supportive, and some of them oppositional.

All views need to be considered.

The consultation process enables council to receive feedback, and potentially reconsider certain aspects of the FDS before it is finalised.

This ensures a robust decision-making process is followed and reduces risks later in the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

100. If the draft FDS is approved for consultation, staff will:

· continue to engage with iwi on developing the statement of iwi values and aspirations in the FDS

· continue to work with staff from communication and engagement teams to confirm the final approaches for public consultation, commencing in June 2023

· undertake consultation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft Future Development Strategy - for consultation 4 May 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Initial Strategic Direction

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Paetz – Principal Advisor Growth & Spatial Strategy

Dawne Mackay – Manager Growth & Spatial Strategy

Claire Gray - Principal Advisor Growth & Spatial Strategy

Dawne Mackay - Principal Growth and Infrastructure Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

04 May 2023

Central Library Indicative Business Case

File No.: CP2023/04059

Te take mō te pūrongoPurpose of the report

1. To present the key findings of the indicative business case for Tāmaki Pātaka Korero – Auckland Central Library of the future and seek agreement on the recommended next step.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee directed staff to develop an indicative business case to assess four options to deliver agreed investment objectives for the Central Library and inform future investment decisions [PAC/2020/68].

3. The indicative business case confirms the case for change established during the 2020 investigation. The facility’s ability to continue to provide valued central library services to Auckland’s growing communities is constrained by its size, age, condition and configuration.

4. Staff further developed the four short-listed options approved by the committee:

· option 1: The status quo (or do minimum)

· option 2: Increase capacity for people-focused activities by remodelling the current facility

· option 3: Deliver destination library services in a new building on site

· option 4: Deliver destination library services in a new building elsewhere in the city centre.

Graphical user interface, text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

5. After assessing the options against six success factors (1. Strategic Alignment, 2. Business Needs, 3. Environmental Sustainability, 4. Potential Achievability, 5. Value for Money and 6. Potential Affordability), staff recommend not to pursue any of the development options to detailed business case.

6. Unlike the status quo, the development options deliver a fit-for-purpose and future-proof facility. They meet the first four success factors. But they do not deliver value for money. Costs would need to reduce by at least 30 per cent to equal benefits. With high development costs, the development options are also likely to be unaffordable.

7. Staff investigated alternative commercial models to Auckland Council’s ownership of the facility. Various forms of leasing are likely to be attractive to a third party. However, leasing the facility does not alter the recommendation not to pursue any of the development options. This is because leasing does not alter the value for money assessment and costs more over a 30-year period.

8. Central library services can continue to be delivered in the current facility in the short- and medium-term. However, this is not a viable long-term solution given the facility’s existing issues and its high-risk profile. The main risk is a continued erosion of the relevance and attractiveness of the facility, leading to visitation decreasing and operating costs increasing to cope with an ageing asset.

9. As a next step, staff recommend the development of a service plan to manage and plan continued delivery of central library services to Aucklanders over the next 50 years. The service plan would include adaptive pathways that investigate different scenarios reflecting likely future changes and uncertainties, with trigger points for intervention.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the indicative business case for Tāmaki Pātaka Korero – Auckland Central Library, which found that:

i) the services delivered in the Central Library are valued and used by local and regional communities to deliver social, educational and cultural benefits

ii) current facility issues such as size, age, condition and configuration constrain our ability to deliver services and programmes. The building does not reflect Auckland’s unique cultural identity and Māori communities are under-represented in visitor numbers

iii) future demand for services and programmes currently delivered in the Central Library is uncertain, as COVID-19 restrictions have caused fluctuations in visitor numbers and trends world-wide show increased demand for online content as well as demand for more accessible, multifunctional space for physical visitors

iv) remodelling the Central Library or building a new facility (options 2, 3 and 4) would meet council’s business needs by delivering a fit-for-purpose and future-proof facility to enable service delivery in the long-term

v) remodelling the Central Library or building a new facility (options 2, 3 and 4) do not deliver value for money. Benefit-cost ratio ranges from 0.25 to 0.48, and costs would need to be reduced by at least 30 per cent to equal benefits

vi) remodelling the Central Library or building a new facility (options 2, 3 and 4) carry high development costs, ranging from $190 million to $228 million, which is likely to be unaffordable

vii) various forms of leasing as alternatives to Auckland Council ownership of the facility are likely to be attractive to a third party, but leasing does not change the value for money assessment and costs more to council over the long run than owning the facility.

b) whakaae / agree that the development options (options 2, 3, and 4) do not progress to detailed business case as they do not provide value for money and are likely to be unaffordable.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that service delivery can continue in the current facility at 44-46 Lorne Street in the short- to medium-term (option 1: The status quo), assuming required renewal work is carried out.

d) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the current facility is not a viable long-term solution to house services currently delivered in the Central Library as it faces facility issues and has a high-risk profile.

e) whakaae/ agree that the next step is to develop a service plan to:

i) actively manage and plan for central library services to Aucklanders over the next 50 years

ii) support decision-making by presenting adaptive pathways allowing for flexibility to respond to changes, opportunities and challenges in the future, considering triggers for intervention such as cost-to-serve and risks

iii) be included as a priority action in the Community Facility Network Plan Action Plan 2022.

f) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Waitematā Local Board received the indicative business case findings and agreed to staff recommendations, but noted delivering central library services will remain essential over time and requested that a solution to the renewal gap for the current facility and a replacement over time be prioritised [WTM/2023/50].

Horopaki

Context

10. The indicative business case for Tāmaki Pātaka Korero is the second step of the three-step process Auckland Council uses to investigate large-scale capital projects such as community facilities. It builds on the step one investigation work completed in 2020 and is based on New Zealand Treasury’s Better Business Cases Framework^TM.

Figure 1: Council’s investment approach

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Previous decisions were made on a vision, investment objectives and short-listed options

11. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee approved the investigation findings in December 2020 and directed staff to develop an indicative business case for the Central Library of the future. [PAC/2020/68]. The committee agreed to:

· the following vision for the Central Library:

- “The Central Library, Tāmaki Pātaka Kōrero, is a destination, attracting people from across Auckland and beyond, offering unique heritage and research services as well as unique, innovative, and leading-edge programmes, activities, and events. It is a place activator in the city centre. It is a facility that reflects Auckland’s unique identity and generates civic pride, notably through architecture”.

· two investment objectives:

- “fulfil its unique role in the Auckland libraries network to meet and anticipate Aucklanders’ evolving needs to connect with one another and with the world of information and ideas

- provide services and spaces that reflect Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique Māori identity, preserve the past and celebrate Auckland’s place in the world.”

· four short-listed options to progress to the indicative business case step:

- option 1: The status quo (or do minimum)

- option 2: Increase capacity for people-focused activities by remodelling the current facility

- option 3: Deliver destination library services in a new building on site

- option 4: Deliver destination library services in a new building elsewhere in the city centre.

Graphical user interface, text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The indicative business case and staff recommendations in a nutshell

12. Findings and recommendations are presented in a four-page diagrammatic format (overleaf). The indicative business case report is available in Attachment A and the cost benefit analysis is in Attachment B.

13. A video presentation of the key findings and recommendations is available in this link – https://web.microsoftstream.com/video/eed2d3a8-e9e1-41a1-8d1b-efd63b26418f

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Website, timeline

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application, email

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. The options were assessed based on council’s Sustainable Asset Policy measures, climate change targets from Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, Auckland Water Efficiency Strategy 2021-2024 and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

15. Option 1: The status quo scores lower on the sustainability assessment as the current facility is ageing and does not comply with council’s sustainable asset policy measures, nor does it contribute to the council’s climate change targets. All development options would deliver a five-star Green Star rating and hence score more highly in the sustainability assessment.

16. Environmental sustainability will continue to be a key consideration in the service plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. Views and expert input were sought from a wide range of staff in the council whānau throughout the development of this indicative business case. In particular, Connected Communities, Parks and Community Facilities, Regional Services and Strategy, Finance, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research, the Chief Sustainability Office, and Eke Panuku contributed to the work. The cost benefit analysis and the indicative business case were reviewed by the Chief Economist Unit.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18. Local library services are delivered in the Central Library, with approximately three in ten visitors holding a library card residing in the Waitematā Local Board area and satisfaction rates around 95 per cent. The community has expressed a strong desire for the Central Library to speak to its significant site and the history of its place and respond to the diverse needs of community (refer Attachment C).

19. The Waitematā Local Board previously considered the findings of the investigation at its business meeting on 17 November 2020 and resolved to support the development of an indicative business case [WTM/2020/301].

20. Staff workshopped the indicative business case findings with the Waitematā Local Board on 4 April 2023. At their business meeting on 18 April 2023, the local board resolved to agree to staff recommendations [WTM/2023/50]:

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the indicative business case for Tāmaki Pātaka Korero – Auckland Central Library, which found that:

i) the services delivered in the Central Library are valued and used by local and regional communities to deliver social, educational and cultural benefits

v) remodelling the Central Library or building a new facility (options 2, 3 and 4) do not deliver value for money if this is assessed only on a benefit-cost ratio basis. Benefit-cost ratio ranges from 0.25 to 0.48, and costs would need to be reduced by at least 30 per cent to equal benefits

vi) remodelling the Central Library or building a new facility (options 2, 3 and 4) carry high development costs, ranging from $190 million to $228 million, which is likely to be unaffordable in the short term

b) note a methodology of “willingness to pay” is more commonly used in commercial goods and services development than in the provision of public services and which does not attempt to evaluate the value of community cohesion, or access to knowledge and support.

c) whakaae / agree that the development options (options 2, 3, and 4) do not progress to detailed business case as they do not provide value for money on a benefit-cost ratio basis and are likely to be unaffordable in the short term.

d) urge an investigation of the possibility of a new Central Library facility being included in the medium term in a redevelopment of the property on the northern side of the Aotea Square as part of the cultural hub.

e) note that the 2021/2022 Annual Report had a result of 95 per cent customers satisfied with the quality of library service delivery and recommend this is included in the Report.

f) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that in option 1: The status quo, service delivery can continue in the current facility at 44-46 Lorne Street in the short- to medium-term (50 years), however is dependent on required funding and renewal work is carried out

g) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the current facility is not a viable long-term solution to house services currently delivered in the Central Library as it faces facility issues and has a high-risk profile

h) note that a Central Library will probably remain an essential facility and service for Council in the long-term and that the risk of major damage or decay over time necessitating an expensive and possibly non-optimum replacement facility will probably increase over time.

i) note that there is a current projected renewals gap in the 10-year budget (2021-2031) to support status quo and request staff to provide advice to the local board and the governing body on the anticipated renewals programme and the funding required in the next 10-year budget to maintain service delivery for the short to medium term

j) whakaae / agree that the next step is to develop a service plan to:

i) actively manage and plan for central library services to Aucklanders over the next 50 years

iii) appropriately recognise the vital and continuing importance of the Central Library for study, research, access to information, books, recordings and other resources, and as an important welcoming and safe community hub and space for diverse groups including families with children, vulnerable and homeless people.

iv) be included as a priority action in the Community Facility Network Plan Action Plan 2022

k) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that staff will be reporting to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee at its May 2023 meeting.

l) request that the Waitematā Local Board present to the Planning Environment and Parks Committee meeting considering this item and that Member Northey as Community Facilities portfolio holder be part of the deputation.

21. The Local Board’s resolutions are reflected in the recommendations: the value central library services deliver is acknowledged, and a service plan will ensure Auckland Council can plan and manage for continuing delivery in the future. Furthermore, the recommendations acknowledge the gap in renewal funding for the existing facility.

22. Both the Waitematā Local Board and the Governing Body have decision-making responsibility over services delivered in the Central Library. Both will have decision-making responsibility for the proposed service plan, or their respective sections.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

Delivery of fit-for-purpose central library services can help to achieve Māori outcomes

23. Investment in delivering fit-for-purpose library services for Māori communities will help nurture and showcase Auckland’s unique cultural identity, improve social wellbeing, and stimulate participation. It will contribute to following the Māori values set out in the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and to the focus areas listed in the Schedule Issues of Significance 2021- 2025, around Tamariki and Rangatahi development, access to infrastructure services / development, sites of significance, engagement / consultation / inclusion in decision-making, education and distinctive identity.

Six principles were developed to guide the development of the indicative business case

24. Staff invited mana whenua to provide their views and ideas on how best to deliver on investment objective two: ‘Provide services and spaces that reflect Tāmaki Makaurau’s unique Māori identity, preserve the past and celebrate Auckland’s place in the world.’

25. Staff reached out to the Kaitiaki Forum and to Ko te Pau Toitoi Manawa, the forum’s Culture and Identity subgroup. Staff also invited mana whenua to korero. Five iwi participated in four hui and one iwi provided written feedback.

26. Overall, mana whenua see themselves as kaitiaki of both the site and the taonga held within the library. They expressed aspirations for the Central Library of the future to be visible, accessible and welcoming for rangatahi/taiohi and kaumātua alike, uplifting and affirming the mana and history of mana whenua, speaking to its place and its history.

27. Six high-level principles were developed, relating to location, guardianship, visibility, accessibility, cultural sensitivity, network and collaborative partnership. These principles were sent to all 19 iwi for comment. While not all iwi provided feedback, they form a good starting point for the future planning of central library services delivery.

Text

Description automatically generated

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. Continuing to deliver central library services in the current facility (option 1: The status quo) has an estimated annual operating cost of $12.5 million (including utility, maintenance and service costs). These costs are budgeted in the relevant budget planning documents.

29. Renewal costs for the Central Library over the next 18 years are estimated at $34.5 million, only around one third is budgeted in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031. The Waitematā Local Board noted the current renewals gap in the 10-year budget (2021-2031) and request staff to provide advice to the local board and the governing body on the anticipated renewals programme and the funding required in the next 10-year budget to maintain service delivery for the short to medium term.

30. The development of a service plan can be completed within current allocated departmental budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. Continuing to deliver central library services in the current facility (option 1: The status quo) has high risks, as outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Main risks associated with the status quo (option 1)

Risk	Impact	Category	Likeli-hood	Timing
IF the facility is not renewed on time and to standards due to financial constraints THEN the collections (particularly valuable heritage collections) are at risk of degradation and permanent loss.	High	Operational, financial	Likely	Medium to long-term
IF the facility is not renewed on time and to standards due to financial constraints THEN further degradation in the building could lead to increased health and safety risks for staff and customers.	High	Operational, health and safety	Likely	Short to medium-term
IF service delivery continues to be constrained by the current facility and its limitations under the status quo option THEN a growing number of Aucklanders may not have adequate access to suitable central library services and a growing number of city centre residents may not have adequate access to suitable local library services.	High	Strategic, operational	Likely	Medium to long-term
IF service delivery continues to be constrained by the current facility and its limitations under the status quo option THEN a) services may become ever less attractive, which could lead to further declines in visitation b) the cost-to-serve per visit would increase as visitation declines, while the cost of looking after an ageing asset increases. This creates a downward spiral likely to lead to asset decommissioning.	High	Strategic, operational, financial	Highly likely	Medium to long-term

32. To actively manage and respond to the risks, staff recommend developing a service plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next step

As a next step, staff recommend developing a service plan to manage and plan for continued service delivery over the next 50 years

33. Staff recommend that Auckland Council develops a service plan for central library services over the next 50 years. The service plan would include adaptive pathways that investigate different scenarios reflecting likely future changes and uncertainties, with trigger points for intervention. The service plan would address the following key questions.

· What delivery models can support services and programmes being accessible and attractive to Aucklanders? What are the opportunities for partnership?

· What investment is required to safely store Auckland’s valuable collections?

· When to decant the current Central Library building?

34. The service plan would support decision-making to ensure Auckland Council can continue to adapt and deliver valued central library services to Aucklanders, balancing value for money with innovative ways to reach new customers.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Indicative Business Case (full report)
b ⇨	Cost benefit analysis report
c ⇨	Community and mana whenua feedback summary report

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nancy Chu - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

04 May 2023

Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities grants allocation 2022/2023

File No.: CP2023/04012

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve grants to regional community organisations through the 2022/2023 Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities grants programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities grants programme (previously the Regional Community Development grants programme) was developed in accordance with council’s Community Grants policy as adopted at the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting on 4 December 2014 (REG/2014/134).

3. This policy acknowledges that community-led organisations are experts in their respective fields and can mobilise a range of relationships and resources to achieve goals that align with council objectives.

4. The contestable programme has a budget of $295,000 for 2022/2023 and allocates funding through one funding round each year.

5. Sixty-four applications requesting $2,537,922 were received.

6. Informed by an assessment panel, staff recommend approving a total of $295,000 to 13 projects (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the following funding allocations to community organisations for the 2022/2023 Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities grants programme:

Organisation	Activity	Recommended funding allocation
The UMMA Trust	Muslim Refugee Women’s Empowerment Programme	$17,500
The Cause Collective (Do Good Feel Good)	Do Good Feel Good (Young Pacific Changemakers) in South Auckland	$28,500
Clean For A Cause	Taonga	$30,000
Raukatauri Music Therapy Trust	Music therapy services throughout the Tāmaki Makaurau/Auckland region	$17,000
Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Te Ara Hou: Implementing Youthline’s Māori Development Strategy 2023 – 2026	$15,000
Circability Trust	Circability 2023-24	$30,000
Auckland Deaf Society Incorporated	Being Deaf 2: Deaf is our life journey	$10,000
Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation	HELP Auckland ‘Dear Em’ Youth Community Engagement and Mobilisation	$15,000
The Kindness Institute	Atawhai youth development programme	$30,000
Island Base Trust	Youth mentoring Project expansion, engaging Māori & Pacific rangatahi in finding their own voice	$20,000
Aotearoa Resettled Community Coalition	ARCC Capable Communities Project	$30,000
Auckland Refugee Council Inc.	Community Food and Engagement Project	$30,000
Auckland Disability Law Inc	Free legal services for disabled people on their disability related legal issues in Auckland	$22,000
TOTAL RECOMMENDED		$295,000

Horopaki

Context

7. The Community Grants policy sets out the policy framework for local board, multi-board and regional grants programmes.

8. In February 2022, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee adopted the refreshed Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities 2022-2032 strategy (PAC/2022/11). This strategy sets out a vision for a fairer, more sustainable Tāmaki Makaurau where every Aucklander belongs.

9. The purpose of Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities grants programme is to support the implementation of the Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities 2022-2032 strategy by directly supporting community-led projects that have regional impact.

10. In September 2022 the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee approved a focus on the following three objectives from the strategy for the grants programme for 2022-2025 (PAC/2022/86):

· Increase whānau and community financial security so more Aucklanders can live well

· Improve health outcomes so more Aucklanders are happy and healthy

· Grow community and intercultural connection so all Aucklanders feel as though they belong.

11. The contestable fund has a budget of $295,000 for 2022/2023. Sixty-four applications were received, requesting a total of $2,537,922. The number of applications received in this funding round is the highest since 2015.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. Staff formed a shortlist of 38 applications that met all eligibility criteria (legal status, project timeframe, eligible purposes and regional status as outlined in the Community Grants policy) and the objectives for the programme (Attachment A).

13. The applications were then assessed, and recommendations were made based on the following factors:

· Organisational capacity and project attributes (concept, capacity, planning and budgets).

· Alignment with the agreed objectives from Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities 2022-2032 strategy (connections, activities, impacts, supported communities).

Allocation and budget recommendations

14. The assessment panel recommends allocating $295,000 to thirteen projects.

15. The projects recommended strongly fit the criteria and priorities of this fund.

16. Funding the recommended projects will allow the council to:

· continue its relationship with regional community organisations, and

· support projects that align with the council’s goals for Ngā Hapori Momoho | Thriving Communities 2022-2032 strategy.

17. Fifty-one projects are not recommended for funding for the following reasons:

· they do not align as well with the eligibility criteria and objectives for the programme

· they require further development and/or the budgets are not clear

· the applications are more closely aligned with priorities for other council grants funds (e.g. Local Board grants)

· requests for grants far exceed the available funds.

18. This is the only funding round for 2022/2023 and the full budget is proposed to be allocated.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. The specific climate impact activities for each organisation were not assessed as part of their application.

20. One of the recommended applicants works with suppliers to limit food waste as part of their delivery of food boxes to 500 Aucklanders each week and intends to upscale its community garden so that families can gain skills in growing their own food and thereby resilience.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. Several applications are for projects that connect with other areas of council delivery. These include projects being delivered in a council venue, or those that receive council funding for aspects of their work.

22. In these cases, staff have consulted with the relevant bodies that may have an interest in the projects to inform the recommendations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. The regional grants programme complements local board grants programmes that provide grants for local projects.

24. Applications that are more suited to local board grants are referred to the appropriate funding programme. Three ineligible applications have been advised that local board funding may be more appropriate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. This funding supports organisations to deliver outcomes for Māori, aligning to Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, council’s Māori outcomes performance measurement framework, outcome Kia ora te Whānau – which seeks to empower whānau Māori to be resilient, confident, and successful, by increasing the proportion of grants to Māori organisations.

26. The projects recommended to be funded will enable community organisations to champion and tautoko Māori Kaupapa in their practice and build our future Māori rangatahi to embrace and develop their identity as Māori.

27. Three of 13 applications recommended for funding are from Māori organisations, accounting for 27 per cent of the total funding allocated. A fourth will apply funding to its Māori development strategy which seeks to strengthen youth hauora. This is a significant increase from the previous two years in the Regional Community Development fund where no Māori organisations were funded, and only one project delivered strong Māori outcomes.

28. Approved applicants will be expected to report against the delivery of Māori outcomes, including alignment to Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, outcome Kia ora te Whānau.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. Staff recommend allocating the full budget of $295,000 in this funding round.

30. There are no adverse financial implications of the decision being sought.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. There are no significant risks associated with this report.

32. Staffing and other resources required to implement this funding decision in May/June 2023, are available in this financial year.

33. All recipients would be required to produce an accountability report at the end of their project or by June 2024. Staffing resources to monitor progress and accountability will be addressed internally with management, as these may be impacted by budgetary constraints.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. Once funding allocation decisions have been confirmed, funding agreements will be prepared in line with current Auckland Council standard practice.

35. Where grants are awarded that do not meet the full amount requested, appropriate outcomes for the level of funding will be negotiated with the recipients and this will be reflected in the funding agreement.

36. All applicants will be offered the opportunity to discuss their application.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Recommendation Summary 2022/2023

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Catherine George - Regional Funding Advisor

Sarah Houston - Senior Advisor

Authorisers

Mirla Edmundson - General Manager Connected Communities

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

04 May 2023

Regional Arts and Culture grants allocation: Round two 2022/2023

File No.: CP2023/04471

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve grants to regional arts organisations and artists through round two of the Regional Arts and Culture grants programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Regional Arts and Culture grants programme enables organisations, communities and artists to deliver arts and culture projects and activities across Tāmaki Makaurau. Grants delivered through this programme support the implementation of Toi Whītiki, Auckland’s Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan and align to Auckland Council’s Community Grants policy.

3. The contestable programme has a budget of $1,263,676 for 2022/2023. The scheme allocates grants through two funding rounds each year.

4. In the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 financial years, 13 multi-year strategic relationship grants were approved. The commitment for these grants in 2022/2023 is $475,000.

5. Grants totalling $422,546 were approved September 2022 for round one of the programme, leaving $366,130 for distribution in round two.

6. Fifty-eight applications were received requesting a total of $1,042,261.

7. Informed by an external assessment panel, staff recommend approving a total of $366,130 (Attachment A):

i) $172,366 to 13 audience development and programming grants

ii) $133,764 to nine business and capacity project grants

iii) $60,000 to two returning strategic relationship grants.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the following allocations to arts organisations for round two of the Regional Arts and Culture grants programme 2022/2023:

Organisation	Activity	Funding Allocation
Audience development and programming
Te Pou Theatre	2023 Kōanga Festival	$25,000
Objectspace	Māutauranga in Motion: Audio Visuals in Māori Design Exhibition	$10,000
Tala Pasifika Productions Ltd	Pasifika Dance Theatre TAKURUA – Ti’iti Sacred Knowledge	$25,000
Panacea Arts Charitable Trust	Creativity, Disability and Outreach – arts workshops	$15,000
Samuel Holloway	BLOT: a journal for music, sound, and performance in Aotearoa (Tāmaki Makaurau content)	$3,000
New Zealand Choral Federation Inc	Sing Aotearoa 2023 choral festival	$10,000
Indian Ink Theatre Company	'Dirty Work: An Ode to Joy' at Q Theatre	$15,000
NZ Barok Incorporated	NZ Barok Baby Baroque Concerts (July) and Telemania Concerts (Oct)	$7,954
The Massive Company Trust	Half of the Sky Remount and Auckland Season	$10,000
Plumb Productions	Prima Facie – season of work	$16,412
The Massive Company Trust	My Hands are in Soil - Emerging Artist Production 2023	$10,000
The Theatreview Trust	Auckland Theatre Editor	$10,000
MJ O'Reilly Ltd	Ballet Noir – season at Q Theatre	$15,000
Total		$172,366
Business capacity and development
Te Tuhi Contemporary Art Trust	Development of Māori Tikanga for Art Galleries	$10,000
Toi Ora Live Art Trust	Website upgrade	$15,451
Red Leap Theatre Charitable Trust Board	Website redesign	$12,000
ArtNow.NZ	Website upgrade – art walks in Tāmaki Makaurau	$9,950
Connected Media Trust	Brand refresh and website redevelopment	$25,000
Tāmaki Makaurau Aerial Arts	Business coaching	$3,363
The Documentary New Zealand Trust (Doc Edge)	Digital strategy and development	$15,000
Nightsong	Design, develop and trial and audience development tool for touring in Tāmaki Makaurau	$18,000
Friends of St David's Trust KĀHUI RANGI PŪPŪ	Website development and marketing strategy	$25,000
Total		$133,764
Strategic relationship grants
The Pantograph Punch	Publish arts and cultural commentary, podcasts, videos and live events. Train, develop and advance arts leaders and emerging writers (Tāmaki Makaurau content).	$30,000
Show Me Shorts Film Festival	Provide Show me Shorts film festival, schools programmes, practitioner development, workshops	$30,000
Total		$60,000
TOTAL RECOMMENDED		$366,130

Horopaki

Context

8. The Regional Arts and Culture grants programme has been developed in accordance with Auckland Council’s Community Grants Policy as adopted at the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting on 4 December 2014 (REG/2014/134). This policy acknowledges that community-led organisations are experts in their respective fields and can mobilise a range of relationships and resources to achieve goals that align with council objectives.

9. The Regional Arts and Culture grants programme budget is allocated under the following three categories:

· Audience development and programming project grants: These grants support the delivery of a wide range of high-quality arts and cultural experiences that would not otherwise be economically viable. These projects should be capable of attracting audiences from across the Auckland region.

· Business and capacity development project grants: These grants are intended to increase the professionalism and build the sustainability of regional arts and culture organisations through the development of strategic, business and marketing plans; feasibility studies; organisational development and digital/web development activities.

· Strategic relationship grants: These grants are single or multi-year funding relationships with a number of strategic organisations operating at the regional level. These organisations are, or are capable of becoming, the ‘cornerstones’ of a thriving arts and culture sector in Auckland.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. Staff provided guidance to applicants and potential applicants. Staff and an external arts sector assessment panel assessed the applications and made recommendations based on the arts and culture assessment matrix criteria (Attachment B).

11. Staff recommend allocating $172,366 to 13 audience development and programming grants; $133,764 to nine business and capacity project grants, and $60,000 to two returning strategic relationship grants. Twenty-eight applications were not recommended for funding (refer Attachment A), and eight did not meet the funding criteria and were not included in the assessment process.

12. Where recommendations for high scoring grants are less than the amount requested, the recommended grant is based on a level of funding that will ensure the project (or a stage of the project) can go ahead successfully.

Grant Type	Number of applications received	Amount requested	Funding recommended
Audience development and programming project grants	35	$482,033	$172,366
Business and capacity development project grants	15	$495,228	$133,764
Strategic relationship grants	2	$65,000	$60,000
Total		$1,042,261	$366,130

Strategic relationship grants

13. The Community Grants policy provides direction to prioritise multi-year funding relationships with strategic organisations operating at the regional level. The term lengths are staggered to ensure an even and cyclical renewal opportunity for partners and to enable long term predictability of funding and planning. Strategic relationship grants currently range from $20,000 - $65,000 per annum (Attachment C).

14. Staff have recommended funding two returning strategic relationship grants. External assessors recommended the grants be approved for three years. However, due to the uncertainty of the future of the Regional Arts and Council grants programme, staff advise approving funding for one year only.

15. Funding the recommended projects will allow the council to:

· continue its relationship with regional arts organisations

· invest in building capacity and capability so that organisations are better able to deliver their services effectively with long term benefits to the arts sector

· provide arts opportunities to support wellbeing and connectedness; and

· assist in recovery in the arts sector which has been severely impacted by COVID-19.

16. The reasons for not recommending applications for funding fall into the following areas:

· projects do not align sufficiently with the priorities and aims of the Regional Arts and Culture grants programme policy

· applications and projects require further development

· applications more closely aligned with priorities for other council grant funds are referred to these programmes e.g. local board grants

· requests for grants exceed the available funds.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. Many of the recommended projects are developing or delivering online content. This will have a positive impact on climate change due to the reduced need for people to travel to reach these services.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. Several applications are for projects that connect with other areas of council delivery. These include projects taking place in a council venue or receiving council funding for other aspects of their work. In these cases, staff consult relevant bodies that may have an interest in the projects and take this information into account when presenting recommendations for funding.

19. No applications recommended for funding at this meeting have received funding for the same project from other council or CCO funding streams.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. Local boards can refer organisations that have applied for local board funding but are ineligible and would potentially meet the criteria for regional funding. No applications in this funding round were referred from local boards.

21. Applications that are more suited to local board grants are referred to the appropriate funding programme. Three ineligible applications have been advised that local board funding may be more appropriate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. This funding supports both Māori and non-Māori organisations and artists helping to deliver arts and culture outcomes for Māori.

23. All applications were assessed for their delivery of Māori outcomes.

24. In this round, one application recommended for funding is from a Māori organisation (Te Pou Theatre), and six projects will deliver strong Māori outcomes through work led by Māori practitioners for Māori audiences and participants. These align with outcomes in the Auckland Plan (Direction 4: Showcase Auckland’s Māori identity and vibrant Māori culture), Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau (Kia ora te ahurea – Māori identity and culture) and Toi Whītiki Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (Auckland celebrates a unique cultural identity - celebrate Māori).

25. The delivery of Māori outcomes to the Toi Whītiki Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (Auckland celebrates a unique cultural identity - celebrate Māori) is included in the funding agreements for all approved strategic relationship grants.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. Staff recommend allocating $366,130 in this funding round.

27. $475,000 was pre-committed through multiyear strategic relationship grants.

28. Due to the uncertainty of the future of the Regional Arts and Council grants programme, staff advise approving funding for one year only.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. There are no significant risks associated with this report. Ongoing relationship management with applicants and grant acquittal requirements mitigate any risk of misuse of grant funding.

30. Uncertainty of the regional grants budgets in 2023/2024 presents a risk, particularly with strategic relationship grantees who receive multiyear funding. This will be mitigated through clear and early communications with grant applicants to confirm what 2023/2024 budget decisions will mean for this grant programme.

31. Staffing and other resources required to implement this funding decision in May/June 2023 are available in this financial year. All recipients would be required to produce an accountability report at the end of their project or by June 2024.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Once funding allocation decisions have been confirmed, funding agreements will be prepared in line with current Auckland Council standard practice.

33. Where grants are awarded that do not meet the full amount requested, appropriate outcomes for the level of funding will be negotiated with the recipients and this will be reflected in the funding agreement.

34. All applicants will be offered the opportunity to discuss their application.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Assessment summary Round 2 2022/23
b ⇨	Arts and Culture assessment matrix
c ⇨	Regional Arts and Culture strategic relationship grants 2022

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Catherine George - Regional Funding Advisor

Authorisers

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	PC72 - Decision

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Decision on Plan Change 77
b ⇨	Map of Pakuranga Golf Club Zone Change

No.	Title	Page
a	Planning, Environment and Parks Committee - Forward Work Programme (Under Separate Cover)
b	Letter from Minister for the Environment - Extension of time request: for Auckland Council to publicly notify decisions on the Independent Hearings Panel’s recommendations on the Council’s intensification planning instrument, 6 April 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
c	Memorandum - PC 83: Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule – Partial withdrawal under clause 8D, Schedule 1 of the RMA, 14 April 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
d	Information - Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification - Memorandum to the Independent Hearings Panel (Under Separate Cover)

[1] Clause 25, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[2] Clause 21, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[3] Part 1 Schedule 1 applies, as modified by clause 29 Part 2 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[4] Part 2 Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.

[5] AUPIHP – Report to AC-RUB rezoning and precincts 2016-07-22 – 2.4.5

[6] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392 (HC)

[7] Clause 27, Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.

[8] Market Economics, based on Medium AC March 2023 based population projection, difference of 198,100 Households between 2023 (575,100) and 2053 (773,200).

[9] Based on the current Auckland Unitary Plan enabled dwelling capacity, that includes proposed PC78 enabled residential capacity (MDRS and NPS UD with all Qualifying Matters applied). This does not include the ALR Corridor, which will be subject to future variations. This is made up of 1,909,800 in residential zones and 435,700 in business zones.

[10] Sufficiency is defined by the NPSUD to be capacity that is plan enabled, infrastructure ready, feasible and expected to be realised, that meets the expected demand, plus a competitive margin

[11]Market Economics, Medium projection, measured as Modified Employment Count (MEC), which accounts for sole trader and self-employment undercount issues in the official SNZ Employment Count (EC) statistics. EC equivalents are 809,000 for 2023, and 1,057,300 for 2053.

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
6/4/2023	Letter from Minister for the Environment - Extension of time request: for Auckland Council to publicly notify decisions on the Independent Hearings Panel’s recommendations on the Council’s intensification planning instrument
14/4/2023	Memorandum - PC 83: Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule – Partial withdrawal under clause 8D, Schedule 1 of the RMA
21/4/23	Information - Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification - Memorandum to the Independent Hearings Panel

Date	Subject
5/4/2023	Future Development Strategy, Confidential, no attachment

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