Agenda of Rodney Local Board - Wednesday, 16 August 2023

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Retrospective landowner approval for seawall structure and boat ramp within Point Wells Esplanade Reserve, outside 252 Point Wells Road

File No.: CP2023/10956

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the retrospective landowner approval application from the owners for 252 Point Wells Road for a private seawall structure and boat ramp within the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The council has received a landowner approval application from the owners of 252 Point Wells Road to retrospectively approve a seawall structure and boat ramp located within the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve.

3. Three seawall structures have been built within Point Wells Foreshore Reserve without receiving landowner approval for the private structures under the Reserves Act 1977 or resource consent.

4. In 2021 Auckland Council’s compliance team issued abatement notices to the owners of the property for the non-consented seawall.

5. The applicant has appealed to the Environment Court to set the notice aside, and the notice has been stayed pending the outcome of the subsequent resource consent application.

6. The council owned parcel, Lot 2 DP 162394 is a classified as Local Purpose (esplanade) Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

7. To approve the grant of an easement for private structures on an esplanade reserve, the council, as administering body of the reserve, must find the private structures consistent with; the Reserves Act’s 1977 purpose, the functions of the administering body, local purpose reserve general criteria, purposes for which of local purpose esplanade reserves are held, and section 48 easements criteria. The Minister’s consent must also be sought and granted.

8. The application does not align with relevant policies in the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan (RLPMP), a statutory plan made under the Reserves Act 1977 for the reserves within it. The RLPMP sets out the general and specific policies for the management of the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve, as recently adopted in July 2023 by the Rodney Local Board.

9. Should the local board support a decision under the Reserves Act 1977 to approve the application under either option 2 or 3 in this report, then iwi consultation, and public notification if the reserve was considered likely to be permanently damaged or materially altered, would be required prior to a decision being made under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977.

10. Specialist council staff have assessed the application and are not supportive of the application for the reasoning set out in this report. Staff recommend that the wall is removed and coastal planting is undertaken.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakahē / decline the landowner approval application from the owners of the 252 Point Wells Road for the existing seawall located within the esplanade reserve at Lot 2 DP 162394.

b) whakaae / approve access to Lot 2 DP 162394 so that the removal of the seawall can be undertaken.

c) whakaae / approve an easement for the existing boat ramp within the esplanade reserve at Lot 2 DP 162394.

Horopaki

Context

11. The council has received a landowner approval application from the owners of 252 Point Wells Road to retrospectively approve a private seawall structure and boat ramp located within the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve held by the council as a local purpose (esplanade) reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act).

Background

12. Three seawall structures were built within Point Wells Foreshore Reserve without receiving landowner approval or resource consent, as shown in figure 2. These are located in front of 252, 284 and 250A and B Point Wells Road. The owners of 252 and 284 Point Wells Road have applied for landowner approval and resource consent for the seawalls and boat ramp. The owners of 250A and B have applied for resource consent but not landowner approval.

13. In 2021 Auckland Council’s compliance team issued abatement notices to the owners of the above properties in relation to unlawful construction of coastal structures.

14. The owners of 284 Point Wells Road appealed to the Environment Court to set the notice aside, and the notice has been stayed pending the outcome of the resource consent process.

15. Another property, 288 Point Wells Road, had also undertaken unconsented earthworks within the reserve.

Figure 1: Approximate location of seawall structures within Whangateau Harbour - aerial view

Figure 2: Approximate location of seawall structures within Whangateau Harbour - aerial view

Current proposal/application

16. The owner of 252 Point Wells Road has applied for retrospective Landowner Approval (LOA) for an existing rock seawall structure, and a 4m wide 15m long boat ramp constructed along the seaward edge of the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve (LOT 2 DP 162394).

17. As part of the application the applicant proposes to remove the existing rock groyne extending from the northern end of the esplanade reserve across the foreshore.

18. The coastal structures were constructed in 2014, and the boat launching ramp was resurfaced in 2017. Neither of these activities were undertaken with the required Auckland Council landowner approval under the Reserve Act 1977 (the Act) or resource consents.

19. The seawall structure is a stacked rock structure that extends for approximately 100m along the esplanade reserve edge in a curvilinear alignment. The structure’s height (above the foreshore) ranges from 400-900mm and the applicant has stated that the rock was stacked against existing substrate with geotextile cloth placed behind it.

20. Largely smooth and spherical basalt rock of 500-900mm in diameter of either one or two tiers of stones has been used along the face of the structure. It appears that the rock has been placed directly onto the foreshore and that there is no toe detail to the structure (i.e. a continuation of the structure below the current beach level to allow for changes in the beach profile and provide structural stability or the ‘keying in’ of the structure to underlying bedrock). Smaller sized rock has been placed amongst the seawall crest rock.

21. Shell material has been deposited on the immediately adjacent esplanade reserve as landscaping. Some planting has been undertaken behind the crest of the seawall structure (as shown in figure 4 and 5).

22. Further planting is proposed by the applicant for a 2-3m width behind the seawall structure as part of the landowner approval as shown in figure 6 and Attachment A. The planting proposed would re-introduce a native sequence of salt tolerant vegetation, interplanted with Pōhutukawa. This landscaping would retain a clear greenway landward of the planted margin, inside the reserve but outside the private property boundary.

23. The applicant’s consultant provided assessment of different alternative options including:

a) removal of the structure and coastal planting. The consultant believes this will reduce amenity and any ‘species planted seaward of the structure are considered highly unlikely to be able to survive, and planting is only proposed landward of this’. The council’s coastal specialist disagrees with this response as ‘such coastal edge vegetation as a natural defence would be expected to ‘roll back’ over time with future sea-level rise in an environment unconfined by the presence of a hard protection structure’. The 1982 aerial (Figure 8) ‘shows a coastal edge that was previously characterised by vegetation’.

b) alternative seawall types such as a timber pole and rail wall or a grouted rock masonry wall. It was considered that ‘the issues associated with additional disturbance of the foreshore for removal of the existing structure and placement of a new structure is considered to outweigh the negligible benefits of an alternative seawall type’.

Figure 3: Seawall structure location at 252 Point Wells Road

Figure 4 and 5: Seawall structure at 252 Point Wells Road

A group of rocks in a row

Description automatically generated

Figure 6: Plan showing proposed planting at 252 Point Wells Road and location of boat ramp to be retained and groyne to be removed

Figure 7: Cross-section plan of the wall

Figure 8: 1982 Historical aerial image with delineated coastline

Overview of the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve

24. The location of the seawall structure is within Point Wells Foreshore Reserve. The seawall structure has been placed along part of the seaward boundary of Lot 2 DP 162394. Lot 2 is classified as Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve subject to the Act.

25. Point Wells Foreshore is located on the eastern coast of Point Wells. Access along the entire Point Wells Foreshore reserve is not continuous (as shown in figure 9) and is only possible from the beach/seaward side at low tide.

26. The reserve is zoned as Open Space - Conservation Zone under the Auckland Unitary Plan.

27. A portion of the esplanade along the foreshore is also known as Waimanu Reserve.

28. The Whangateau Harbour is a Significant Ecological Area (Marine 2) as it provides a sequence of ecosystems and provide foraging habitat for shorebirds.

29. A greenway is proposed for Point Wells Foreshore within the Puhoi to Pakiri Local Paths (Greenways) Plan 2017.

Figure 9: Screenshot of Point Wells Foreshore Reserve taken from the Rodney Local Board Local Park Management Plan

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Impact of seawall structures on the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve

30. The area is already highly modified, with existing coastal protection structures located within the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve, these include a number of unlawful encroachments. Seawall structures adjacent to the properties either side of 252 Point Wells Road were also constructed without approval on the reserve. There is also a seawall protecting council assets around the northeast coast of Point Wells. This is an aging structure that is to be renewed, with consideration given to alternative edge treatment options.

31. The location of the seawall structure at the seaward edge of the reserve, the private boat ramp, and landscaping means it is not obvious to the passing public that this is public land. The current landscaping and maintenance by the applicant give an appearance of a continuation of private land. This is a common effect of encroachments from neighbouring properties onto public land.

32. The presence of the structures has fragmented and reduced the extent of indigenous ecosystem and habitats of indigenous species along this Point Wells shoreline.

33. There is potential for ongoing ‘coastal squeeze’ of the intertidal habitat against the hard protection structure.

34. Prior to human disturbance and modification, the coastal edge would have been characterised by native saltmarsh vegetation transitioning to terrestrial vegetation. Such vegetation would have provided a natural defense to coastal processes. The applicant’s coastal specialist has said that ‘it is not practicable to establish vegetation on an eroding coast, due to continual loss of these species’. The council’s coastal specialist does not agree with this assessment on the basis that the ‘coastal edge vegetation as a natural defence would be expected to ‘roll back’ over time with future sea-level rise in an environment unconfined by the presence of a hard protection structure’.

35. The coastal specialist has recommended the removal of the wall and coastal edge planting which would help return the area to a naturalised state. In addition, there is no explicit reason to establish a rock wall on this part of the coast, although the planting proposed will be protected by the wall.

36. The Parks and Places Specialist has suggested that, if the application were approved, a better configuration for the proposed planting would be to split the planting between the coastal edge (to include rushes and shrub species) and the property boundary (Pōhutukawa interplanted and underplanted with shrub species), leaving a ‘recreational/access’ strip of 3-4m wide through the middle of the reserve land. This would better define the reserve land. The coastal specialist has recommended if the application were approved that the proposed trees are moved outside the coastal hazard area. The planting of Pōhutukawa is not recommend within the coastal hazard zone.

Effectiveness of the seawall structure

Seawall Engineering Issues

37. An Auckland Council coastal engineer has assessed the structure based on site observation. They have advised the rock structure is not built to an apparent coastal engineering design standard and subsequently the stability, structural integrity and performance of the structure in mitigating coastal hazards cannot be assured.

38. The issues identified with the design include:

· the large size of the rocks creates large voids between stones exposing the layers behind resulting in rock or soil spilling out onto the foreshore through the voids, as is evident in Figure 10 below

· a seawall should be constructed with angular rocks, instead of rounded or spherical rocks as these are prone to roll out of position and it is difficult to place them in layers. There is evidence of some rock already having rolled out of place at the southern end of No 252

· seawall should be constructed with a double layer of armour rock as this will allow stones to settle and move before repairs are needed

· a seawall should be keyed into the bedrock by excavating a shallow trench that keeps the rock in place, the rock face of the existing wall is placed on the bedrock which means it is less stable, and may topple over, especially because of the rock shape

· under-scour is possible at greater levels when the wall is not keyed correctly

· there is a lack of geotextile cloth between the rock and the reserve edge bank which will result in scour and wash out of fines from the backshore, particularly during overtopping events.

Figure 10: Photo showing the wall at 252 Point Wells Road

Coastal Erosion

39. The seawall structure was apparently constructed by the applicants in an attempt to slow the rate of erosion onsite and protect the physical integrity of the applicant’s property.

40. The coastal specialist team has found that the applicant has not demonstrated, and there is no evidence to conclude, that there are any significant rates of coastal erosion occurring along this section of the Point Wells coastline to justify the existing structure or its presence on the council’s land.

41. Auckland Council’s current, best available regional coastal erosion and land instability information is reflected in the Technical Report ‘Areas Susceptible to Coastal Erosion and Instability in the Auckland Region’ (Auckland Council, 2021). This study identifies that the coastal margin of the esplanade reserve is susceptible to coastal erosion and instability over the next 100 years as shown in Figure 10 (source: Auckland Council GeoMaps). However, it should be noted that this information is of a regional scale, providing a baseline indication of the coast’s susceptibility to beach and cliff erosion based on overarching parameters. As such, results may be superseded by site-specific coastal hazard assessments that can be undertaken at a more detailed scale.

42. Coastal erosion at this location is anticipated to be significantly slow. Based on the Area Susceptible to Coastal Instability and Erosion (ASCIE) mapping, the existing dwelling located on 252 Point Wells Road would not be impacted by coastal erosion for at least the next 100 years with a significant land width buffer remaining, as shown by the green line in Figure 10, which shows the combined effect of coastal erosion and resulting land instability.

43. A more detailed assessment was undertaken by Davis Coastal Consultants on behalf of the applicants, their report ‘indicates that if the coastline was unprotected, a 2-3m width of dry reserve would remain at the end of the 100-year timeframe’ as shown in Figure 12. The assessment identifies that long term coastal erosion at this site has been at a slower rate than as mapped in the Auckland Council ‘Areas Susceptible to Coastal Erosion and Instability’ mapping.

44. The applicant has supplied photos of site taken during storms (attachment B).

45. The coastal specialist analysis anticipates ‘some erosion of the esplanade reserve over the next 100 years. However, the subject site is sheltered and only exposed to low, significantly depth restricted waves for a short period over present day high tides’. Therefore, the rate of such coastal erosion is anticipated to be significantly slow.

46. In preparation for this report the applicant was asked for further information in support of their application. This further information was in relation to engineering plans of the seawall structure, rates of erosion on the shoreline and the rationale for the hard protection structure. Having assessed this further information, the council’s coastal specialists found that this new information did not change the conclusions in their advice.

Figure 11: Aerial map showing the ASCIE mapping at 252 Point Wells Road

Figure 12: Aerial map showing the 100 year erosion line as mapped by Davis Coastal Consultants

Coastal Inundation

47. The council’s best available information in relation to extreme sea levels is reflected in Auckland Council’s technical report ‘Coastal Inundation by Storm Tides and Waves in the Auckland Region’ (Auckland Council, 2020).

48. The associated coastal inundation extents are shown on Geomaps (Figure 13). This confirms that due to the site’s topography, coastal inundation is a significant hazard to the esplanade reserve and the applicant’s property at 252 Point Wells Road.

49. With sea-level rise, the seawall structure will be increasingly overtopped and the adjacent land subject to an increasing frequency and magnitude of coastal inundation events over time. The existing structure will not address this hazard.

Figure 13: Auckland Council Geo-Maps showing coastal inundation levels A picture containing text, map, screenshot, aqua

Description automatically generated

Assessment of the boat ramp

50. The coastal specialist has not raised any concerns with the retention of the boat ramp. The boat ramp could provide access to the reserve and would not inhibit any restoration planting.

51. The removal of the ramp would require excavation and cause more disturbance to the coastal marine area.

Statutory Context: Easements under the Reserves Act 1977

52. Where an application is supported by the council and the relevant tests found in the Act are met, the private use of an esplanade reserve for a seawall may be permissible by the grant of a lease under section 61 or an easement under section 48. As a lease would not be an appropriate legal mechanism to capture the ongoing obligations in the circumstances, this report therefore considers the relevant statutory decision-making criteria in relation to the grant of an easement under section 48 of the Act.

53. A lease cannot secure the necessary ongoing obligations for the private structures against future owners of 284 Point Wells if it was on sold. Lease terms and conditions could be further secured by an encumbrance incorporating these as obligations against the title of 284 Point Wells Road. However, the added cost and administration of both a lease and encumbrance cannot be justified where an easement would achieve the same result.

54. The Act places a restrictive approach to approving the private use of reserves. The relevant statutory decision-making criteria for applications for private structures on esplanade reserves is set out below.

55. Subject to the council in its role as administering body of the reserve supporting the private structures on the reserve, and the grant meeting the relevant statutory criteria, an easement may be granted.

56. If a decision to grant an easement is to be progressed this will require consultation with iwi. The Act is one of the Acts in the First Schedule to the Conservation Act 1987. Section 4 of the Conservation Act contains an obligation to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti. This obligation applies to all the Acts in the First Schedule including the Reserves Act 1977. As such, in performing functions and duties under the Act, the council must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti, which include informed decision making. An administering body must consult with and have regard to the views of iwi before making decisions about reserves for which it administers.

57. Further, public consultation is required under section 48(2) of the Act as a default position in relation to the granting of easements, but section 48(3) provides for an exemption of the requirement to publicly notify if both ‘tests’ are met. If the local board consider the following tests met, public notification is not required in order to consider granting easements:

a) the reserve is vested in an administering body and is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and

b) the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected.

58. To approve the grant of an easement (section 48) for a seawall structure and boat ramp on an esplanade reserve, the Act’s provisions require the council to find the proposals consistent with:

· Section 3 the Act’s purpose

· Section 40 functions of the administering body

· Section 23 local purpose reserve general criteria

· Purposes for which of local purpose esplanade reserves are held

· Section 48 easements

· any relevant policies in the operative reserve management plan.

59. In addition, the Minister of Conservation’s consent is required.

Statutory Framework

60. The following sections set out the relevant statutory framework for the local board’s decision-making considerations for this application.

The Act’s Purpose

61. Section 3(1) of the Act provides the general purposes of the Act are for:

a) providing, for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand possessing

i) recreational use or potential, whether active or passive

ii) wildlife

iii) indigenous flora or fauna

iv) environmental and landscape amenity or interest

v) natural, scenic, historic, cultural, archaeological, biological, geological, scientific, educational, community, or other special features or value.

b) ensuring, as far as possible, the survival of all indigenous species of flora and fauna, both rare and commonplace, in their natural communities and habitats, and the preservation of representative samples of all classes of natural ecosystems and landscape which in the aggregate originally gave New Zealand its own recognisable character

c) ensuring, as far as possible, the preservation of access for the public to and along the sea coast, its bays and inlets and offshore islands, lakeshores, and riverbanks, and fostering and promoting the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and of the margins of lakes and rivers and the protection of them from unnecessary subdivision and development.

Functions of the administering body

62. Section 40 sets out the administering body’s powers under the Act;

The administering body shall be charged with the duty of administering, managing, and controlling the reserve under its control and management in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this Act and in terms of its appointment and the means at its disposal, so as to ensure the use, enjoyment, development, maintenance, protection, and preservation, as the case may require, of the reserve for the purpose for which it is classified.

Section 23 local purpose reserve general criteria

63. Section 23 of the Act sets out general criteria for administering every local purpose reserve. The relevant excerpt applicable to this application is:

23(2) It is hereby further declared that, having regard to the specific local purpose for which the reserve has been classified, every local purpose reserve shall be so administered and maintained under the appropriate provisions of this Act that

a) where scenic, historic, archaeological, biological, or natural features are present on the reserve, those features shall be managed and protected to the extent compatible with the principal or primary purpose of the reserve.

Purposes of local purpose esplanade reserves

64. While the Act sets out the purposes for which reserves are classified, in the case of local purpose (esplanade) reserves, the specific purpose is set out in section 229 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The purposes vary as the RMA contemplates not all esplanade reserves will be held for one purpose:

229 RMA Purposes of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips:

An esplanade reserve or an esplanade strip has 1 or more of the following purposes:

a) to contribute to the protection of conservation values by, in particular,

i) maintaining or enhancing the natural functioning of the adjacent sea, river, or lake

ii) maintaining or enhancing water quality

iii) maintaining or enhancing aquatic habitats

iv) protecting the natural values associated with the esplanade reserve or esplanade strip

v) mitigating natural hazards.

b) to enable public access to or along any sea, river, or lake

c) to enable public recreational use of the esplanade reserve or esplanade strip and adjacent sea, river, or lake, where the use is compatible with conservation values.

Decision Making Criteria

Section 40 Administering Body Functions

65. To grant an easement for private structures over an esplanade reserve, the council must consider the grant in accordance with the exercising its administering body functions under section 40 of the Act, in ensuring the use, enjoyment, development, maintenance, protection, and preservation, as the case may require, of the reserve for the esplanade purpose, and in addition consistent with Act’s purposes found in section 3 and in compliance with the local purpose esplanade reserve requirements found in section 23, and section 229 of the RMA purposes of esplanade reserves and section 48 easements.

Section 3 Purposes of the Act

66. The purposes in an Act inform the interpretation of the relevant sections of an Act for decision makers. Relevantly, section 3 sets out that the purpose of the Act is for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public of reserves for a number of purposes. Of those, given the modified environment, the purposes relevant to the Point Wells Foreshore reserve for preservation and management seem to be for recreational use or potential, landscape amenity, and natural values. This also includes ensuring, as far as possible, the preservation of access for the public to and along the sea coast and fostering and promoting the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and the protection of them from unnecessary development.

67. The assessment of the structures in this report is that they have resulted in the loss of the natural character of the coastal environment. Further the applicant’s unauthorised modification of the reserve could be viewed as unnecessary development. These impacts would not be considered consistent with the s3 purposes.

Section 23 Local Purpose Reserves

68. Section 23 of the Act requires that every local purpose reserve shall be so administered and maintained where scenic, historic, archaeological, biological, or natural features are present on the reserve, those features shall be managed and protected to the extent compatible with the principal or primary purpose of the reserve. In this case the relevant requirements of maintaining the biological and natural features are highly compatible with the management of a coastal esplanade reserve. On that basis, if the local board were minded to grant private rights over an esplanade reserve it should considered them compatible with the requirement to manage and protect the reserve’s biological and natural features.

Section 229 RMA purposes of esplanade reserves

69. For the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve, the primary esplanade purposes (as per section 229 of the RMA set out above in paragraph 59) given its current state may be considered to be primarily protection of the conservation values, including protecting the natural values associated with the esplanade reserve, or mitigating natural hazards, and to a lesser extent public access, and public recreational use. On this basis, the primary purpose of the Point Wells Foreshore reserve under the Act appears to include protecting the natural values associated with a coastal esplanade reserve, public access and public recreational use.

70. The applicant’s structures might be seen to interfere with the public’s enjoyment of the reserve. A competing consideration under reserves purposes found in section 229 RMA is that the reserve behind the hard structures may benefit from a slowing of the coastal erosion processes in the Whangateau Harbour.

Section 48 Easements

71. Section 48 of the Act, provides an exception to the requirement that the administering body exercise its powers for the management and control of the reserve only for the purpose of its classification. Section 48(1)(f) of the Act provides that easements may be granted to provide access to any other land not forming part of the reserve, or for any other purpose connected with any such land. When exercising the discretion to grant an easement, the council must consider whether the proposal is consistent with the functions and purposes of the Act, the reserves classification and purposes for which the reserve is held, as set out above.

Reserve Management Plan

72. Point Wells Foreshore Reserve is managed in accordance with the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan (RLPMP), which for the reserves within it, is a statutory plan created under the Act. The RLPMP was adopted in July 2023 and guides the local board’s decision making for use, management and development of the reserves within it.

73. Policy 7 of Section 11.3 states that ‘the development of erosion control structures on parks for private benefit of adjacent landowners will not be approved except where:

a) they cannot reasonably be located elsewhere (including locations where negative impacts to the park are less)

b) an easement or where appropriate an encumbrance is registered against the title of the relevant landowner to ensure costs and responsibilities associated

with the structure lie with that landowner or as otherwise agreed with the

council; and they meet the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 for park land held under that Act.’

74. Section 11.5 of the RLPMP ‘Encroachments’ objective 1 proposes ‘to keep parks free from encroachments’.

75. Section 11.3 of the RLPMP ‘Climate change and natural hazards’, objective 4 is to avoid the provision of erosion control structures on public land for private benefit.

76. Policy 2 of Section 11.3 ‘Management of natural hazards on parks should consider:

a) options to minimise interference to natural processes and natural resources

b) assessment of the risks to people, parkland and park infrastructure and park

values, including historic and cultural heritage, recreational and community

values.

77. In the RLPMP, the pages relating to Point Wells Foreshore Reserve note that the reserve is vulnerable to coastal inundation and erosion during storms.

78. It is also noted within the RLPMP that community groups, such as the Point Wells Resident and Ratepayers Association are helping to restore and protect environmental/natural features through activities such as planting and by controlling weeds and pests.

Public notification and iwi engagement

79. Should the local board wish to progress decision making for the grant of an easement, iwi consultation is a requirement to inform the local board’s further decision making.

80. Public notification would not be required under section 48(2) of the Act as the structures on the reserve have not materially altered or permanently damaged the reserve and the rights of the public are not likely to be permanently affected:

· the public’s rights in respect of the reserves are unchanged as a result of the easement. They will still have the opportunity to access the reserve

· the easement will not change the look or use of the reserve ‘in a significant way’ or ‘considerably’

· the easement is not permeant as the seawall could be removed.

81. The local board indicated a preference to publicly notify the LOA proposal, to the resource consent planner at a workshop on 1 March 2023.

82. In a landowner approval context, staff do not consider there is a statutory obligation to notify the application, however under the Local Government Act 2002 the council must consider whether any of its decision making may require further benefit from public consultation.

83. Staff do not consider that consultation is required for this proposal as the seawall:

· is located on an isolated portion of coastline not easily accessible to the public

· has been in place for over ten years

· can still be accessed by the public although this is not always visibly or physically obvious.

84. Previous seawall landowner approval applications have not been consulted with the public and the resource consent is not recommending public notification.

85. If the local board did wish to undertake some public consultation it would be arranged and managed through Democracy and Engagement.

86. The local board may then appoint a sub-committee (also known as a hearings panel) to consider the submissions and any objections received, following the public notification, and to provide recommendations on a decision, or be delegated the power to make the decision.

Options

Option 1: Decline and remove the seawall structure (recommended)

87. This option would involve complete removal of the seawall structure.

88. Given the structure’s design, it is considered that complete removal would be relatively straight forward. With rock sitting directly on top the foreshore, it could be lifted and removed from site, and any remaining geotextile cloth/polythene removed from the edge. The applicant for 284 Point Wells Road has also provided methodology for the removal of the groyne, and council specialists have noted that if that methodology is followed, no environment impact will be found.

89. Following removal, the remaining esplanade reserve edge could be reshaped to an appropriate angle, and a coastal edge planting plan developed and implemented.

90. Ongoing maintenance of the planting will be required to be undertaken by the applicant until properly established.

91. This option is supported by staff as:

· the seawall structure is not of a properly engineered design standard, with staff having concerns regarding its ongoing structural integrity and performance

· restoring the coastal edge to a more pre-development or naturalised state would enhance natural character, landscape, and ecological values of the site

· the risk of removing the existing structure causing significant increased rate of coastal erosion is low because of the relatively low energy environment.

Option 2: Provide land owner approval

92. This option would involve leaving the existing structures in place, with no modification to the structures.

93. Ongoing maintenance of structures will have to be undertaken by the applicant and secured by an easement.

94. The seawall structure will provide protection over the long term to the reserve extent and the plantings behind the hard structure.

95. This option is not supported by staff as:

· it has not been demonstrated that the adjoining land and development is at significant risk from a coastal hazard

· the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed structure is the most appropriate method for mitigating the coastal hazard

· the proposed (existing) wall has been built to lower than normal standards which will require periodic maintenance by the owners. If maintenance does not occur, there is a risk that rock and material contained in the structure may become dislodged over time and dispersed across the foreshore. This could also lead to reduced structural integrity and scour of the reserve edge particularly where un-vegetated

· the seawall structure will not address coastal inundation which is the greater long-term risk of hazard to the site compared to coastal erosion.

Option 3: Seawall modification and enhanced planting

96. A hybrid of options 1 and 2 could be considered, involving partial removal of the seawall structure and development of a coastal edge plating programme.

97. Some of the seawall’s crest rock could be removed. A planting plan for the remaining exposed coastal edge could then be implemented by the applicant, and the voids and gaps filled to reduce scour and backwash.

98. This would result in a reduced scale of hard engineering, and in some improved natural character, landscape, and ecological values. Natural defences to coastal hazards would also be enhanced. The remaining seawall structure may provide some protection over the long term to the reserve extent and the plantings behind the hard structure.

99. Some minor ongoing maintenance of the remaining rock seawall would still be required and formalised.

100. Ongoing maintenance of structures will be undertaken by the applicant and secured by an easement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

101. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

102. The proposed seawall structure will provide some mitigation to the climate change impacts caused by coastal erosion as detailed in paragraphs 39 to 46. As noted, the risk of erosion in this coastal area is currently limited. The Technical Report ‘Areas Susceptible to Coastal Erosion and Instability in the Auckland Region’ (ASCIE), (Auckland Council, 2021) identifies that the coastal margin of this esplanade reserve is susceptible to coastal erosion and instability over the next 100 years.

103. However, the more significant risk in the area is of coastal inundation. The staff assessment is given the limitations of the seawall structure that it will not adequately provide mitigation from coastal inundation to the esplanade reserve or the applicants property as detailed in paragraphs 47 to 49.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

104. As detailed in the analysis section, the proposed seawall structure is not supported by the coastal specialists within the Resilient Coasts and Land team because:

· the applicant has not demonstrated that there are significant rates of coastal erosion occurring along this area of the Point Wells coastline

· the seawall structure will not address coastal inundation which is the greater long-term hazard and risk to the site compared to coastal erosion

· erosion protection could be achieved through restoration planting along this coastal edge

· the wall has not been built to the same standards as a wall built by council would have been

· the council would not have built a seawall in this location to protect the esplanade reserve or implemented a hard engineering response to the low coastal erosion risk in this location.

105. The council’s Area Operations Manager and Facilities Manager have supported the coastal specialists’ recommendation to remove the hard structures associated with the seawall structure and have the area reinstated back to its original condition with additional planting to improve the sensitive coastal area.

106. The council’s Parks and Places Specialist also supports the coastal specialist’s recommendation to remove the seawall structure, with restoration of the coastal edge and planting. The Parks and Places Specialist has indicated that there are no plans or funding to progress a greenway connection at this time but may become a priority in a decade or so as population grows.

107. The Parks and Places Specialist has said that a land-based connection would be preferable for the proposed greenway in the Puhoi to Pakiri Local Paths (Greenways) connection however the connection could still be provided using boardwalks or a track through the reserve in the future.

108. The applicant has a resource consent application lodged with the council’s resource consents department. The resource consent has not been approved at this stage but the planner has recommended that 252 Point Wells Road be limited notified with the council the only affected party. For the purposes of a notification decision, the planner considered that the effects of the wall were ‘less than minor’ and noted that there ‘does not appear to be a demonstratable erosion need for the seawall, given the low energy environment’.

109. Given the seawall structure is not of a properly engineered design standard, with concerns regarding its ongoing structural integrity and performance, it is not appropriate for the structure to be located on council owned land. On balance, the boat ramp is not having any significantly adverse effects on the environment. This structure may also provide for public access from the foreshore.

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

Local impacts and local board views

110. The application partially aligns with the Rodney Local Board Plan Outcome 2: Our natural environment is healthy and protected. The wall does provide some limited and localized coastal protection but this could be achieved by other means such as coastal planting which would return the environment to a more naturalised state.

111. A workshop was held with the Rodney Local Board on 1 March 2023, where the board indicated:

· they would like public notification

· the community want public access along the coast and want the isolated reserves to be joined up

· there was concern about what would happen if the walls were removed, especially after the recent storms

· concerns about the ‘privatising’ of the reserves (encroachment of public land)

· concerns that the walls may set a precedent if they are approved and may encourage other properties to construct walls without permission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

112. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are outlined in the council’s key strategic planning documents; the Auckland Plan, the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, and local board plans.

113. The applicant has undertaken mana whenua engagement as part of the resource consenting process and has received a letter of support from the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust.

114. If this application were to progress, iwi consultation will be required to inform decision-making as part of giving effect to the principles of Te Tiriti. This is connected closely to the principles of good faith and active protection. Treaty obligations are overarching and not something to be considered or applied after all other matters are considered. The Treaty principles require active protection of Māori interests. Full information would be provided in consultation in order to enable iwi to contribute to this decision-making process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

115. If the seawall structure is approved, ongoing maintenance of the asset will be covered by the applicant and formalised by an easement. The cost of formalising will be borne by the applicant.

116. If the application for the seawall structure is declined, the applicant will be responsible for the removal of the wall and any reinstatement and planting to naturalise the site.

117. Staff have obtained support from Financial, Strategy and Planning. No concerns were raised regarding the financial implications for the proposed landowner approval.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

118. Should the local board resolve not to approve the landowner approval, the wall will be required to be removed. It is considered that the long-term erosion effects can be reduced by coastal planting.

119. The applicant has identified that parts of the advice received from the council’s coastal specialists as part of the landowner approval process were inconsistent with coastal specialist advice within the resource consent department. In order to address these concerns, as a parallel resource consent process is being considered by the council’s regulatory arm, the aspects of coastal specialist’s analysis of the RMA considerations in their reporting has been excluded from consideration in this application and advice. This application and advice is considered entirely within the statutory decision making framework of the Act.

120. There is a risk that piecemeal ad-hoc decision making to allow (or not allow) seawalls may create precedent and encourage other seawall applications in Point Wells and the greater Rodney Local Board area along with an expectation they will be approved. This may establish applicant reliance on past decisions which may undermine the council’s strategy.

121. All landowner approval applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis and will be guided by the Whangateau Shoreline Adaptation Plan and specialist advice. It will be particularly important for decision making to be informed by reliable expert specialist advice so that any individual decisions that may be made in the future can stand on their own.

122. If this proposal were to formally be approved after iwi consultation, and potentially public notification, an easement is then prepared and registered against the council’s and applicant’s property title. Registration ensures the ongoing obligations including repair, maintenance, and removal at end of life, are adequately captured and the costs lie with the private owner of the structures and not the ratepayer. It is an important condition where private use of a reserve is granted that the applicant is required to pay the council’s reasonable costs associated with the easement preparation and registration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

123. If the Rodney Local Board wishes to progress decision making for the grant of an easement for the private structures on the reserve, iwi consultation is required, and public notification can be undertaken. The local board may then appoint a sub-committee (also known as a hearings panel) to consider the submissions and any objections received, following the public notification, and to provide recommendations on a decision, or be delegated the power to make the decision.

124. If Rodney Local Board declines the landowner approval, staff will work with the applicant to organise the removal of the wall and any remediation and planting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed landscaping plans	31
b ⇩	Applicant photos of storms	35

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Glenn Riddell - Senior Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Retrospective landowner approval for a seawall structure within Point Wells Esplanade Reserve adjacent to 284 Point Wells Road

File No.: CP2023/10960

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the retrospective landowner approval application from the owners of 284 Point Wells Road for a seawall structure located within the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The council has received a landowner approval application from the owners of 284 Point Wells Road seeking retrospective approval for a seawall structure located within the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve.

3. Three seawalls have been built within Point Wells Foreshore Reserve without receiving landowner approval for the private structures under the Reserves Act 1977 or resource consent.

4. In 2021 Auckland Council’s compliance team issued abatement notices to the owners of a number of properties for illegal works.

5. The applicants appealed to the Environment Court to set the notice aside, and the notice has been stayed pending the outcome of the subsequent resource consent application.

6. The council-owned parcel affected is Lot 3 DP 76480. Lot 3 is classified as Local Purpose (esplanade) Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

7. To approve the grant of an easement for private structures on an esplanade reserve the Council, as administering body of the reserve, must find the private structures consistent with; the Act’s purpose, the functions of the administering body, local purpose reserve general criteria, purposes for which of local purpose esplanade reserves are held, and section 48 easements criteria. The Minister’s consent must also be sought and granted.

8. The application does not align with the relevant polices in the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan, a statutory plan made under the Reserves Act 1977 for the reserves within it. The Rodney Local Parks Management Plan sets out the general and specific policies for the management of the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve, as recently adopted in July 2023 by the Rodney Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakahē / decline the landowner approval application from the owners of the 284 Point Wells Road for the existing private seawall structure located within the esplanade reserve at Lot 3 DP 76480.

b) whakaae / approve access to Lot 3 DP 76480 so that the removal of the private seawall structure can be undertaken.

Horopaki

Context

11. The council has received a landowner approval application from the owners of 284 Point Wells Road to retrospectively approve a private seawall structure located within the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve.

Background

12. Three seawalls have been built within Point Wells Foreshore Reserve without receiving landowner approval or resource consent. These are located in front of 252, 284 and 250A and 250B Point Wells Road. The owners of 252 and 284 Point Wells Road have applied for landowner approval and resource consent for the seawall structures. The owners of 250A and 250B have applied for resource consent but not landowner approval.

13. In 2021 Auckland Council’s compliance team issued abatement notices to the owners of the above properties in relation to unlawful construction of artificial seawall structures.

14. The owners of 284 Point Wells Road appealed to the Environment Court to set the notice aside, and the notice has been stayed pending the outcome of the subsequent resource consent process.

15. Another property, 288 Point Wells Road, had also undertaken unconsented earthworks within the reserve.

Figure 1: Approximate location of the seawall structures within Point Wells Foreshore Reserve - aerial view

Figure 2: Approximate location of seawall structures within Whangateau Harbour - aerial view

A map of a seawall

Description automatically generated

Current proposal/application

16. The owner of 284 Point Wells Road has applied for retrospective Landowner Approval (LOA) left an existing rock seawall structure along the seaward edge of the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve (Lot 3 DP 76480).

17. The seawall structure was constructed in 2011, with the intent of addressing coastal erosion and coastal inundation hazards, without the required landowner approval granted under the Act or resource consent. A resource consent application for the seawall structure is currently being processed by Auckland Council.

18. The seawall structure is a stacked rock structure that extends along the edge of the esplanade reserve for an approximately 75m length in a curvilinear alignment (Figure 3).

19. The structure has been constructed of a range of rock sizes, typically of approximately 300-600mm in diameter with some larger rock in places, of varying origin, but with a large proportion being smooth and spherical basalt. Smaller rock has also been placed amongst the crest. Gravel backfill material was used in construction, some of which has since been washed out onto the foreshore. No geotextile is evident, however some black polythene is visible behind the rock.

20. The structure’s height above the foreshore ranges from approximately 800mm to 1m, with a lower section of around 300-400mm within a small ‘embayment’ towards the southern end of the wall. It appears that the rock has been placed directly onto the foreshore, with the toe not keyed in below the foreshore level. Crest height of the seawall structure ranges from RL 1.85m – 2.3m.

21. A mature Pohutukawa tree is located approximately 3m from the seawall structure towards the northern end of the site, with a further Pohutukawa tree approximately 11m from the seawall structure towards the middle of the site. The structure may provide some protection for these trees over time.

22. The applicant has requested that the seawall structure remains in place and doesn’t propose any changes or improvements.

Figure 3: Seawall structure’s location at 284 Point Wells Road

Figure 4: Seawall structure at 284 Point Wells Road

Point Wells Foreshore Reserve

23. The location of the seawall structure is within the council owned Point Wells Foreshore Reserve. The seawall structure has been placed on the seaward boundary of Lot 3 DP 76480. Lot 3 is classified as Local Purpose (esplanade) Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act).

24. Point Wells Foreshore is located on the eastern coast of Point Wells. Public access is not continuous along the entire Point Wells Foreshore reserve (as shown in figure 9) and is only possible from the beach/seaward side at low tide.

25. Lot 3 is zoned as ‘Open Space - Conservation Zone’ under the Auckland Unitary Plan.

26. A portion of the esplanade along the foreshore is also known as Waimanu Reserve.

27. The Whangateau Harbour is a Significant Ecological Area (Marine 2) as it provides a sequence of ecosystems and foraging habitat for shorebirds.

28. A greenway is proposed for Point Wells Foreshore within the Puhoi to Pakiri Local Paths (Greenways) Plan 2017.

Figure 5: Screenshot of Point Wells Foreshore Reserve taken from the Rodney Local Board Local Park Management Plan A map of a city

Description automatically generated

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Impact of seawall structures on the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve

29. The area is already highly modified, with existing coastal protection structures located within the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve. These include a number of unlawful encroachments. Seawall structures including two properties to the north of 284 Point Wells Road were also constructed without approval on the reserve. There is a seawall protecting council assets around the northeast coast of Point Wells. This is an aging structure that is to be renewed, with consideration given to alternative edge treatment options.

30. The applicant has stated that that there is over 700m of seawalls and approximately 1.7km of armoured coastline on the opposite side of the estuary. This has not been verified for accuracy but may indicate significant privatisation of public land and unconsented rock/sea wall activity has occurred by those able to undertake it.

31. Prior to human disturbance and modification, the coastal edge would have been characterised by native saltmarsh vegetation transitioning to terrestrial vegetation. Such vegetation would have provided a natural defence to coastal processes.

32. The coastal specialist has recommended the removal of the wall and coastal edge planting which would help return the area to a naturalised state. In addition, they found there is no explicit reason to establish a rock wall on this part of the coast, although there are some Pohutukawa trees on the reserve which may be protected by the wall.

33. The location of the seawall structure at the seaward edge of the reserve and maintenance by the applicant give an appearance of a continuation of private land. This is a common effect of encroachments from neighbouring properties onto public land.

34. The presence of the structures along the reserve has fragmented and reduced the extent of indigenous ecosystem and habitats of indigenous species along this Point Wells shoreline.

35. There is potential for ongoing ‘coastal squeeze’ of the intertidal habitat against the hard protection structure.

Effectiveness of seawall structure
Coastal erosion

36. The coastal specialist within the Resilient Coasts and Land team anticipates ‘some erosion of the esplanade reserve over the next 100 years. However, the subject site is sheltered and only exposed to low, significantly depth restricted waves for a short period over present day high tides.’ Therefore, the rate of such coastal erosion is anticipated to be significantly slow.

37. The coastal specialist within the Resilient Coasts and Land team has stated that the applicant ‘has not demonstrated, and there is no evidence to conclude, that there are any significant rates of coastal erosion occurring along this section of the Point Wells coastline to justify the existing structure or its presence on council’s land’.

38. Auckland Council’s current, best available regional coastal erosion and land instability information is reflected in the technical report ‘Areas Susceptible to Coastal Erosion and Instability in the Auckland Region’ (Auckland Council, 2021). This study identifies that the coastal margin of the esplanade reserve is susceptible to coastal erosion and instability over the next 100 years as shown in Figure 3 (source: Auckland Council GeoMaps). However, it should be noted that this information is of a regional scale, providing a baseline indication of the coast’s susceptibility to beach and cliff erosion based on overarching parameters. As such, results may be superseded by site-specific coastal hazard assessments that can be undertaken at a more detailed scale.

39. Coastal erosion at this location is anticipated to be significantly slow. Based on the Area Susceptible to Coastal Instability and Erosion (ASCIE) mapping, the existing dwelling located on 284 Point Wells Road would not be impacted by coastal erosion for at least the next 100 years with a significant land width buffer remaining, as shown by the green line in figure 6, which shows the combined effect of coastal erosion and resulting land instability.

40. The applicant has supplied photos of adjacent properties showing erosion is present even in areas with a vegetated coastline (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Figure 6: Aerial map showing the ASCIE mapping at 284 Point Wells Road

A picture containing map, aerial photography, aerial, bird's-eye view

Description automatically generated

Coastal Inundation

41. The council’s best available information in relation to extreme sea levels is reflected in the Auckland Councils Technical Report ‘Coastal Inundation by Storm Tides and Waves in the Auckland Region’ (Auckland Council, 2020).

42. The associated coastal inundation extents are shown on Geomaps (Figure 11). This confirms that due to the site’s topography, coastal inundation is a significant hazard to the esplanade reserve and applicant’s property at 284 Point Wells Road.

43. The coastal specialist has said that with sea level rise, the seawall structure will be increasingly overtopped and the adjacent land subject to an increasing frequency and magnitude of coastal inundation events over time. The existing structure will not address this hazard which is an issue more broadly recognised across the Point Wells area.

44. Seawalls of this type and structure are not designed to minimize inundation. It is likely that even if the wall was raised periodically that the reserve simply be inundated from either end.

Figure 7: Auckland Council Geo-Maps showing coastal inundation levels

A picture containing text, map, screenshot, aqua

Description automatically generated

Seawall Engineering Issues

45. The Principal Coastal Engineer has been onsite and believes ‘the rock structure is not to an apparent coastal engineering design standard and subsequently the stability, structural integrity and performance of the structure in mitigating coastal hazards cannot be assured’.

46. The issues with the design include:

· the large size of the rocks creates large voids between stones exposing the layers behind, resulting in rock or soil spilling out onto the foreshore through the voids, as is evident in Figure 12 below

· the wall should have been constructed with angular rocks, instead of rounded or spherical rocks as these are prone to roll out of position and it is difficult to place them in layers

· the wall should have been constructed with a double layer of armour rock as this would have allowed stones to settle and move before repairs are needed

· the wall should have been keyed into the bedrock by excavating a shallow trench that keeps the rock in place, the rock face of the existing wall is placed on the bedrock which means it is less stable, and may topple over, especially because of the rock shape

· under-scour is possible at greater levels when the wall is not keyed correctly

· there is a lack of geotextile cloth between the rock and the reserve edge bank which will result in scour and wash out of fines from the backshore, particularly during overtopping events.

47. The applicant’s consultant has responded to say that the wall is fit for purpose as ‘the wall has been in place for some 12 years, including performing adequately through some very large weather events of recent times, and is in good condition’.

48. The applicant’s consultant has said that more maintenance will be required on the ‘lower specification wall than a more standard specification structure.’

49. The applicant has said that they intend to ‘maintain the wall in perpetuity and will have this requirement recorded against the title such that council will not have any additional maintenance liability even if the property ownership changes.’ If this application were approved by the local board following iwi and possible public consultation this would be achieved by the grant of an easement under s48 of the Act.

Figure 8: Photo showing the wall at 284 Point Wells Road

Statutory Context: Easements under the Reserves Act 1977

50. Where an application is supported by the council and the relevant tests found in the Act are met, the private use of an esplanade reserve for a seawall may be permissible by the grant of a lease under section 61 or an easement under section 48. As a lease would not be an appropriate legal mechanism to capture the ongoing obligations in the circumstances, this report therefore considers the relevant statutory decision-making criteria in relation to the grant of an easement under section 48 of the Act.

51. A lease cannot secure the necessary ongoing obligations for the private structures against future owners of 284 Point Wells if it was on sold. Lease terms and conditions could be further secured by an encumbrance incorporating these as obligations against the title of 284 Point Wells Road. However, the added cost and administration of both a lease and encumbrance cannot be justified where an easement would achieve the same result.

52. The Act places a restrictive approach to approving the private use of reserves. The relevant statutory decision-making criteria for applications for private structures on esplanade reserves is set out below.

53. Subject to the council in its role as administering body of the reserve supporting the private structures on the reserve, and the grant meeting the relevant statutory criteria, an easement may be granted.

54. If a decision to grant an easement is to be progressed this will require consultation with iwi. The Act is one of the Acts in the First Schedule to the Conservation Act 1987. Section 4 of the Conservation Act contains an obligation to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti. This obligation applies to all the Acts in the First Schedule including the Reserves Act 1977. As such, in performing functions and duties under the Reserves Act 1977, the council must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti, which include informed decision making. An administering body must consult with and have regard to the views of iwi before making decisions about reserves for which it administers.

55. Further, public consultation is required under section 48(2) of the Act as a default position in relation to the granting of easements, but section 48(3) provides for an exemption of the requirement to publicly notify if both ‘tests’ are met. If the local board consider the following tests met, public notification is not required in order to consider granting easements:

a) the reserve is vested in an administering body and is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged

b) the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected.

56. To approve the grant of an easement (s48) for a seawall structure on an esplanade reserve the Act’s provisions require Council to find the proposals consistent with:

· Section 3 the Act’s purpose

· Section 40 functions of the administering body

· Section 23 local purpose reserve general criteria

· purposes for which of local purpose esplanade reserves are held

· Section 48 easements

· any relevant policies in the operative reserve management plan.

57. In addition, the Minister of Conservation’s consent is required.

Statutory Framework

58. The following sections set out the relevant statutory framework for the local board’s decision-making considerations for this application.

The Act’s Purpose

59. Section 3(1) of the Act provides the general purposes of the Act are for:

a) providing, for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand possessing—

i) recreational use or potential, whether active or passive

ii) wildlife

iii) indigenous flora or fauna

iv) environmental and landscape amenity or interest

v) natural, scenic, historic, cultural, archaeological, biological, geological, scientific, educational, community, or other special features or value

Functions of the administering body

60. Section 40 of the Act sets out the administering body’s powers under the Act:

Section 23 local purpose reserve general criteria

61. Section 23 of the Act sets out general criteria for administering every local purpose reserve. The relevant excerpt applicable to this application is:

Purposes of local purpose esplanade reserves

62. While the Act sets out the purposes for which reserves are classified, in the case of local purpose (esplanade) reserves, the specific purpose is set out in section 229 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The purposes vary as the RMA contemplates not all esplanade reserves will be held for one purpose:

229 RMA Purposes of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips:

An esplanade reserve or an esplanade strip has 1 or more of the following purposes:

a) to contribute to the protection of conservation values by, in particular

i) maintaining or enhancing the natural functioning of the adjacent sea, river, or lake

ii) maintaining or enhancing water quality

iii) maintaining or enhancing aquatic habitats

iv) protecting the natural values associated with the esplanade reserve or esplanade strip

v) mitigating natural hazards.

b) to enable public access to or along any sea, river, or lake

c) to enable public recreational use of the esplanade reserve or esplanade strip and adjacent sea, river, or lake, where the use is compatible with conservation values.

Decision Making Criteria

Section 40 Administering Body Functions

63. To grant an easement for private structures over an esplanade reserve, the council must consider the grant in accordance with the exercising its administering body functions under section 40 of the Act, in ensuring the use, enjoyment, development, maintenance, protection, and preservation, as the case may require, of the reserve for the esplanade purpose, and in addition consistent with Act’s purposes found in section 3 and in compliance with the local purpose esplanade reserve requirements found in section 23, and section 229 of the RMA purposes of esplanade reserves and section 48 easements.

Section 3 Purposes of the Act

64. The purposes of the Act inform the interpretation of the relevant sections of an Act for decision makers. Relevantly, section 3 sets out that purpose of the Act is for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public of reserves for a number of purposes. Of those, given the modified environment, the purposes relevant to the Point Wells Foreshore reserve for preservation and management seem to be for recreational use or potential, landscape amenity, and natural values. This also includes ensuring, as far as possible, the preservation of access for the public to and along the sea coast and fostering and promoting the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and the protection of them from unnecessary development.

65. The assessment of the structures in this report is that they have resulted in the loss of the natural character of the coastal environment. Further, the applicant’s unauthorised modification of the reserve could be viewed as unnecessary development. These impacts would not be considered consistent with the section 3 purposes.

Section 23 Local Purpose Reserves

66. Section 23 of the Act requires that every local purpose reserve shall be so administered and maintained where scenic, historic, archaeological, biological, or natural features are present on the reserve, those features shall be managed and protected to the extent compatible with the principal or primary purpose of the reserve. In this case the relevant requirements of maintaining the biological and natural features are highly compatible with the management of a coastal esplanade reserve. On that basis, if the local board were minded to grant private rights over an esplanade reserve it should consider them compatible with the requirement to manage and protect the reserve’s biological and natural features.

Section 229 RMA purposes of esplanade reserves

67. For the Point Wells Foreshore Reserve, the primary esplanade purposes (as per section 229 of the RMA set out above in paragraph 59) given its current state may be considered to be primarily protection of the conservation values, including protecting the natural values associated with the esplanade reserve, or mitigating natural hazards, and to a lesser extent public access, and public recreational use. On this basis, the primary purpose of the Point Wells Foreshore reserve under the Act appears to include protecting the natural values associated with a coastal esplanade reserve, public access and public recreational use.

68. A competing consideration to be weighed in this decision-making under reserves purposes that is found in section 229 of the RMA is that the reserve behind the hard structures may benefit from a slowing of the coastal erosion processes in the Whangateau Harbour. Further the Pohutukawa trees on the reserve may benefit from the protection of the slowed erosion of the reserve.

Section 48 Easements

69. Section 48 of the Act provides an exception to requirement that the administering body exercise its powers for the management and control of the reserve only for the purpose of its classification. Section 48(1)(f) of the Act provides that easements may be granted to provide access to any other land not forming part of the reserve, or for any other purpose connected with any such land. When exercising the discretion to grant an easement, the council must consider whether the proposal is consistent with the functions and purposes of the Act, the reserves classification and purposes for which the reserve is held, as set out above.

Reserve Management Plan

70. Point Wells Foreshore Reserve is managed in accordance with the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan (RLPMP), which for the reserves within it, is a statutory plan created under the Act. The RLPMP was adopted in July 2023 and guides the local board’s decision making for use, management and development of the reserves within it.

71. Policy 7 of Section 11.3 states that ‘the development of erosion control structures on parks for private benefit of adjacent landowners will not be approved except where:

a) they cannot reasonably be located elsewhere (including locations where negative impacts to the park are less)

b) an easement or where appropriate an encumbrance is registered against the title of the relevant landowner to ensure costs and responsibilities associated

c) with the structure lie with that landowner or as otherwise agreed with the

council

d) they meet the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 for park land held under

that Act.’

72. Section 11.5 of the RLPMP ‘Encroachments’ objective 1 proposes ‘to keep parks free from encroachments’.

73. Section 11.3 of the RLPMP ‘Climate change and natural hazards’, objective 4 is to avoid the provision of erosion control structures on public land for private benefit.

74. Policy 2 of Section 11.3 ‘Management of natural hazards on parks should consider:

a) options to minimise interference to natural processes and natural resources

b) assessment of the risks to people, parkland and park infrastructure and park

c) values, including historic and cultural heritage, recreational and community

values.

75. In the RLPMP, the pages relating to Point Wells Foreshore Reserve note that the reserve is vulnerable to coastal inundation and erosion during storms.

76. It is also noted within the RLPMP that community groups, such as the Point Wells Resident and Ratepayers Association are helping to restore and protect environmental/natural features through activities such as planting and by controlling weeds and pests.

Public notification and engagement

77. Should the local board wish to progress decision making for the grant of an easement, iwi consultation is a requirement to inform the local board’s further decision making.

78. Public notification would not be required under section 48(2) of the Act as the structures on the reserve have not materially altered or permanently damaged the reserve and the rights of the public are not likely to be permanently affected.

· the public’s rights in respect of the reserves are unchanged as a result of the easement. They will still have the opportunity to access the reserve

· the easement will not change the look or use of the reserve ‘in a significant way’ or ‘considerably’

· the easement is not permeant as the seawall could be removed.

79. In a landowner approval context, staff do not consider there is a statutory obligation to notify the application, however under the Local Government Act 2002 the council must consider whether any of its decision making may require further benefit from public consultation.

80. Staff do not consider that consultation is required for this proposal as the seawall:

· is located on an isolated portion of coastline not easily accessible to the public

· has been in place for over ten years

· can still be accessed by the public although this is not always visibly or physically obvious.

81. Previous seawall landowner approval applications have not been consulted with the public and the resource consents planners are not recommending public notification.

82. If the local board did wish to undertake some public consultation it could be arranged and managed by Democracy and Engagement.

83. The local board may then appoint a sub-committee (also known as a hearings panel) to consider the submissions and any objections received, following the public notification, and to provide recommendations on a decision, or be delegated the power to make the decision.

Options

Option 1: Decline and remove the seawall structure (recommended)

84. This option would involve complete removal of the private seawall structure.

85. Given the seawall structure’s design, it is considered that complete removal would be relatively straight forward. With rock sitting directly on top the foreshore, it could be lifted and removed from site, and any remaining geotextile cloth/polythene removed from the edge. The applicant for 284 Point Wells Road has also provided methodology for the removal of the groyne, and council specialists have noted that if that methodology is followed, no environment impact will be found.

86. Following the seawall structure’s removal, the remaining esplanade reserve edge could be reshaped to an appropriate angle, and a coastal edge planting plan developed and implemented.

87. Ongoing maintenance of the planting will be required to be undertaken by the applicant until properly established.

88. This option is supported by staff as:

· the seawall structure is not of a properly engineered design standard, with staff having concerns regarding its ongoing structural integrity and performance

· restoring the coastal edge to a more pre-development or naturalised state would enhance natural character, landscape, and ecological values of the site

· the risk of removing the existing structure causing significant increased rate of coastal erosion is low because of the relatively low energy environment.

Option 2: provide land owner approval

89. This option would involve leaving the existing private structures in place, with no modification to the structures.

90. Ongoing maintenance of structures will have to be undertaken by the applicant and secured by easement.

91. The seawall structure will provide protection over the long term to the reserve extent and the Pohutukawa’s behind the hard structure.

92. This option is not supported by staff as:

· it has not been demonstrated that the adjoining land and development is at significant risk from a coastal hazard

· the applicant has not been demonstrated that the proposed structure is the most appropriate method for mitigating the coastal hazard

· The seawall structure will not address coastal inundation which is the greater long-term risk of hazard to the site compared to coastal erosion.

Option 3: Seawall structure’s modification and enhanced planting

93. A hybrid of options 1 and 2 could be considered, involving partial removal of the seawall structure and development of a coastal edge plating programme.

94. Some of the seawall crest rock, could be removed. A planting plan for the remaining exposed coastal edge could then be implemented by the applicant. And the voids and gaps filled to reduce scour and backwash.

95. This would result in a reduced scale of hard engineering, and in some improved natural character, landscape, and ecological values. Natural defenses to coastal hazards would also be enhanced to provide some protection over the long term to the reserve extent and the Pohutukawa.

96. Some minor ongoing maintenance of the remaining private rock seawall structure would still be required and formalised.

97. Ongoing maintenance of structures will be undertaken by the applicant and secured by easement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

98. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

99. The proposed seawall structure will mitigate the climate change impacts caused by coastal erosion, as detailed in paragraphs 36 to 40. However, the esplanade reserve and the applicant’s property will not be mitigated from the effects of coastal inundation, as detailed in paragraphs 41 to 44.

100. The Technical Report ‘Areas Susceptible to Coastal Erosion and Instability in the Auckland Region’ (ASCIE), (Auckland Council, 2021) identifies that the coastal margin of this esplanade reserve is susceptible to coastal erosion and instability over the next 100 years.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

101. As detailed in the analysis section, the proposed seawall is not supported by the Coastal Specialists within the Resilient Coasts and Land team because:

· the applicant has not demonstrated that there are significant rates of coastal erosion occurring along this area of the Point Wells coastline

· the seawall will not address coastal inundation which is the greater long-term hazard and risk to the site compared to coastal erosion

· erosion protection could be achieved through restoration planting along this coastal edge

· the wall has not been built to the same standards as a wall built by the council would have been

· the council would not have implemented a hard engineering response to the low coastal risk in this location to protect the esplanade reserve.

102. The council’s Area Operations Manager and Facilities Manager have supported the coastal specialists’ recommendation to remove the hard structures associated with the seawall and have the area reinstated back to its original condition, with additional planting to improve the sensitive coastal area.

103. The council’s Parks and Places Specialist also supports the coastal specialist’s recommendation to remove the seawall, with restoration of the coastal edge and planting. The Parks and Places Specialist has indicated that there are no plans or funding to progress a greenway connection at this time but this may become a priority in a decade or so as population grows.

104. The Parks and Places Specialist has said that a land-based connection would be preferable for the proposed greenway in the Puhoi to Pakiri Local Paths (Greenways) connection, however the connection could still be provided using boardwalks or a track through the reserve in the future.

105. The applicant has a resource consent application lodged with the council’s resource consents department. The resource consent has not been approved but it is likely that the planner will recommend the same decision as 252 Point Wells Road. The planner has recommended that 252 Point Wells Road be limited notified with council the only affected party. The planner found that the effects of the wall were ‘less than minor’ and noted that there ‘does not appear to be a demonstratable erosion need for the seawall, given the low energy environment’.

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

Local impacts and local board views

106. The application partially aligns with the Rodney Local Board Plan Outcome 2: Our natural environment is healthy and protected. The wall does provide some limited and localized coastal protection but this could be achieved by other means such as coastal planting which would return the environment to a more naturalised state.

107. A workshop was held with the Rodney Local Board on 1 March 2023, where the board indicated:

· they would like public notification

· the community want public access along the coast and want the isolated reserves to be joined up

· there was concern about what would happen if the walls were removed, especially after the recent storms

· concerns about the ‘privatising’ of the reserves (encroachment of public land)

· concerns that the walls may set a precedent if they are approved and may encourage other properties to construct walls without permission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

108. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are outlined in the council’s key strategic planning documents; the Auckland Plan, the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, and local board plans.

109. If this application were to progress, iwi consultation will be required for informed decision-making as part of giving effect to the principles of Te Tiriti. This is connected closely to the principles of good faith and active protection. Treaty obligations are overarching and not something to be considered or applied after all other matters are considered. The Treaty principles require active protection of Māori interests. Full information would be provided in consultation in order to enable iwi to contribute to this decision-making process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

110. If the seawall is approved, ongoing maintenance of the asset will be covered by the applicant and formalised by an easement. The cost of formalising will be borne by the applicant.

111. If the application for the seawall structure is declined, the applicant will be responsible for the removal of the wall and any reinstatement and planting to naturalise the site.

112. Staff have obtained support from Financial, Strategy and Planning. No concerns were raised regarding the financial implications for the proposed landowner approval.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

113. Should the local board resolve not to approve the landowner approval, the wall will be required to be removed. However, as previously stated it is considered that the applicant can reduce erosion effects by coastal planting. If the esplanade reserve was lost as a result of ongoing erosion or during a large storm event, a wall could be placed within the applicant’s site.

114. The applicant has identified that parts of the advice received from the council’s coastal specialists as part of the landowner approval would be dealt with as part of the resource consent process. In order to address these concerns, as a parallel resource consent process is being considered by the council’s regulatory arm, the aspects of the coastal specialist’s analysis of the RMA considerations in their reporting has been excluded from consideration in this application and advice. This application and advice is considered entirely within the statutory decision making framework of the Act.

115. There is a risk that piecemeal ad-hoc decision making to allow (or not allow) seawalls may create precedent and encourage other seawall applications in Point Wells and the greater Rodney Local Board area along with an expectation they will be approved. This may establish applicant reliance on past decisions which may undermine the council’s strategy.

116. All landowner approval applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis and will be guided by the Whangateau Shoreline Adaptation Plan, once adopted, and specialist advice. It will be particularly important for decision making to be informed by reliable expert specialist advice so that any individual decisions that may be made in the future can stand on their own.

117. For this proposal, if approved, it is important that the ongoing obligations for the private structure are captured in an easement agreement at the applicant’s cost, to avoid any future risk, cost or liability to the council.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

118. If the Rodney Local Board wishes to progress decision making for the grant of an easement for the private structures on the reserve, iwi consultation is required, and public notification can be undertaken. The local board may then appoint a sub-committee (also known as a hearings panel) to consider the submissions and any objections received, following the public notification, and to provide recommendations on a decision, or be delegated the power to make the decision.

119. If the Rodney Local Board declines the landowner approval, staff will work with the applicant to organise the removal of the wall and any remediation and planting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Applicant supplied photos of coastal hazards	59

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Glenn Riddell - Senior Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Local board feedback on the draft Future Development Strategy

File No.: CP2023/10726

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Future Development Strategy.

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 the 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 Future Development Strategy 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 Future Development Strategy continues to provide for some future urban development. However, it amends some timeframes for when future urban land may be ready for development. 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.

6. Over the shorter term (10 years), the draft Future Development Strategy 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.

7. It concurrently proposes that investments should be made at a local level to strengthen communities, particularly improving accessibility and sustainability.

8. Following finalisation of the Future Development Strategy, a comprehensive implementation plan will be developed with supporting actions forming the basis.

9. Public consultation on the draft Future Development Strategy ran for eight weeks from 6 June 2023 to 31 July 2023. The council received 8,279 submissions from individuals, 259 submissions from organisations and 1,318 proforma submissions (based on provisional data as of 2 August 2023).

10. A separate attachment is provided for each local board with feedback from the local community in that area (see Attachment B to the Agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback on the draft Future Development Strategy.

Horopaki

Context

11. The purpose of the Future Development Strategy (FDS) is to provide the basis for strategic and long-term planning for growth and development in Auckland. It informs the integration of land use planning with infrastructure planning and funding decisions as well as the preparation of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

12. Under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (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 also other important reasons to update the FDS, 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 Resource Management Act (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 flooding events of 2023 underscore 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 when 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: are 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 risk for council and disrupt existing and planned infrastructure work programmes.

14. In May 2023, the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approved the draft Future Development Strategy for public consultation (resolution number PEPCC/2023/62).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Strategic framework of the Future Development Strategy

15. The diagram below sets out the strategic framework of the FDS. This framework was informed by many sources, including the 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.

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
Overarching 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	Actions to implement this Future Development Strategy

Housing and Business Capacity Assessment

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

17. This work has now been updated. Over the next 30 years the population of Tāmaki Makaurau is expected to continue to grow by around 30 per cent, or 520,800 people, to a total of 2,230,800.

18. This level of projected growth will require around 200,000^{^[1]} additional dwellings, to bring the total number of dwellings to around 773,000. Current plans enable a total housing capacity of 2,345,500^{^[2]} which is several times greater than the expected demand for dwellings.

19. 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.

20. Where plan-enabled capacity is reduced or constrained by the FDS (which would mainly be due to natural hazard risk) the intention is to create additional capacity in good locations elsewhere, so that overall capacity is broadly maintained.

21. Further work was also done on business capacity. The estimated total employment is expected to increase by 30.6 per cent^{^[3]} or 282,600 jobs over the 2023 to 2053 period.

22. 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. The finalised Business Capacity Assessment will inform decisions on the final FDS.

Proposed amendments to the FDS

23. The draft FDS 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

· 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.

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. The updated FDS focuses on the ways in which the 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.

28. Mana whenua strongly support a quality compact approach.

Urban area

29. 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.

30. The draft FDS emphasises increasing sustainability of neighbourhoods by 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.

31. The draft FDS prioritises infrastructure provision in a small number of priority areas 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.

32. Funding will also be required for local level upgrades and initiatives, particularly accessibility and sustainability initiatives.

Changes to future urban areas

33. Provision of future urban land remains a key aspect of the draft FDS.

34. There are however changes to 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:

· 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, 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.

Spatial prioritisation

35. 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 investment-maximising sense.

36. 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).

37. 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.

Stronger emphasis on climate change

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

Greater emphasis on natural environment outcomes

41. 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.

42. Though this was already possible under existing statutory frameworks, the introduction of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (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.

43. 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

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

45. 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.

46. 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 2024-2034 Long-term Plan, the council should adhere to funded programmes.

47. 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.

Previous documents to be incorporated into FDS

48. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) sets out the ‘where and when’ of the urban zoning of future urban land, taking a sequenced approach to rezoning, aligning it with council’s funding of infrastructure to support development. The FULSS as a standalone document will be removed, and the information currently contained within it reframed and included within the draft FDS. This better integrates strategic approaches and confirms status under the RMA.

Community views

49. Public consultation on the draft Future Development Strategy was initially scheduled to run from 6 June 2023 to 4 July 2023 but was extended until 31 July 2023 due to the level of public interest.

50. The engagement process included the following key activities:

· media to promote the consultation (including radio, community newspapers, social media advertising, online banner advertising on NZ Herald & Stuff websites, articles in Our Auckland and The Spinoff)

· six drop-in sessions (in Warkworth, Albany, Kumeū, Westgate, Central City and Papakura), attended by 140 individuals

· two regional organisation and interest group Have Your Say events with councillors, attended by 29 groups

· webinars for the public and for regional organisations/interest groups at which staff were available to discuss the proposal

· two meetings in Papakura at the request of the local community

· discussions with key stakeholders including central government, other local councils, utility providers and interest groups.

51. Based on provisional data, as of 2 August 2023, the council received:

· 8,279 submissions from individuals

· 259 submissions from organisations

· 1,318 proforma submissions.

52. A separate attachment has been provided for each local board with feedback from the local community in that area (see Attachment B to the Agenda report).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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 Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (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).

58. 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).

59. 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.

60. 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.

61. 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 implementation actions as proposed in (but not limited to) the FDS, then some of the adverse climate impacts 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

62. As a first order strategy, and legislative requirement, the FDS impacts all parts of the council group that are focussed on growth and 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.

63. 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.

64. 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

65. Local boards provided feedback on the initial strategic direction in July-August 2022. This feedback was considered through the development of the draft FDS.

66. Local board chairpersons (or alternates) were invited to all Planning, Environment and Parks Committee workshops during strategy development. Chairpersons received the workshop material ahead of the workshops.

67. Local boards were provided with a memo on 9June 2023 and invited to a briefing about the FDS consultation on 16 June 2023.

68. This report provides the opportunity for the local board to give their feedback, based on consideration of their community’s feedback, on the draft Future Development Strategy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

69. The 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.

70. These priority areas, along with a review of past Māori engagement and feedback, provided a starting point for engaging with Māori, in a way that supported their capacity to genuinely participate in the development of the FDS.

71. This 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.

72. 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 through which Māori see Tāmaki Makaurau as an interconnected living system.

73. 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.

74. 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.

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

76. Engagement continued throughout the consultation period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

77. There are no financial implications from the local board providing feedback on the draft FDS.

78. Once adopted, the FDS will help council to make investment decisions that maximise benefits to our communities.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

79. There are risks associated with adopting a new FDS, however these must be weighed against the opportunity costs of not having an appropriate framework in place to manage Auckland’s growth. These include:

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 (Transport Emission Reduction Pathway). 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 (Transport Emission Reduction Pathway).

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

80. Strong, considered feedback from local boards will support Auckland Council to make good decisions about the FDS while they balance these risks against the opportunity costs described above.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

81. Feedback from local boards and from the public will be reviewed and taken into account as staff consider any amendments to the draft FDS.

82. Workshops with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on feedback received and the proposed amendments will take place in August and September. Local board chairpersons (or alternates) will be invited to participate in these.

83. The Planning, Environment and Parks committee will be asked to adopt the FDS in late 2023.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Attachment A Draft Future Development Strategy (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Attachment B Draft Future Development Strategy - Summary submission feedback	79

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Claire Gray - Principal Advisor Growth & Spatial Strat

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Local Board Views on eight Notices of Requirement from Auckland Transport for the Future Road Network in Warkworth

File No.: CP2023/11046

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite the Rodney Local Board’s views on eight Notices of Requirement lodged by Auckland Transport for the Warkworth Road Network. The Notices of Requirement seek to designate land for route protection.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a Notice of Requirement to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local board views on the Notices of Requirement if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3. Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including Notices of Requirement. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board.^{^[4]}

4. Under the Te Tupu Ngātahi Supporting Growth Programme, Auckland Transport, has served eight Notices of Requirement on Auckland Council for the Warkworth Road Network. The Notices of Requirement projects include three new urban arterial corridors, four upgrades to existing corridors and a new Public Transport Hub and Park and Ride facility.

5. The Notices of Requirement were publicly notified on 8 June 2023^{^[5]} and 9 June 2023^{^[6]} and submissions closed on 7 July 2023. 115 submissions were received across the eight Notices of Requirement, including from landowners, utility operators, and central government entities. The key themes arising from submissions include the Notices of Requirement timeframe for implementation, the Notices of Requirement extent, location and design, and construction effects.

6. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on the Notices of Requirement. Staff do not recommend a view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide local board views on eight Notices of Requirement for the Warkworth Road Network.

b) kopou / appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on the Notices of Requirement for the Warkworth Network.

c) tautapa / delegate authority to the chairperson of Rodney Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the Notices of Requirements hearing.

Horopaki

Context

7. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.

8. The Notices of Requirement (NoRs) are intended to add eight new designations (sought by Auckland Transport) to the Auckland Unitary Plan. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views where any process proposes a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

9. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planners include those views in the section 42a hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the NoR, along with all submissions.

10. If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who will make a recommendation on the NoRs.

11. Following receipt of the recommendation, the Requiring Authority would be required to advise the council, within 30 working days, whether they accept or reject the recommendation in whole or in part. Once the council has received a decision from the Requiring Authority, submitters will be advised and are then given an opportunity to lodge an appeal with the Environment Court if they are not satisfied with the outcome. Auckland Council will also have the opportunity at this stage to appeal the decision.

12. This report provides an overview of the eight NoRs and a summary of the key themes in submissions.

13. The report does not recommend what views the local board should convey. Staff cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Notice of Requirement overview

14. The Te Pupu Ngatahi Supporting Growth Alliance (SGA) Warkworth NORs is a package of eight Notices of Requirement (NoRs) lodged by Te Pupu Ngatahi Supporting Growth Alliance, on behalf of Auckland Transport. The eight NoRs seek to provide for future strategic transport corridors and associated infrastructure to support planned urban growth in Warkworth.

15. A summary of the NoRs is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Description of Warkworth Package of NoRs

Notice of Requirement	Project Name	Description	Requiring Authority
NOR 1	Northern Public Transport Hub and Western Link - North	New public transport hub and park and ride at the corner of SH1 and a new Western Link -North arterial corridor with active mode facilities (walking and cycling) between the intersection of SH1 and Te Honohono ki Tai to a proposed bridge crossing on Western Link North	Auckland Transport
NOR 2	Woodcocks Road – West Upgrade	Upgrade of the existing Woodcocks Road – West corridor between Mansel Drive and Ara Tūhono (Puhoi to Warkworth) to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities (walking and cycling)	Auckland Transport
NOR 3	State Highway 1 – South Upgrade	Upgrade of the existing SH1 - South corridor between Fairwater Road and the southern Rural Urban Boundary to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities (walking and cycling)	Auckland Transport
NOR 4	Matakana Road Upgrade	Upgrade of the existing Matakana Road corridor between the Hill Street intersection and the northern Rural Urban Boundary to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities (walking and cycling)	Auckland Transport
NOR 5	Sandspit Road Upgrade	Upgrade of the existing Sandspit Road corridor between the Hill Street intersection and the eastern Rural Urban Boundary to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities (walking and cycling)	Auckland Transport
NOR 6	Western Link - South	New urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities (walking and cycling) between Evelyn Street and the intersection of SH1 and McKinney Road	Auckland Transport
NOR 7	Sandspit Link	New urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities (walking and cycling) between the intersection of Matakana Road and Te Honohono ki Tai (Matakana Link Road) and Sandspit Road	Auckland Transport
NOR 8	Wider Western Link - North	New urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities (walking and cycling) between Woodcocks Road and the Mahurangi River.	Auckland Transport

16. The location of each of the eight NoRs are shown on Figure 1 below:

17. The indicative construction and implementation timeframes reported by Auckland Transport, the Requiring Authority, for each project are outlined below^{^[7]}:

Notice	Project	Approximate timing of construction (implementation)	Approximate duration of construction
NOR 1	Northern Public Transport Hub and Western Link – North	2028 - 2033	2 – 3 years
NOR 2	Woodcocks Road (Western Section)	2028 - 2033	2.5 – 3.5 years
NOR 3	State Highway 1 – South	2028 - 2033	2.5 – 3.5 years
NOR 4	Matakana Road	2028 - 2033	2.5 – 3.5 years
NOR 5	Sandspit Road	2038 – 2043	2.5 – 3.5 years
NOR 6	Western Link – South	2028 – 2033	2.5 – 3.5 years
NOR 7	Sandspit Link	2038 – 2043	3 – 4 years
NOR 8	Wider Western Link – North	2033 – 2038	2 – 3 years

18. The NoRs include technical reports that evaluate:

· landscape and visual effects

· urban design

· construction noise and vibration

· operational traffic noise and vibration

· transport effects

· flooding effects

· archaeological and heritage effects

· arboricultural effects

· ecological effects.

19. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/notices-of-requirement-to-designate-land/Pages/default.aspx

20. Council’s planners, and other experts, have evaluated and will report on:

· technical reports supplied by the applicant

· submissions

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

21. Auckland Transport requested that the NoRs be publicly notified. The NoRs were publicly notified on 8 June and 9 June 2023^{^[8]} and submissions closed on 7 July 2023.

Themes from submissions received

22. A total of 115 submissions were received as shown in Table 2 below. This includes three late submissions.

Table 2: Submissions received on NoRs

NoR Description	Number of Submissions
NOR1 Northern Public Transport Hub and Western Link – North	10
NOR2 Woodcocks Road (Western Section)	18
NOR3 State Highway 1 – South	17
NOR4 Matakana Road	23
NOR5 Sandspit Road	13
NOR 6 Western Link – South	15
NOR 7 Sandspit Link	9
NOR 8 Wider Western Link – North	10
TOTAL	115

23. Table 3 provides an overview of the support or opposition registered for each of the NORs and overall.

Table 3. Overview of the support and opposition to each of the NORs

NoR	Number of Submissions	Support / Support in part or with amendments	Neutral / Unclear	Oppose / Oppose in part
NOR1 Northern Public Transport Hub and Western Link – North	10	5	1	4
NOR2 Woodcocks Road (Western Section)	18	7	4	7
NOR3 State Highway 1 – South	17	4	6	7
NOR4 Matakana Road	23	6	4	13
NOR5 Sandspit Road	13	3	4	6
NOR 6 Western Link – South	15	3	4	8
NOR 7 Sandspit Link	9	2	2	5
NOR 8 Wider Western Link – North	10	4	3	3
TOTAL	115	34	28	53

24. Key submission themes across all eight NoRs are listed below.

· the extent and alignment of the NoRs

· the proposed lapse period and the number of years until the proposed designations are likely to be given effect to, and the resulting impacts on potential future property development and property sale (planning blight)

· construction effects such as noise and vibration, the location of stormwater ponds, and earthworks cuts and fills

· questions over traffic modelling used

· concerns about how properties will be accessed.

25. Information on individual submissions and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters will be reported in the hearing report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

27. The local board could consider if the NoRs:

· will reduce, increase, or have no effect on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., does it encourage car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form)

· prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change. That is, do the NoRs elevate or alleviate climate risks (e.g., flooding, coastal and storm inundation, urban heat effect, stress on infrastructure).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Auckland Transport are the requiring authority that have lodged the NoRs.

29. Watercare have submitted on the NoRs.

30. The council’s Healthy Waters and Parks Services departments have specialists within the project team, who will contribute to the reporting planners’ hearing report.

31. The council’s Plans and Places department have specialists and consultants within the project team for arboriculture, archaeology, built heritage, landscape, urban design, ecology, noise, and transportation who will contribute to the reporting planners’ hearing report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32. The Notices of Requirement fall within the Rodney Local Board area.

33. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view include:

• interests and preferences of people in local board area

• well-being of communities within the local board area

• local board documents, such as local board plan, local board agreement

• responsibilities and operation of the local board.

34. Te Pupu Ngatahi Supporting Growth Alliance have advised that they engaged with the Rodney Local Board on several occasions when developing the Detailed Business Case in 2022 and that they met with the local board in December 2022 and again in March 2023 to provide information and updates on the NoR projects for Warkworth.

35. Feedback at that stage is informal. Restrictions on delegations prevent that informal feedback from being the views of the local board^{^[9]}.

36. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on the NoRs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the NoRs, it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori world view). In the 2018 census results 11,247 residents in the local board area identify as Māori.

38. Te Pupu Ngatahi Supporting Growth Alliance have advised that they have engaged with Manawhenua on the Warkworth program through the Te Tupu Ngātahi Mana whenua forum to help identify key cultural issues associated with the project and address any potential effects this may raise. This includes multiple hui held with mana whenua groups.

39. Te Pupu Ngatahi Supporting Growth Alliance have advised that all Mana whenua groups were invited to prepare to prepare Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs) for the project in December 2021. The team received the below responses following on from the invitation:

· Ngāti Manuhiri – accepted the invitation and have provided a CIA to the project team.

40. Te Pupu Ngatahi Supporting Growth Alliance have advised that the upgraded and new transport corridors do not directly affect any identified properties or land currently being negotiated under Treaty settlements, land returned under a Treaty settlement, marae, Māori freehold lands, Tupuna Maunga Affected Areas, Tangata Whenua Management Areas, or Sites of Significance under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

41. No mana whenua groups have submitted on the NoRs.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. There are no financial implications with the local board providing its views.

43. The local board is not exposed to any financial risk from providing its views.

44. The cost associated with processing the NoR requests is recoverable from Auckland Transport.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

45. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a Notice of Requirement cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s). To avoid the procedural risk of an individual local board member expressing the views of the local board, this report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

46. The reporting planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alison Pye - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

New public and private road names at 26 State Highway 1, Warkworth (Warkworth Ridge Development Stage 1B)

File No.: CP2023/10427

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Rodney Local Board to name two new public roads and four new private roads, respectively being roads to vest in Auckland Council and commonly owned access lots, created by way of a subdivision development at 26 State Highway 1, Warkworth.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines (the guidelines) set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. The guidelines state that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

3. The developer and applicant, Templeton Warkworth Ridge Limited has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board. Note in this instance that the term COAL (commonly owned access lot) has been substituted with the term JOAL (jointly owner access lot) as this is how these private roads are notated on the accompanying plans.

4. Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust are the mana whenua and mandated iwi authority for the area where the development is located. The applicant has consulted with Ngāti Manuhiri and they have gifted several names for the development. Some of the names are proposed as the preferred options for the roads in this application.

5. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the guidelines and the Australian & New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing, AS NZS 4819:2011 and the Guidelines for Addressing in-fill Developments 2019 – LINZ OP G 01245 (the standards). The technical matters required by those documents are considered to have been met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity. Mana whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the guidelines.

6. The proposed names for the new public and private roads at 26 State Highway 1 are:

Road Number	Applicant’s Preference	Alternative	Alternative
Road 4	Portstone Avenue	Ika Lane	Hoteo Avenue
Road 5	Taiao Rise	Pa Tuna Rise	Livestock Rise
COAL A2-A	Maramataka Lane	Auctioneer Lane	Dusty Lane
COAL A2-B	Manu Lane	Cotter Lane	Agents Lane
COAL A2-C	Ngārara Court	Umar Court	Mauri Court
COAL A2-D	Rongoā Crescent	Bracken Crescent	Rangiora Crescent

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the following names for the two new public roads created by way of subdivision undertaken by Templeton Warkworth Ridge Limited at 26 State Highway 1, Warkworth, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90108901, resource consent references BUN60381824 and SUB60381825).

i) Ika Lane (Road 4)

ii) Taiao Rise (Road 5).

b) whakaae / approve the following names for the four new private roads created by way of subdivision undertaken by Templeton Warkworth Ridge Limited at 26 State Highway 1, Warkworth, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90108901, resource consent references BUN60381824 and SUB60381825).

i) Maramataka Lane (COAL A2-A)

ii) Manu Lane (COAL A2-B)

iii) Ngārara Court (COAL A2-C)

iv) Rongoā Crescent (COAL A2-D).

Horopaki

Context

7. Resource consent reference BUN60381824 (subdivision reference number SUB60381825) was issued in January 2022 for the comprehensive development of 54.7 hectares of land subdivided into 643 residential lots, one super lot for a neighbourhood centre and associated parks and roading and a bush and stream protection area.

8. This road naming application relates to Stage 1B of the development. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

9. In accordance with the standards, every public road and any private way, COAL, or right of way, that serves more than five lots generally requires a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

10. The public roads therefore require a name and also the COALs highlighted in yellow in the attachments, as they each serve more than five lots.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The guidelines set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region. The guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

12. The guidelines provide for road names to reflect one of the following local themes with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

· a historical, cultural, or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

13. Theme: Some of the proposed names demonstrate the cultural and ancestral link Ngāti Manuhiri have to the area. The other names generally reflect local environmental and landscape features, and historical links to the area, with some names having a link to the developers’ heritage.

Road Number	Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Road 4	Portstone Avenue (applicant’s preference)	In reference to the company name of the developer, Nigel McKenna. The name ‘Portstone’ came from the rock structure in Ireland called ’Poulnabrone Dolman’, a heavy slab of stone held up by three stone portals.
	Ika Lane (alternative)	This name is referring to the toanga fish species that swim in the awa / river or stream.
	Hoteo Avenue (alternative)	Named after the Hoteo River, which is located in the region and was an important source of freshwater for early settlers.
Road 5	Taiao Rise (applicant’s preference)	Meaning ‘environment’ which is of great importance to Ngāti Manuhiri.
	Pa Tuna Rise (alternative)	Meaning ‘weir’ for catching eels.
	Livestock Rise (alternative)	In reference to the saleyards that were adjacent to this development.
COAL A2-A	Maramataka Lane (applicant’s preference)	Meaning the ‘Māori Calendar’
	Auctioneer Lane (alternative)	In recognition of the auctioneers at the former saleyards
	Dusty Lane (alternative)	In recognition of the dust around the saleyards
COAL A2-B	Manu Lane (applicant’s preference)	This name is referring to our toanga birds found in our rohe / tribal area.
	Cotter Lane (alternative)	‘Cotter’ is Scottish for farmer. The developers have some Scottish heritage.
	Agents Lane (alternative)	In recognition of the stockbrokers at the saleyards
COAL A2-C	Ngārara Court (applicant’s preference)	Meaning ‘creepy-crawly, reptile’.
	Umar Court (alternative)	Umar is the Irish name for water trough. The developers also have Irish heritage
	Mauri Court (alternative)	Meaning ‘the wellbeing of the whenua’
COAL A2-D	Rongoā Crescent (applicant’s preference)	This name is referring to healing plants and their healing property
	Bracken Crescent (alternative)	In reference to bracken fern found on the site.
	Rangiora Crescent (alternative)	Meaning a Māori healing plant.

14. Assessment: All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the guidelines and the standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met and duplicate names are not located in close proximity. It is therefore for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

15. Confirmation: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all of the proposed names are acceptable for use at this location.

16. Road Type: ‘Avenue’ ‘Lane’ and ‘Rise’ are acceptable road types for the new public roads, suiting their form and layout. ‘Lane’, ‘Court’ and ‘Crecent’ are acceptable road types for the COAL’s, suiting their form and layout.

17. Consultation: Community groups and mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The naming of roads has no effect on climate change. Relevant environmental issues have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the associated approved resource consent for the development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. The decision sought for this report has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. To aid local board decision making, the guidelines include an objective of recognising cultural and ancestral linkages to areas of land through engagement with mana whenua, particularly through the resource consent approval process, and the allocation of road names where appropriate. The Guidelines identify the process that enables mana whenua the opportunity to provide feedback on all road naming applications and in this instance, the process has been adhered to.

22. Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust are the mana whenua and mandated iwi authority for the area where the development is located. The applicant has consulted with Ngāti Manuhiri and they have gifted several names for the development, being, ‘Ika’ ‘Taiao’ ‘Maramataka’ ‘Manu’ Ngārara’ and ‘Rongoā’.

23. On 29 June 2023 mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the Guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Wai.

24. By the close of the consultation period (10 working days), only one response was received. Ngāti Manuhiri has indicated their opposition of the proposed name ‘Portstone Avenue’ as this would disrupt the mauri of the gifted names. Ngāti Manuhiri requested that only the gifted names which are all Te Reo names be submitted to the local board for their consideration.

25. The applicant has not decided to adopt the feedback from Ngāti Manuhiri with regards to their preferred name for Road 4 being ‘Portstone Avenue’. However, in consideration of Ngāti Manuhiri’s comments the recommendation is to approve the Te Reo alternative ‘Ika Road’ over Portstone Road. All other names gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri have been recommended as preferred names.

26. This site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the council.

28. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process with consultation being a key part of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. Approved road names are notified to LINZ which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database. LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	26 State Highway 1 Warkworth Attachment A - Scheme Plan	101
b ⇩	26 State Highway 1 Warkworth Attachment B - Location Map	103

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Qiuan Wang – Senior Planning Consultant

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Auckland Transport - Auckland Rail Programme Business Case (ARPBC)

File No.: CP2023/10547

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To inform the local board about the Auckland Rail Programme Business Case.

2. To seek formal feedback from the local board on the Auckland Rail Programme Business Case.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Auckland Rail Programme Business Case (see Attachment A to agenda report) identifies an investment pathway required to develop the heavy rail network within the context of Auckland's population growth and the part Auckland plays in New Zealand’s freight network.

4. With road congestion, population growth and emission reduction targets, this is an important time to plan for an effective rail network that unlocks demand and makes rail travel the convenient transport choice for people and goods.

5. The Auckland Rail Programme Business Case outlines:

· rail’s strategic role in the broader transport network for Auckland

· a programme of interventions and strategic justification for investments over the next 30 years

· an appropriate framework for future investigations and business cases of the individual interventions identified

· alignment on future Rail Network Investment Programmes, which underpins the joint investment programme.

6. The Auckland Rail Programme Business Case has identified the following seven investment areas required to deliver the 30-year plan:

· maintenance and renewals, including equipment upgrades

· signalling and power feed upgrades

· new fleet, depots and stabling

· additional track on the Southern line (~39km where there are four tracks)

· level crossing removals by closures or grade separation (encompassing 32 crossing locations)

· station improvements (encompassing 42 stations for increase in patronage, safety and to accommodate nine-car trains)

· new cross-town corridor with stations - the Avondale Southdown connection (~12.5km new track).

7. The Auckland Rail Programme Business Case is being presented to the Auckland Council Transport and Infrastructure Committee in August 2023 followed by an approval process to the KiwiRail Board in September, Auckland Transport Board in October, and Waka Kotahi Board in December.

8. This report is seeking feedback on the Auckland Rail Programme Business Case following a presentation at the Rodney Local Board workshop on 12 July 2023.

9. Local board views will be incorporated into the final Auckland Rail Programme Business Case and be utilised in finalising the investment plan and scope development for the next stage of works.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tautoko / supports the Auckland Rail Programme Business Case - 30-Year Investment Plan

b) tautoko / supports the need for of a well maintained, resilient and attractive heavy rail network that supports passenger and freight movements and delivers economic benefits to both the regional and national economy.

Horopaki

Context

10. The use of Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s rail network, for both passenger and freight, has grown significantly over the past 20 years. Investments in the rail network over this time have seen passenger boardings on our services increase from 5 million per annum in the early 2000s to over 21 million boardings on the Auckland rail passenger network in 2019.

11. Three main users of the rail network are freight services, metro passenger services and inter regional rail services.

12. Investment to date has encouraged economic growth in Auckland and has changed the shape of Auckland’s development through significant improvement in rail services. These improvements include electrification, upgraded stations, freight hubs and rolling stock to make better use of the capacity of Auckland’s rail corridor.

13. Recent investments for rail have been signalled in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) which has achieved investments for 2021-2031 projects being delivered now.

14. Projects currently being delivered will increase the capacity and attractiveness of rail for customers including:

· significant rebuild of 2/3 of the existing track to handle more services

· new 3rd main line between Wiri and Westfield to separate freight and passenger trains

· City Rail Link and stations creating a connecting route through the city centre

· electrification of services to Pukekohe and additional stations to serve new population growth areas

· additional passenger trains to increase capacity by over 30 per cent.

15. Future investment in Auckland’s rail will be identified in the Tāmaki Makaurau Transport Plan, Rail Network Investment Plan and Regional Land Transport Strategy which will be adopted in 2024.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. The ARPBC team workshopped with local boards in July and August to gather feedback. This report is seeking formal views on whether the Rodney Local Board supports the ARPBC.

17. This feedback will be incorporated into the final ARPBC prior to approvals of KiwiRail, Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi before being submitted to the Ministers of Transport and Finance in 2024.

18. The ARPBC team will also be presenting to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in August for comment and feedback before seeking approvals.

19. The ARPBC outlines:

· rail’s strategic role in the broader transport network for Auckland

· a programme of interventions and strategic justification for investments over the next 30 years

· an appropriate framework for the business cases of the individual interventions identified

· alignment on future Rail Network Investment Programmes (RNIP), which underpins the joint investment programme.

20. The ARPBC defines a way forward for getting the most effective and efficient use out of the capacity available across the rail network, recognising competing demands from freight and passenger rail (metro and regional).

21. Investigations have shown that by the early 2030s the capacity of the existing rail network for freight and passenger services will constrain future growth. The following lists constraints to the rail network:

· additional passenger services and longer trains will be required to meet peak demand and provide a rapid transit frequency for customers

· additional freight services will be required to mix with passenger trains restricting operations

· improved signalling is required to achieve greater safety and utilisation of the network

· improved maintenance and renewal plant and equipment is required to improve how the rail network is maintained

· additional tracks are needed to separate freight, express services and stopping passenger services

· improved stations will be required to accommodate passenger numbers to provide an appropriate level of service for customers

· level crossing barriers will need to spend a greater amount of time down to allow passenger and freight trains to pass creating additional traffic congestion in the peak resulting in a need for closure or grade separation

· lack of cross-town corridor restricts operations and limits service frequencies in the inner network of the western and southern lines.

22. The ARPBC has identified the following seven investment areas required to deliver the 30-year plan:

· maintenance and renewals, including equipment upgrades

· signalling and power feed upgrades

· new fleet, depots and stabling

· additional track on the Southern line (~39km where there are four tracks)

· level crossing removals by closures or grade separation (encompassing 32 crossing locations)

· station improvements (encompassing 42 stations for increase in patronage, safety and to accommodate nine-car trains)

· new cross-town corridor with stations - the Avondale Southdown connection (~12.5km new track).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. A priority objective for the ARPBC is to enable mode shift for both passenger and freight from higher emission modes. The ARPBC is aligned with the priorities outlined by both the Auckland Transport Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) and the national Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP).

24. Attachment A (slide 16) outlines the reduction in emissions that can be achieved through the 30-year programme for freight and passenger services.

25. Further emission benefits and reductions will be achieved by the business case but are not identified in the benefits streams. These benefits come from outside of Auckland since the inter-regional passenger and particularly freight services travel outside of Auckland to their final destinations.

26. As electric vehicles and trucks become a larger percentage of the vehicle fleet in New Zealand by the 2050s, the level of emission reduction from the rail programme will reduce.

27. Attachment A also outlines the proposed significant level of freight tonnes transferred from road and the number of vehicle kilometres travelled reduced by customers using train rather than private motor vehicle.

28. The programme identifies that there is urgency to deliver on mode shift requirements in order to reduce the emissions of both passenger and freight transport to meet planned targets.

29. The programme provides a resilient approach to mitigating the impacts of climate change including flood and stormwater mitigations. Recent events of extreme weather such as Cyclone Gabrielle has identified the significant cost to fix rail infrastructure which is not built to handle climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The development of rail has taken into account the strategic direction and priorities from both national and regional policies and strategies. These include:

· Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan

· Auckland’s draft Future Development Strategy and Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

· Emission Reductions Plan and Transport Emission Reduction Plan

· Auckland Rapid Transit Plan

· Auckland Economic Development Plan.

31. Auckland Council has been a key stakeholder throughout the development of the ARPBC at both a working and project governance level to ensure alignment between the programme and wider Auckland Council objectives.

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

Local impacts and local board views

How local boards are involved

32. Local board input to this future investment plan for the Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland rail network is important to outline local community perspectives and issues as they relate to the areas.

33. The ARPBC does not propose any investment in heavy rail in the Rodney Local Board area. There is planned investment in the Rapid Transit Network (RTN) that will provide improved connections from the Rodney Local Board area to the Heavy Rail Network by delivering improved connections, such as the North Western RTN.

34. The RTN plan is currently under development and is undertaking engagement with the governing bodies in August. The team developing the RTN will be presenting to the local board to identify how the planned RTN will provide for the current and forecast demands of the area.

35. As a programme of regional investment, the improvements to both the passenger and freight networks will have positive benefits across Auckland by reducing the reliance on the road network (for both passenger and freight).

36. Responses to questions raised by the local board at their 12 July workshop are provided in Attachment B to the Agenda report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. The ARPBC team has presented to mana whenua through the Auckland Transport Hui for Central, North/West and South.

38. Feedback has been received through the Transport Hui and will be captured in the final ARPBC. The feedback to date generally supports the overall vision of the 30-year programme, noting that high levels of mana whenua involvement will be required as the programme progresses and detail is developed.

39. Engagement with mana whenua will continue through the programme business case process and into the development and delivery of future investigations and business cases.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. The funding for the programme business case deliverables has not been confirmed but key elements have been identified in previous RLTP’s, RNIP and ATAP.

41. Funding to deliver rail improvements will come from a mixture of sources including KiwiRail, Waka Kotahi and Auckland Transport.

42. Future funding will be required to build the upgraded infrastructure but also to operate and maintain the services and assets.

43. It is acknowledged that a significant funding gap exists across the transport portfolios in Auckland and an integrated prioritised process is required. This is currently being explored through the Tāmaki Makaurau Transport Plan, Rail Network Investment Plan and the Regional Land Transport Plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. The programme proposed by the ARPBC will require a significant level of investment and a significant increase in the amount of work delivered on the rail network over the 30-year period. This will require both alternative and additional funding and delivery methods which will be explored upon the approval of the business case.

45. Despite being a 30-year plan, there is a high level of urgency to commence planning and business case further work in order to ensure the rail network can meet the forecast demands and targets. Planning and design for significant infrastructure can take up to 10 years to complete delivery.

46. The programme involves changes and improvements on how communities will use and access the rail network. This will particularly be noticed by the community where level crossings are changed or closed, stations upgraded and enlarged, where additional land is required to widen the rail corridor and where new rail lines are proposed through existing communities.

47. KiwiRail and Auckland Transport are committed to working with communities through the next stages of investigations and business case to confirm solutions, mitigations and seek funding for the projects.

48. Due to the scale of the programme there is a risk of continued disruption and wider impact to the community whilst investment is delivered. A key element of the programme is investment in improving maintenance and renewals programmes to minimise the disruption to the network and reduce the impacts on customers.

49. A priority of the next phase of work will be developing plans on how to best mitigate the delivery impacts of the programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. The ARPBC is being presented to the Auckland Council Transport and Infrastructure Committee in August 2023.

51. Feedback from local boards will be incorporated into the ARPBC and will be used to inform how the next phases of the programme are undertaken once funding has been identified.

52. The ARPBC will seek an approval process to the KiwiRail Board, Auckland Transport Board and Waka Kotahi Board in the latter part of 2023.

53. If the programme is adopted, funding to progress the Programme Business Case will be sought through the Tāmaki Makaurau Transport Plan, RLTP and RNIP. This will identify the next stages of work will provide more detail on the elements of the programme that will be taken forward.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Rail Programme Business Case Presentation (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Answers to questions raised at the Rodney Local Board workshop	111

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Rodrigues, Principal Planner, Auckland Transport

Siobhan O’Donovan, Principal Advisor, Auckland Transport

Jake Cannan, Senior Transport Planner, Auckland Transport

Jo Reeves, Communications Manager, KiwiRail

Authoriser

Louise Mason – GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan

File No.: CP2023/10897

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback on the Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan consultation version

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act requires Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups to develop Group Plans. Group Plans are strategic documents that set out the strategic vision and action plan for achieving disaster resilience in an area.

3. The current Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan is dated 2016-2021 and is under review. It will remain in force until replaced.

4. A draft Group Plan has been developed for consultation with the public. Consultation on the draft was approved by the Civil Defence Emergency Management Committee on 25 July 2023 (Resolution CDEMC/2023/15).

5. This paper describes the content of the draft Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan (draft Group Plan), the process that has been taken to prepare the draft Group Plan, the parties that have been involved in its development, the consultation is currently being conducted in August 2023, and next steps.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback on the draft Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

6. A Group Plan is a statutory requirement of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (the CDEM Act). The current Group Plan is dated 2016-2021. A CDEM Group Plan remains operative for the period specified, but if the plan is not replaced before the close of that period, it remains in force until replaced. The review of the current Group Plan commenced with public notice in the New Zealand Herald on 21 October 2021. There have been delays in completing this review due to local elections, intended alignment with the Emergency Management Bill, and other factors, which have previously been reported to the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) and the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Committee.

7. In April 2023, the CDEM Committee approved a project timeline for completion of the review of the current plan (Attachment B). The programme requires public consultation on a draft Group Plan in August 2023. Consultation on the draft was approved by the CDEM Committee on 25 July 2023 (Resolution CDEMC/2023/15).

8. Next steps involved in the development of the draft CDEM Group Plan are set out below:

Milestone	Date
Public consultation, local board feedback, Advisory panel feedback, National emergency management agency technical review	August 2023
Submissions and hearings	September 2023
Brief Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) and CDEM Committee on consultation feedback themes (Committee)	October 2023
Create final draft	November - December 2023
Submit final draft to Minister of Emergency Management	Jan 2024
Provide local boards with a copy of final document describing how the document has changed in response to submissions	Early 2024

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Content of the Group Plan

9. The draft Group Plan sets out the strategic direction for our work on Auckland’s Defence Emergency Management system. It outlines the CDEM mission and objectives for Tāmaki Makaurau, how we will achieve them and how we will measure our performance.

10. The draft Group Plan is designed to be used by the CDEM Group and key partners and stakeholders involved in CDEM functions in Auckland. It also provides the public with an understanding of how these stakeholders work together, and the role they themselves can play in building individual and community resilience.

11. In accordance with the CDEM Act and Director’s Guidelines for Group Plans, the draft Group Plan includes a comprehensive summary of the natural, built, social and cultural environments of Tāmaki Makaurau and an analysis of the hazards and risks facing Auckland. These factors guide the focus of activities and actions that are described in the later chapters of the plan.

12. The plan contains chapters on the four Rs of emergency management (reduction, readiness, response and recovery), and chapters addressing mana whenua and mātāwaka partnership, management and governance, and monitoring and evaluation.

13. Each chapter describes the existing arrangements that are in place, identifies what we need to focus on to make improvements in that area, and sets out objectives and actions over the 5-year life of the plan. An ‘action plan’ table is set out for each chapter, which describes the objectives, actions, key deliverables or success measures, and results expected from achieving the objectives. The lead within Auckland Council and key supporters (either from within Auckland Council or the wider community of CDEM partners and stakeholders), are also identified for each action. This is intended to support clarity of roles and responsibilities, and to communicate that everyone has a role to play in contributing to a Tāmaki Makaurau that is resilient to disasters.

14. Further detail on timing of delivery of actions will be set out in business plans, to ensure they can be adapted quickly to changing circumstances.

Development of the Group Plan

15. The Group Plan has been developed in accordance with, and informed by the following:

i) the legal requirements of sections 48-56 of the CDEM Act

ii) CDEM Group Planning Director’s Guidelines [DGL 09/18]

iii) the National Disaster Resilience Strategy 2019 Ruataki ā-Motu Manawaroa Aituā

iv) supporting plans of Auckland Council and partners and stakeholders

v) risk assessments, involving collaborative workshops with CDEM partners and stakeholders, and online surveys

vi) international, national and local climate change and emergency management research and policy

vii) learnings from previous emergency responses, including independent reviews of Auckland Council emergency management readiness and response.

16. The draft has been developed incorporating input and advice from a range of parties including:

i) the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)

ii) a working group comprised of CEG organisation representatives

iii) a project advisory group comprised of subject matter experts across the Council whānau regarding strategy, the four environments (natural, built, social and economic), strategy, sustainability, hazard risk, infrastructure and statutory land use planning

iv) the Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat (IMSB)

v) Auckland Emergency Management department and Controllers

vi) Auckland Council legal advisors

vii) Ngā Mātārae, Ngati te ata Waiohua, the National Māori Wardens Response Team, Nelson / Tasman emergency management, Ngai Tahu emergency management and Massey University (specifically in relation to development of Whakaoranga marae, Whakaoranga whanau), the framework for supporting disaster resilience of mana whenua and mātāwaka that is embedded within the draft Group Plan

viii) Local boards (refer to the Local impacts and local board views section).

Public notification

17. The CDEM Act requires public notification for a period not less than one month to enable the public to make submissions on the draft Group Plan. It also requires that any person who makes a written submission, is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the body to which the submission is made. These factors have informed arrangements for the public notification phase.

18. The draft Group Plan will be made available on Auckland Council’s ‘AK Have Your Say’ online platform, along with frequently asked questions and a feedback form. Submissions will be accepted from 31 July 2023 to 31 August 2023. A hard copy reference document will be made available in all council libraries and service centres, accompanied by the feedback form. A summary document and feedback form has been translated into Te Reo Māori, simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, Samoan, Hindi, Korean and Tongan (available online and in libraries and service centres) to support participation of Aucklanders who either do not speak English, or English is their second language.

19. To raise awareness about the consultation, a link to the AK Have Your Say platform will be shared with our CDEM partners and stakeholders, along with posts on the Auckland Emergency Management social media channels and website. The Citizen Engagement team at Auckland Council will also share the consultation link with their network of community partners, who are representatives of Auckland’s diverse communities, and work with Council to broaden engagement reach. Local boards are invited to share the consultation material with their communities.

20. The Recovery Office and Healthy Waters department of Auckland Council are engaging with the public at the same time as consultation on the draft Group Plan. We are working with the communications and engagement specialists across both projects to ensure clarity of messaging to the public. To assist with this, a flyer has been developed for placement at libraries, service centres and any community events throughout this period (such as community hui on local board plans). The flyer describes the projects, where people can go for more information, and how they can provide feedback.

21. Any party that indicates they wish to be heard in support of their submission on the draft Group Plan will be given the opportunity to present to the CDEM Committee in September.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change^{^[10]} declares the scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a grave and mounting threat to human wellbeing and the health of our planet. People’s health, lives and livelihoods, as well as property and critical infrastructure, including energy and transportation systems, are being adversely affected by hazards from heat waves, storms, drought, and flooding, as well as slow-onset changes including sea level rise.

23. The evidence for warming in New Zealand continues to build. New Zealand experienced its warmest year on record in 2022, surpassing the previous record set in 2021. The upper North Island and Auckland confidently point towards increasing temperature trends^{^[11]}. Annual rainfall patterns are also expected to change, with eastern portions of the North Island likely to see more summer rainfall, and rainfall intensities accompanying sub-tropical systems and airmasses expected to increase. Marine heat waves and drought are also set to become more frequent and intense. Climate change is likely to increase the chances of strong El Nino and La Nina events.

24. The Group Plan contains actions that intend to reduce the risk of hazards (including those influenced by climate change), and to support community and operational readiness, response to and recovery from emergencies.

25. While not directly incorporated into the risk calculations for the hazard risk assessment described in the draft Group Plan, the five-year reassessment cycle will allow us to incorporate the latest science and understanding of the changing climate into our scenarios and severity determination.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The Project Advisory Group described in paragraph 15 c) was established to contribute to the development of the draft Group Plan. This has been integral to ensuring that the draft Group Plan aligns with related Council policy, and that the activities of the wider Council that contribute to building disaster resilient communities are incorporated.

27. Council-controlled organisations are connected to the Group Plan review through both CEG and Lifelines.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. Local boards have an important role to play in supporting disaster resilient communities through their knowledge of local communities and local government. Auckland Emergency Management’s Lead Team have conducted a series of workshops with local boards in recent months to build and strengthen relationships. Clarity on roles and responsibilities, communication, and the need for local plans to support response were key themes that were expressed by the local board members.

29. The draft Group Plan sets out the roles and responsibilities of local board members before, during and after emergencies. Actions to support response communication, local board plans, and community resilience plans are also included.

30. A local board member briefing session on the draft Group Plan was held on 26 June 2023. Local board views are being sought on the Group Plan and will be incorporated into the final plan as appropriate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. In line with the National Disaster Resilience Strategy- Rautaki ā-Motu Manawaroa Aituā, Auckland Emergency Management (AEM) have been working hard to incorporate a Te Ao Māori worldview into our mahi to ensure greater recognition, understanding, and integration of iwi/Māori perspectives and tikanga in emergency management. The impacts on Māori from disasters can be significant and there are real strengths in integrating kaupapa Māori, mātauranga Māori and tikanga Māori into resilience building for disasters.

32. Engagement with iwi and Māori on the Group Plan began with a presentation to the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki forum in late 2022. The forum was encouraging and supportive of the kaupapa. AEM continues to build relationships with iwi and Māori at all levels, from the Independent Māori Statutory Board secretariat, to individual marae through their resilience planning work via Whakaoranga marae, Whakaoranga whānau.

33. The draft Group Plan acknowledges our partnership obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and acknowledges mana whenua mātauranga mai rā anō (traditional and historical lived-experience and knowledge of an area, place or space). Objectives and actions within the plan aim to:

· coordinate with our partners and stakeholders to expand work to support mana whenua and mātāwaka with disaster resilience through Whakaoranga marae, Whakaoranga whānau and Kia Rite and Kia Mau (a resilience programme focused on tamariki and rangatahi)

· secure representation of mana whenua and mātāwaka in the Incident Management Team and Coordinating Executive Group.

34. Whakaoranga marae, Whakaoranga whānau was developed collaboratively as described in paragraph 14 g). These parties were also involved in the development of Ngā Mātāpono, values and principles that underpin ways of working with iwi and Māori in Auckland that form part of the strategic framework for the Group Plan.

35. The engagement period in August 2023 provides an opportunity for mana whenua and mātāwaka to consider the Group Plan content (that has been developed collaboratively as described above) and advise if there are any areas that could be further enhanced from a Te Ao Māori perspective.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The consultation process can be delivered within approved budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Submission numbers and programme

37. The weather events in early 2023 and the subsequent Auckland Flood Response Review (the Bush report) generated an increased level of interest in the Auckland CDEM Group Plan. This is likely to increase the number of submissions that might have otherwise been expected. Whilst this is positive in terms of public participation, only a month has been allocated to submission analysis in the programme in Attachment B. Additional support from the wider Council family (or consultants) may be required, depending on the number of submissions received.

38. Similarly, two days of hearings have been scheduled with the CDEM Committee in September 2023, to enable those parties who wish to be heard, to do so. If a large number of submitters wish to be heard, the number of hearing days will need to be increased.

Public and media interest

39. There is a need to be clear in public messaging about the purpose of the Group Plan; that it is a strategic vision and action plan for CDEM activity in Auckland. It is not an operational document, nor a tactical response plan. Key messages are being developed with Corporate Communications and Media to address this.

40. To anticipate potential media interest in the draft Group Plan, Adam Maggs, Group Controller and Head of Capability and Public Awareness, has been identified as media spokesperson.

Emergency Management Bill

41. The Emergency Management Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 7 June 2023. Advice from NEMA is that it is likely to take some time to progress through the formal stages to become an Act. The Bill will not affect the current programme for the review of Auckland CDEM Group Plan as it has not yet been made into law.

42. There will likely be a requirement for CDEM Groups to review their Group Plans within a period of time after the bill is enacted (for example, two years).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43. Consultation will take place in August as described. The remainder of the Group Plan review will progress in accordance with the timeline in Attachment B, mindful of the risk and mitigations outlined above.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Attachment A – Group Plan Consultation document (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Attachment B – Timeline	121

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kristen Spooner - Principal Advisor Strategy and Planning

Authorisers

Paul Amaral - General Manager Auckland Emergency Management

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Local board feedback on the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and Making Space for Water

File No.: CP2023/11095

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan, and associated initiatives proposed as part of the Making Space for Water programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Recovery Office is coordinating efforts to support communities to recover from the extreme weather events of early 2023. A Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan is being developed to guide this work. Making Space for Water is one work programme within the proposed Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and includes a range of proposed flood resilience activities.

3. Region-wide public consultation is taking place from 3 August to 31 August 2023. It is seeking Aucklanders’ feedback on two topics:

· their experience during the storms and their aspirations for recovery to inform planning

· their views on ways to better manage stormwater to reduce future flood risk.

4. Public consultation documents on storm recovery and resilience are included as Attachments A, B and C to the agenda report. Much of the consultation will be place-based, working with affected communities and households to hear their feedback on the recovery process, their ongoing needs, and their suggestions for improving resilience to future events.

5. Feedback is being requested from local boards concurrently with public consultation, as the timeline for decision-making is very short.

6. Local board views are sought on the questions outlined in the consultation document (Attachment C) as well as the proposed principles and two-tiered structure of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan that is outlined in this report.

7. Workshops have been held with all local boards to provide information on the proposed Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and the Making Space for Water programme, including information specific to proposed programmes in each local board area.

8. Local board feedback will be provided to the Governing Body along with public feedback and further programme detail in September 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback on the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and the Making Space for Water programme, as set out in the public consultation documents (Attachments A, B, and C)

b) whakarite / provide feedback on the proposed principles and structure of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Recovery Office is coordinating a programme to support communities to recover from this year’s storm events which has been developed collaboratively across the council group and external agencies. Planned recovery efforts will be presented in the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan, bringing together the delivery of recovery projects, initiatives and activities across the four recovery workstreams: Community and Social, Māori Partnership and Participation, Economic, and Natural and Built Environment.

10. The purpose of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan is to:

· provide assurance to the people of Tāmaki Makaurau

· set objectives, providing direction for collaborative recovery efforts to address the impacts and consequences of severe weather events of early 2023

· document collaborative delivery of recovery projects, initiatives and activities, their participants and lead agencies, and timeframes

· provide a framework for planning the transition from recovery based upon the completion of projects, cessation of initiatives and activities, or their incorporation into business as usual by appropriate organisations

· provide a basis for monitoring progress towards the achievement of objectives and transition to delivery of services across council and recovery partners.

11. The plan will be a ‘living document’ with sections released progressively as programmes are finalised. One of the programmes within the Natural and Built Environment workstream is Making Space for Water, the proposed flood risk reduction programme.

12. The Making Space for Water programme is being proposed in response to more frequent and severe flood events in Auckland. Its purpose is to prioritise flood readiness in stormwater operations, and to ensure that communities, households, and businesses are supported to build their resilience to storms.

13. Local boards received a copy of the 23 May 2023 Governing Body report including the proposed Making Space for Water initiatives.

14. A briefing was held with all local board members on 17 July 2023 to provide more information to local boards about the direction of both programmes and how they can engage with the process.

15. At its July 2023 meeting, the Governing Body agreed to public consultation about the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and the Making Space for Water programme in August 2023, and approved the public consultation documents (Attachments A, B and C).

16. Public consultation is taking place from 3 August to 31 August 2023. Aucklanders have the opportunity to provide feedback through the AK Have Your Say website, as well as online webinars and drop-in events. Additional events are taking place for highly affected areas.

17. A memo circulated to local boards on 2 August 2023 provided more detailed information about consultation activities and events.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. Local board feedback is sought on the questions in Attachment C regarding communities’ experiences and aspirations for recovery, and the proposed initiatives for Making Space for Water.

19. Local board feedback is also sought on the proposed principles and structure of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan, as outlined below. This feedback will inform the development of the plan, to be reported to the Governing Body in September.

Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan

20. The Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan is intended to support the coordination of recovery efforts. Recovery from the events of early 2023 needs to be effective at the local and regional level, take account of different timeframes for different impacts and consequences to be fully understood, and be based on engagement with iwi and Māori and Tāmaki Makaurau communities.

21. The design of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan is informed by its purpose and principles, in support of good recovery practice. This includes ensuring suggestions for improvement are captured for future events.

Principles

22. The proposed principles of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan are:

· people and their communities are foremost

· projects, initiatives, and activities addressing impacts and consequences, and the communities in which they are delivered, are prioritised based on need

· equity is an inherent consideration

· opportunities to build resilience and avoid future harm are sought proactively

· projects, initiatives and activities are integrated to maximise the benefit to Tāmaki Makaurau and its communities, and to mitigate or manage disruption

· projects, initiatives and activities are funded, have funding secured or have mechanisms in place to ensure funding is secured

· the plan is a living document: changes to projects, initiatives, and activities can be accommodated provided the intended outcome is not affected.

Structure

23. The impacts of consecutive events earlier this year mean that there are widespread impacts across the region, with a number of localities more severely impacted. To address these circumstances appropriately, the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan is envisaged as being two-tiered, with a region-wide section and sections that are place-based. It is proposed that local sections will align to individual or clusters of local board areas where communities were more significantly impacted by the weather events. It is also intended to be modular, so that sections can be added as information becomes available or replaced if key information changes.

Delivery

24. The Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan will be delivered in stages, with the regional section first followed by more focused local sections informed by local experience and feedback. The regional section will include discussion of exiting from the formal ‘recovery’ phase through a transition plan in early 2024.

Making space for water

25. As reported in the May 2023 report to Governing Body (GB/2023/88), nine initiatives have been identified as part of the proposed Making Space for Water programme. These are identified in Table 1 and described in more detail in Attachment A. Together, the initiatives are designed to address all flood-affected areas within the scope of the programme, with a cascade of interventions from education and advice through to engineering solutions and, in limited situations (as an option of last resort and subject to central government decisions), property acquisition.

Table 1. Proposed Making Space for Water initiatives

Operations and maintenance

1. Increased maintenance

2. Flood intelligence

Neighbourhood solutions

3. Community-led flood resilience

4. Stream rehabilitation

5. Rural settlements

6. Culvert and bridge upgrades

7. Blue-green networks

Site-specific interventions

8. Overland flow path management

9. High risk properties

26. Lessons from previous projects have been important in developing the possible work programmes. Staff are using lessons from Project Twin Streams and the more recent naturalisation projects of Te Ara Awataha in Northcote and parts of Te Auaunga (Oakley Creek) in Mount Roskill / Mount Albert. These more recent projects were designed and built to specifically reduce flood risk while enabling growth through nature-based solutions. Both projects performed very well in the recent storm events despite the intensity of the storm event.

27. Specifically, the design of the Te Auaunga project protected 89 habitable floors from flooding by adding capacity to the stream and reducing the previous flood plain. Te Ara Awataha project has helped facilitate a large-scale re-development of the Northcote area where Kāinga Ora are currently developing 1,700 apartments and Eke Panuku are re-developing the town centre including a further 300 homes.

28. Further, Project Twin Streams in Waitākere involved the purchase of approximately 150 properties over 10 years and their removal from flood hazard. The locations of these properties were flooded during the recent storm events and, had the houses not been removed previously, they would almost certainly have been flooded.

29. The proposed projects are anticipated to deliver three levels of benefit:

· Site-by-site benefit: Some of the proposed interventions will directly benefit individual properties, for example removing buildings that are at an unacceptable risk of repeated or severe flooding. Approximately 400 properties could be taken out of flood hazard zones through the proposed blue-green networks and culvert and bridge upgrades, and a further 150 properties have been identified as high-risk. These benefits depend on sufficient co-funding being made available for property acquisition

· Community benefit: Other initiatives will provide benefits at a community level, for example the work to build community-led flood resilience, support rural settlements, and rehabilitate streams would support communities to act to reduce their flood risks by managing the infrastructure in their immediate community. Blue-green networks also provide community-scale benefits

· Regional benefit: Investment in flood intelligence and overland flow path management impacts the entire region. Flood intelligence informs asset planning, maintenance, and mapping of flood risks. Overland flow path management requires council resources to identify, investigate and intervene in obstructions to overland flow paths. Our modelling and observations after the flood show that better overland flow path management would have noticeably reduced the extent of flooding in some areas by allowing the water to drain away.

Local dimensions to recovery

30. The potential for blue-green approaches is being assessed in the areas listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Proposed blue-green network projects by local board area

Local board	Proposed blue-green network
Albert-Eden Local Board	Meola-Epsom
Kaipātiki Local Board and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board	Wairau Valley, Totaravale and Sunnynook
Franklin Local Board	Whangapouri Creek
Henderson-Massey Local Board	Opanuku Stream and Swanson-Waimoko Stream
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board	Harania Creek and Te Ararata Creek
Puketāpapa Local Board	Te Auaunga Stage 2
Rodney Local Board	Kumeū River
Waitākere Ranges Local Board	Porters Stream
Waitematā Local Board	Opouteteka / Cox’s Creek
Whau Local Board and Puketāpapa Local Board	Whau River

Some communities will need tailored consultation

31. Some local board areas were more severely impacted than others or experience frequent flooding. Of these, the Recovery Office has also identified communities that are more vulnerable to emergency events and has designed more active and targeted consultation through community groups in these areas. These include Māngere, Piha, Muriwai, Henderson, Rānui, Swanson, Milford, Karekare and Mount Roskill that were particularly impacted by this year’s storm events.

32. Direct efforts will continue to be made to connect with these affected residents and property owners through targeted promotion and additional community drop-in events.

33. Care will need to be taken with these communities as there will be overlap with property owners who are being contacted as part of initial assessments in respect of central government’s proposed voluntary buy out proposals. It is important that we clearly communicate the different purposes of each engagement and do not contribute more stress to individual scenarios.

34. In June, 6,838 letters were sent to property owners across Auckland seeking information regarding whether their property may be eligible for the government’s proposed voluntary buy-out scheme. While responses are still being received, as of 27 July, 28 per cent of respondents had indicated that they believe their property should be considered ‘Category 3’ (not safe to live in because of the unacceptable risk of future flooding and loss of life).

35. Staff recognise that the impacts of flooding on rural communities have been different to those on urban communities. The Recovery Office is working with the Northern Adverse Event Team and the Waikato Primary Industry Adverse Events Cluster to support engagement with rural communities. We will also seek specific feedback through community groups, guidance from rural local boards, and the Rural Advisory Panel on workstreams that affect rural areas, for example resilience of roading, power and communications.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

36. On 29 June 2023 the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee noted three main lines of action to build Auckland’s resilience to climate change through adaptation:

· strengthening the Unitary Plan

· speeding up community adaptation action

· initiatives within the Making Space for Water programme.

37. These lines of action are consistent with the overall strategic direction, commitments and outcomes sought in the Auckland Plan 2050, and policy settings in Ngā Hapori Momoho: the Thriving Communities Strategy, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, and the Water Strategy.

38. ‘Opportunities to build resilience and avoid future harm are sought proactively’ is a proposed principle of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and responds to climate change.

39. Both the Auckland Plan 2050 and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan advocate for greater resilience to severe storms and flood events. The initiatives proposed in ‘Making Space for Water’ will have a beneficial impact on Auckland’s climate adaptation.

40. The proposed blue-green network and stream rehabilitation projects will include measures such as restoring wetlands, developing water detention areas, clearing overland flow paths, and naturalising channels. These nature-based solutions will generally have a lower carbon impact than the more carbon-intensive grey infrastructure. Some will also be able to sequester carbon.

41. The Making Space for Water programme will also promote the use of low carbon technologies and methodologies in the design, construction, and renewal of the piped network in line with the targets set by Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri.

42. Infrastructure provision and construction are likely to cause some emissions in the short- to medium-term but will be beneficial in the long-term to improve Auckland’s ability to be prepared for adverse weather and climate disruption.

43. The social outcomes associated with the impacts of climate change on the community, cultural and natural ecosystems will be considered in the programme.

44. In combining engagement and consultation for the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and Making Space for Water, the materials deployed, travel and resource use will be lower than if conducted separately.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45. Many parts of council have responsibilities that influence how we manage flood risks and build community resilience. This detail was provided to the Governing Body on 22 June 2023. Staff have worked across the council group to align programme scope with policy direction and other work programmes led by the council, and with our partners, including council-controlled organisations.

46. Healthy Waters and the Recovery Office are working with the Chief Planning Office, Local Board Services, Legal, and Finance to refine Making Space for Water, develop the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan, and the associated consultation plan, to ensure alignment with council policy and priorities.

47. On 26 April 2023, the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) committee approved accelerated consultation on the Auckland CDEM Group Plan review (CDEMC/2023/7). This consultation is occurring at the same time as the Storm Recovery and Resilience consultation. Staff across both workstreams are working to ensure these processes align.

48. The consultation document includes a list of internal and external parties who will be part of the continued development and implementation of the programme.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49. In the wake of storms and flooding, local boards play a critical role both in representing their communities and in the delivery of recovery activities in their respective areas.

50. This report seeks feedback from local boards on the experiences of their local communities and aspirations for recovery, the proposed priorities for the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan, and the proposed initiatives for Making Space for Water.

51. Feedback is being requested from local boards concurrently with public consultation, as there is a need to progress the recovery promptly.

52. Feedback from local boards will inform decisions by the Governing Body on the shape of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and Making Space for Water programme.

53. The Recovery Office and Healthy Waters presented to a briefing for all local board members on 7 July 2023 to provide an update on the development of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and Making Space for Water. Local boards have been provided with information on specific impacts of initiatives in their local areas to inform their feedback.

54. More specific plans to gather local views in a tailored manner, including those from more impacted communities are described in the analysis and advice section.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. Māori Partnership and Participation is a whenu (strand) in the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan. Direct consultation with mana whenua began in mid-May. Since then, staff have worked through their established relationships to refine some initiatives. Staff gave an overview of the programme to the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum pou taiao on 7 June 2023. At this hui, staff were asked to hold a workshop on this and other broader water issues.

56. Hui with Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) staff has highlighted a need to work more intentionally with IMSB members through programme development and public consultation. The Recovery Office recognises the need for effective consultation with Māori. Māori have interests across each of the recovery workstreams such as marae, businesses, housing, tamariki, and the natural environment. An iwi consultation plan is in development, with additional events proposed for mana whenua and mataawaka.

57. Staff are working with the council’s Māori outcomes specialists to maximise opportunities for mana whenua and Māori to provide input on the range of options for consultation and engagement, throughout the consultation period, programme design, and delivery.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

58. A proposed principle of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan is that ‘projects, initiatives and activities are funded, have funding secured or have mechanisms in place to ensure funding is secured.’ Work is underway to quantify the costs of project initiatives and activities which will be reflected in the plan and incorporated into the development of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, as appropriate.

59. On 1 June 2023, the government proposed entering into funding agreements with councils in cyclone and flood affected regions to support them to offer voluntary buy-out for owners of high-risk (Category 3) properties and to co-fund work needed to protect properties where risk can be managed (Category 2). Details of these arrangements are yet to be confirmed.

60. The proposed Making Space for Water programme of additional investment is currently estimated to cost around $1.65 billion. Elements of the programme may be co-funded by central government.

Funding options and impacts still need to be worked through

61. Different funding sources could be considered by the council to fund the remainder of the costs, but practicable options are likely to be limited to increases to general rates or the creation of a specific, new, targeted rate(s).

62. Any additional rates charge would be over and above the starting point general rates increase which is estimated to be 13 per cent for the 2024/2025 year for the average value residential property. This is, however, a very preliminary estimate and is subject to many variables and decisions as part of developing the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

63. If the council were to fund the entire Making Space for Water programme with an estimated cost of $1.65 billion, this would require funding equivalent to an additional 8 per cent increase in general rates for the average value property.

64. The council is working through negotiations with central government in regards funding. Any Crown funding through this process will reduce the requirement for funding from Auckland’s ratepayers.

65. Further options could be available to the council around a targeted rate, including funding specific projects only from properties within each affected catchment, or collectively from all affected catchments. This could result in rating increases for some properties of well over 50 per cent.

66. Other rating policy options would be available to the council such as phasing in a targeted rate over two years to manage the impact on ratepayers.

67. This level of detail will be subject to further development for future consultation and eventual consideration by the Governing Body, including feedback from local boards. Future consultation will include updated cost projections and more detail on funding options, informed by feedback from this consultation and any funding agreements with central government.

68. Operating costs incurred within the 2023/2024 financial year will be met from existing budgets, including the Storm Response Fund.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. There are no risks associated with local boards providing feedback on these matters. Local board feedback will be shared with the Governing Body for consideration in developing the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and the Making Space for Water programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

70. Engagement on the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan and Making Space for Water will take place between 3 August and 31 August 2023.

71. The Recovery Office will report to the September 2023 meeting of the Governing Body, seeking approval in principle for the structure and delivery of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan. Community and local board feedback will be included in this report and used to inform the development of the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan. It is proposed to seek approval of the plan in sections thereafter.

72. The revised Making Space for Water work programme will be presented to the Governing Body in September 2023 for support in principle.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Storm Recovery and Resilience Consultation Document (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Storm Recovery and Resilience Consultation Document Summary	133
c ⇩	Storm Recovery and Resilience Consultation Feedback Form	137

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Nicholas Vigar - Head of Planning, Healthy Waters

Mace Ward - Deputy Group Recovery Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Mat Tucker - Group Recovery Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Local board feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024

File No.: CP2023/10989

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback on the proposed direction for the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for 2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The 2018 2018 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan must be reviewed by 2024 in accordance with statutory requirements. As an operational plan, the waste plan sets out objectives, policies, targets, actions and funding to achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within Auckland for the following six years.

3. The review of the waste plan will be informed by the Waste Assessment 2023, which will provide an insight into the waste context in the region, including tonnages sent to landfill, opportunities for diversion, services provided in Auckland, and forecasts for demand.

4. Staff do not propose any significant changes to the vision or direction of the 2018 plan of zero waste by 2040.

5. The following opportunities have been identified to guide the 2024 waste plan:

· continuing on our current pathway to zero waste by 2040 including standardisation of kerbside services, reflecting the Revised Resource Recovery Network Strategy 2021, and an ongoing focus on litter, illegal dumping and marine waste

· refreshing our focus areas for commercial waste streams, with a key focus on construction and demolition waste, organic, plastics, cardboard/paper and textile waste

· strengthening our focus on climate change mitigation, adaptation and resilience

· extending our food scraps collection services to additional urban areas

· reflecting ways to strengthen our partnership approach with mana whenua, and recognise the benefits of te ao Māori

· re-focusing advocacy to central government to ensure that delivery of the 2023 waste strategy goals and targets, and that cross-ministry policy supports a circular economy

· continuing to address waste generated from council and council-controlled organisations’ operational activities, particularly from activities generating high volumes of waste

· refreshing actions to work closely with others, recognising that we cannot get to zero waste by acting alone.

6. These opportunities have been informed by the work undertaken to prepare a waste assessment that describes waste infrastructure and services, and forecasts demands and options to meet those demands. Preliminary findings of the assessment will be presented at an elected members briefing on 7 August 2023.

7. The opportunities have also been informed by early engagement with mana whenua, and with mataawaka groups working in the area of waste minimisation, and by Te Rautaki Para / Waste Strategy 2023 the new national waste strategy released by central government earlier this year (refer also Attachment A to the Agenda report).

8. Staff are seeking input from local boards to inform the draft plan. In particular, staff are seeking feedback on the draft opportunities outlined in this report.

9. Local board feedback will be incorporated into the draft waste plan, which will be presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 30 November 2023 for approval to publicly consult. Local boards will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft plan following public consultation in 2024.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for 2024-2030.

Horopaki

Context

10. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 is due to be reviewed by 2024 in accordance with the council’s responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2022 and Waste Minimisation Act 2008. This will be Auckland Council’s third waste plan on the journey towards zero waste by 2040.

11. As an operational plan, it will include objectives, targets, and methods for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the region as outlined in sections 43 and 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act. The plan provides the statutory framework for council decision-making relating to waste issues, together with our approach and actions to achieve zero waste.

12. The plan will also outline how implementation will be funded. It will have regard to Te Rautaki Para / Waste Strategy 2023 for New Zealand and the council’s own waste assessment, which forms the evidence base for the plan. The 2018 plan is available online and is outlined below.

13. Previous Waste Management and Minimisation Plans have helped to guide initiatives to standardise kerbside collections, evolve the resource recovery network, strengthen the council’s community partnerships, and successfully advocate to central government for an increased waste levy and product stewardship.

14. The 2024 Waste Plan will progress the vision of the earlier waste plans for zero waste by 2040 and take into account the progress and achievements of the last six years.

2018 vision, key priorities and targets

15. The 2018 Waste Plan sets out a vision for Auckland to be zero waste by 2040. Zero waste is a long-term goal, but there are steps to progress towards this goal that the council and residents can undertake now.

16. The plan also sets out the steps which were to be taken over the six years from 2018-2024. There are nine key actions in the 2018 plan:

· advocate for an increased waste levy

· advocate for product stewardship

· address three priority commercial waste streams (construction and demolition waste, organic waste, and plastic waste)

· continue establishing the Resource Recovery Network

· focus on reducing litter, illegal dumping, and marine waste

· continue to transition to consistent kerbside waste and recycling services for households

· deliver the domestic kerbside collection of food scraps

· address waste diversion from our own operational activities

· work in partnership with others to achieve a zero waste Auckland.

Getting to Zero Waste / Tīkapa Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan 2018

17. The Tīkapa Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan provides goals and key actions specific to the Hauraki Gulf islands, including Aotea / Great Barrier, Waiheke, Kawau, and Rakino. Staff have engaged separately through workshops with the three relevant local boards on the proposed direction for that plan.

18. Staff will continue to work separately with Aotea / Great Barrier, Waiheke, and Rodney local boards to confirm the direction for the 2024 Tīkapa Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. A waste assessment is being undertaken to provide the evidence base for the direction and actions of the next waste plan. This assessment provides an insight into the waste context in the region based on the tonnages sent to landfill and opportunities for diversion. It also describes relevant services provided in the Auckland region and forecasts demand for those services together with options to meet those demands. Preliminary findings from the assessment are included in the analysis below.

Performance against 2018 Waste Plan targets

20. The 2018 waste plan set interim targets in three key areas: total regional waste, domestic waste, and council waste. The targets and our performance to date are summarised below.

Table 1: Progress against Waste Plan 2018 targets – as of December 2022

Total regional waste
Target	Reduce total council- and private-sector-influenced waste to landfill by 30 per cent by 2027 (from the 2010 baseline of 832kg to 582 kg per capita per year)
How we’re tracking	Not on track 873kg (small increase from the baseline)
Explanation: Auckland Council has direct control over only approximately 20 per cent of the waste stream through the contracts for domestic collections that it manages and the Waitākere Refuse and Recycling Transfer Station. While domestic kerbside waste has reduced slightly (refer target below), overall waste quantities including commercial, and construction and demolition waste have increased. Although the effects of COVID-19 have impacted continuity of datasets, recently, tonnages are showing signs of stabilising which may reflect improvements in waste diversion. Proposed legislative changes to drive a circular economy and support for waste minimisation should impact total waste to landfill in the future.
Domestic waste
Target	a. Reduce domestic kerbside refuse by 30 per cent by 2021 (from 160kg in 2010 to 110kg per capita per year). b. After 2021, reduce domestic kerbside refuse by a further 20 per cent by 2028 (from 110kg to 88kg per capita per year)
How we’re tracking	Partly on track 141kg (decrease of 12 per cent from the baseline)
Explanation: Domestic kerbside waste has reduced slightly, however due to the delay in the rukenga kai/food scraps collection rollout, there is a delay in reaching the 2021 target. Food scraps currently comprise about 45 per cent of kerbside waste by weight; and removing those from refuse bins, combined with a reduced frequency for refuse collections, will enable us to reach the target.
Council waste
Target	a. Reduce council’s own in-house office waste by 60 per cent per capita by 2024 (from a 2012 baseline) b. Work across council to set a baseline for operational wastes and, by 2019, put in place targets for reduction.
How we’re tracking	Partly on track 44 per cent reduction of in-house office waste in 2019 – noting not assessed since the pandemic as the way offices are used has changed markedly. Targets for operational waste not yet established.
Explanation: As of 2019, waste from council offices had reduced from the baseline by 44 per cent; however, COVID-19 related impacts such as working from home mean we are unable to meaningfully assess current performance. The approach to set operational waste baselines and targets has not yet been established due to the complexity and breadth of council and CCO activities, however the waste plan has led to a zero waste outcome being included in council’s sustainable procurement framework which is being applied to high value contracts and major construction projects and will be incorporated within all contracts in the future.

Preliminary findings on waste to landfill and kerbside collection trends

21. Preliminary findings from the 2023 waste assessment were provided at a local board members’ briefing on 7 August. Key findings on total waste to municipal landfill (domestic and non-domestic sources) are outlined below.

· there has been a slowing of growth in tonnages of waste to municipal landfill in recent years

· materials identified in the 2018 Waste Plan as priority commercial waste streams to be addressed are still relevant. These include:

o construction and demolition waste (such as concrete, timber, and plasterboard)

o organic materials (such as food and garden waste)

o plastics.

· other materials that have a sizeable carbon footprint include cardboard/paper and textiles

· research from overseas has identified textiles to be a fast-growing waste stream, with trends for fast fashion exacerbating the issue. Textiles also have a high carbon footprint, especially if production emissions are factored, and have limited options for recycling and reuse in Aotearoa / New Zealand.

22. Key findings on household waste collected at the kerbside are:

· domestic (household) waste still comprises around 16 per cent of the total waste to landfill

· domestic waste has decreased from 160 kilograms per person in 2010 to 137 kilograms in 2023.

Climate change and lessons from the Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle

23. In June 2019, Auckland Council declared that the region is facing a climate emergency. In 2020, the council approved Te-Tāruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, the region’s plan to tackle this challenge. The plan includes actions and priorities relevant to reducing emissions related to waste (refer to the Climate Impact section below).

24. Climate change is projected to increase temperatures and change seasonal patterns in rainfall including greater rainfall intensity. This could mean more intense flooding in the future. Earlier this year, the region saw more than 7,000 buildings impacted by flooding and landslips in late January and early February, resulting in over 6,200 tonnes of waste to landfill.

25. Many community recycling centres played critical, multi-faceted roles during the disaster response including receiving and transferring flood damaged material, collecting flood damaged material from households using their own trucks and staff, receiving and/or collecting donated materials, and distributing reusable materials, including food, to those in need. They also acted as local community hubs, providing vital support for communities in need. The ongoing expansion of the Resource Recovery Network provides further opportunity to integrate community recycling centres within Auckland’s disaster response infrastructure and strengthen community resilience in the face of climate change.

26. While waste infrastructure and services responded well to recent events, it is important to review lessons from every disaster event to further strengthen our approach to climate change adaptation and resilience. Inclusion of waste infrastructure within council’s Infrastructure Strategy and actions in the waste plan to develop digital tools to assist with disaster waste response will enable continual improvement for the benefit of local communities.

The new waste strategy, regulatory framework for kerbside waste services, and the container return scheme

27. In March 2023 the government released a new waste strategy for the country, replacing the 2010 version. The new strategy, Te Rautaki Para / Waste Strategy 2023 resets the vision for waste to transition to a circular economy by 2050, outlines eight goals, and sets three national targets (summarised in Attachment A). Amongst other things, the strategy proposes new legislation and regulatory tools to reduce waste, together with a process to create regular action and investment plans to implement the strategy.

28. The government has also announced that new regulation will be put in place around council provision and household recycling services. This includes standardising materials for recycling and food scraps collections and ensuring all councils offer recycling and food scraps collections in urban areas (i.e., towns of 1,000 people or more).

29. While a container return scheme was approved by Cabinet, work on this has been deferred. This is important as the container return scheme was a product stewardship initiative aligning with one of the nine key actions in Auckland’s 2018 Waste Plan. Staff propose to continue advocacy around the scheme.

Initial feedback from Māori

30. Initial engagement with mana whenua representatives and with mataawaka groups working in the area of waste minimisation indicates we can strengthen the waste plan to reflect a te ao Māori perspective and include opportunities to build community support for waste minimisation amongst other things.

31. Further work (outlined in the Māori impact statement below) is underway with these groups to review the 2018 Waste Plan content for 2024, including ways to strengthen our partnership approach and opportunities with Māori.

Opportunities identified for the next Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

32. Staff propose that the new waste plan will continue the ‘zero waste by 2040’ vision as an aspirational target and continue to deliver on key initiatives already identified in the 2018 plan.

33. The plan will be updated to reflect the current context including issues and opportunities, while ensuring we align with the new central government regulatory requirements for kerbside waste services. We will also futureproof the plan for further central government initiatives signalled in the National Waste Strategy 2023. Targets, actions, and priorities for the next six years will also be reviewed.

34. Other key opportunities identified to date for the 2024 Waste Plan include:

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. The 2024 Waste Plan will align with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, adopted in July 2020, from both a mitigation and adaptation perspective. The plan commits to halving greenhouse gas emissions (against a 2016 baseline) by 2030 and reaching net zero emissions by 2050. Based on emissions from landfill gas, the waste sector generates about 3.1 per cent of Auckland’s total emissions. Specific priorities in the plan related to waste minimisation are outlined below:

· built environment: ensuring the management of existing infrastructure increases climate resilience and reduces emissions

· economy: accelerating the uptake of innovation that supports the delivery of a resilient, climate-proof and regenerative economy; managing our resources to deliver a zero waste, circular economy

· food: prevent and reduce waste and maximise the value of surplus food.

36. Impact on emissions is one of the factors taken into account when identifying priorities and actions for the 2024 Waste Plan. The key opportunities identified above will help to reduce landfill emissions - particularly from organics - and should reduce the amount of embodied carbon lost from manufacturing new products.

37. Delivery of actions in the waste plan, such as the expansion of the Resource Recovery Network, will also strengthen the resilience of the communities of Tāmaki Makaurau in the face of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38. Staff are working across the council group to seek input on the waste plan and ensure our planning and activities around waste management and minimisation are aligned.

39. Council group waste is also within scope of the waste plan, and staff recognise it is particularly important for the council to ‘walk the talk’ and that council is a large employer and community infrastructure provider and partner within the region. Waste Solutions are currently collecting data from across the council group to better understand the activities generating most waste, and how we can best prioritise efforts to create circularity effectively and efficiently.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40. Work is underway with community partners, the waste industry, and relevant businesses to inform the Waste Assessment 2023 and the review of the 2018 Waste Plan.

41. A memo to introduce this work was provided to all local boards in August 2023 and a local board members’ briefing was held on 7 August.

42. Local boards are requested to indicate whether they support the proposed approach for the 2024 Waste Plan outlined above. Staff are particularly interested in hearing Local Board views on the key opportunities identified in paragraph 34.

43. A separate opportunity will be provided for the Aotea / Great Barrier, Waiheke and Rodney local boards to provide input on the Tīkapa Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. Staff have been working to engage with mana whenua and mataawaka on the review of the 2018 Waste Plan. Some initial feedback indicates we can strengthen the waste plan to reflect a te ao Māori perspective and include opportunities to build community support for waste minimisation.

45. So far, mana whenua representatives from four iwi have provided input, with two iwi taking up an invitation to work more closely with staff on plan content. Staff are continuing to provide progress updates through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Forum. Further engagement with mana whenua organisations will occur throughout the plan’s development.

46. Mataawaka groups including Para Kore ki Tāmaki, Papatūānuku Kokiri Marae and Te Awa Ora Trust have also provided feedback which will be used to inform the draft plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47. There are no financial implications for the local board in providing feedback on the direction of the revised waste plan.

48. The actions proposed in the Waste Plan will need to be funded through a combination of rates funding and revenue from the waste levy. For example, in the 2022/2023 financial year the council spent $147 million on waste activities, with 83 per cent from targeted rates, eight per cent from general rates, and nine per cent from the waste levy. As the levy rises, the proportion of funding from our share of the waste levy is expected to increase. Other funding may also be available for specific activities from central government through the Waste Minimisation Fund.

49. Infrastructure to enable commercial resource recovery will require investment from external sources such as government and the private sector. For example, financial support from Fonterra, Visy, Astron Sustainability and from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund was used to upgrade Auckland Council’s Visy recycling facility.

50. The budget for implementing the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be considered through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. There are no risks identified for the local board in providing feedback on the direction of the revised waste plan. However, there is a risk that if local board views are not captured, the direction of the plan will not reflect the range of local views and issues. We are mitigating this risk by providing this opportunity for local board feedback.

52. Key risks around upcoming steps to approve the plan for public consultation are outlined below.

Risk	Mitigation
That we miss the statutory timeframe set to review the Waste Plan 2018 under section 50(1)(b) of the Waste Minimisation Act.	We have already begun a review of the plan within the statutory timeframe; the decision on whether to amend, revoke and replace the plan will be made well in advance of the six-year period allowed since the last plan.
The lack of robust data means we have had to make estimates of waste volumes, which in turn may compromise our ability to reach the goals and targets of the plan.	We have cross-checked data where available to strengthen our estimates; and will include text in the plan recognising the risks of limited data.
We may not meet our goals and targets if increasing costs or lack of funding make implementation unaffordable.	We will make clear in the draft plan that funding is linked to the long-term plan process and availability of waste levy funding.
Lack of mana whenua, stakeholder, and community buy-in, capacity or resource may undermine our ability to partner well with those groups and implement the plan to full effect.	We will continue to reach out to groups through our public consultation process to seek input on the plan so that it can be strengthened.
Changes to waste legislation and regulation may change the policy landscape for councils requiring further changes to the waste plan.	We will continue to work with central government to understand the implications of proposed legislation and ensure that the plan is future-proofed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. Once local board feedback has been received, it will be considered for incorporation into the draft plan.

54. The draft plan will be taken to the Planning Environment and Parks Committee at its 30 November business meeting for approval to consult publicly.

55. Public consultation is expected to take place in early 2024, with an opportunity in April/May for further local board input once public submissions on the draft plan are summarised.

56. Approval of the final plan will take place in mid to late 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotearoa New Zealand Waste Strategy	151

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Le Claire, Waste Planning Manager, Waste Solutions

Tania Utley, Senior Waste Planning Specialist, Waste Solutions

Authorisers

Barry Potter, Director, Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason, General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Local board feedback on current proposals for achieving funding equity through the Long-term Plan

File No.: CP2023/11029

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek the views of the local board regarding options to address local board funding equity ahead of a decision by the Governing Body for inclusion in consultation for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At its 11 July 2023 meeting, the Joint Governance Working Party passed a series of resolutions (Attachment A to the Agenda report) and approved the discussion paper on local board funding equity (Attachment B to the Agenda report) for local boards to consider at workshops to be held during July and August 2023.

3. In particular, the Joint Governance Working Party indicated that its preferred option to achieve local board funding equity through the first three years of Long-term Plan 2024-2034 is by a combination of new funding and reallocation of existing funding. These matters were also canvassed at a local board members’ briefing on 24 July 2023.

4. Local boards are invited to provide feedback on the recommendations below, indicating support or otherwise for each component of the proposal.

5. A further Joint Governance Working Party meeting is scheduled for late September to review the feedback from local boards. The discussion paper along with local board feedback and Joint Governance Working Party direction will then be presented to the Governing Body in a workshop in October or November.

6. The Governing Body will decide on option(s) to be included in consultation for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 as part of the Mayor’s Proposal.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) indicate its tautoko / support (or otherwise), with reasons and alternatives if appropriate, on the following components of the proposal to address local board funding inequity.

Scope of the proposal

b) tautoko / support locally driven initiatives (LDI) funding being included in the scope for this analysis, in the light of increased local board decision-making and 80:15:5 being adopted as the equitable model.

c) tautoko / support limiting the scope of the local board funding equity project to local community services and LDI funding.

d) tautoko / support excluding the following items from the scope:

i) growth funding

ii) funding for discrete projects

iii) other specific-purpose funds such as slips remediation and coastal renewals

iv) targeted rate funding

v) other local activities such as local environmental management, local planning and development, and local governance

vi) most unallocated budgets, with the possible exception of some minor capex for response renewals and new non-growth investment.

e) tautoko / support considering capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) funding separately for achieving equity.

Timeframe

f) tautoko / support seeking to achieve funding equity for local boards in a much shorter timeframe (three years) than the 10–15-year period approved in-principle in 2021, noting that this may mean a reduction in funding for some local boards.

g) tautoko / support taking a staged implementation approach of using year one of the Long-term Plan (i.e., 2024-2025) to prepare, and implementing the changes from year two.

Alternative options

h) tautoko / support achieving equity by using a mix of new funding and reallocating funding from local boards that are currently funded over the equitable funding level to local boards that are funded below the equitable funding level.

i) tautoko / support holding new funding in the later seven years of LTP 2024-2034 in a pool which is to be allocated to local boards according to agreed criteria, which is yet to be developed, if getting most local boards to within five per cent of funding equity in 3 years is pursued.

Multi-board services

j) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the proposal for multi-board services needs further investigation to better understand the implications for local boards and the governance structure and that further advice will be brought to the Joint Governance Working Party and local boards in due course.

Horopaki

Context

7. At its 30 May 2023 meeting, the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) considered a discussion paper (Attachment B to the Agenda report) seeking direction on initial options developed by staff to address local board funding inequity in a shorter timeframe as requested by the mayor.

8. Staff had developed the following three options (alongside the existing approach agreed by the Governing Body in 2021) to address inequity:

i) using new funding

ii) redistributing existing funding between local boards only

iii) a combination of i and ii.

9. The JGWP considered these matters and supported in principle focusing future work on options based on new funding or a mix of reallocation and new funding. It did not support option ii) to only look at redistributing funding between local boards.

10. The JGWP also supported making significant change within three years while noting that if the scope was expanded as sought by the mayor, further changes may take longer. The JGWP asked for further clarification from the mayor as to the scope of this enquiry, compared to the scope agreed in 2021.

11. The JGWP also requested staff further investigate and provide supplementary information on several different matters.

12. At the JGWP’s 11 July 2023 meeting, staff provided an updated discussion paper covering all these matters in detail and addressing areas of confusion.

13. Following resolutions from the 11 July meeting (Attachment A to the Agenda report), the attached discussion paper has been presented to local boards at workshops during July and August 2023.

14. Feedback is now sought from local boards to inform consideration by the Governing Body for inclusion in consultation for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The advice below pertains specifically to the recommendations being made in this report. This report should be read in conjunction with the attached discussion paper, which contains the bulk of the background information, analysis, and advice.

Scope – Recommendation B

16. The model for equitable funding has been adopted as 80per cent population, 15per cent deprivation and five per cent land area (80:15:5) (see Governing Body Resolution number GB/2021/138 Part N(iii)). A 90:5:5 model is currently being used for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding distribution.

17. LDI funding is proposed to be included in the scope, as with increased decision-making local boards have discretion over almost all of their funding.

Scope – Recommendation C

18. The scope of the local board funding equity project is proposed to be limited to local community services and LDI because of the current decision-making arrangements of the local board and that a wider scope would be far more significant in terms of implementation requirements.

Scope – Recommendation D

19. Staff propose to exclude the following items from the scope for the reasons outlined:

iv) Growth funding

Growth funding is proposed to be excluded as it is collected for a specific purpose and is governed by the Development Contributions Policy and legislation. Reallocating this funding creates complexities which would likely contribute to delays in growth investment, which could potentially require council to return development contributions previously collected.

v) Funding for discrete projects

Funding for discrete projects is proposed to be excluded as including under a reallocation model may result in inadequate funding to deliver these projects. This would mean council is not delivering on past decisions. This may also result in council having to return external funding received or growth funding collected for some of these projects.

vi) Other specific purpose funds

Funding for other specific purpose funds such as slips remediation and coastal renewals are proposed to be excluded as these are allocated to local boards based on a regionally accepted programme over which local boards do not have decision-making over. Also, including this funding may result in inadequate funding to deliver these outcomes.

vii) Targeted rate funding

Targeted rate funding is proposed to be excluded from scope as these are collected for a specific purpose and cannot legally be reallocated.

viii) Other local activities

Funding for other local activities is proposed to be excluded from scope due to limited local board decision-making and legislative constraints. This includes local environmental management (mostly targeted rates or regional budget allocation to LBs), local planning and development (99 per cent is targeted rates collected from Business Improvement Districts), and local governance (staff costs, and elected member honorariums and support costs) activities.

ix) Most unallocated budgets

Over time, the anticipated potential of unallocated budgets has decreased to be of less significance than was initially thought, due to most of this budget being growth funding. Most unallocated budgets are therefore excluded from scope.

Scope – Recommendation E

20. Capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) funding are proposed to be considered separately. The reasons for this are outlined in detail on pages 8-9 of the attached discussion paper.

21. Note that some unallocated CAPEX provisioned for minor CAPEX, response renewals and new investment (not growth) could be considered for reallocation under alternative options. If these are reallocated going forward these will be the responsibility of the local board.

Timeframe – Recommendation F

22. This paper proposes achieving funding equity for local boards in a much shorter timeframe (three years) than the 10–15-year period approved in 2021. This is based on expectations communicated by the Mayor’s office and endorsed by the JGWP in principle, so long as it can be achieved practically, fairly, and in an informed way.

Timeframe – Recommendation G

23. A staged implementation approach has been recommended to ensure that policy, legislative and resource constraints can be addressed as required to implement these changes.

Alternative options – Recommendation H and I

24. Staff have provided alternative options to help achieve local board funding equity in three years. The options align with the scope outlined in recommendations A-G. The discussion paper and its attachments explain the impacts of these options on local boards.

Multi-board services – Recommendation J

25. Work on the multi-board services workstream has not progressed as far as other aspects of this programme as the rationale and benefits of this element are less clear, and the governance arrangements are likely to be complex. Furthermore, allocating budget to multi-board services will have implications on a local board’s equity ranking and this requires further analysis.

26. Staff propose to do more work on these matters, informed by local board feedback and in conjunction with the mayor’s office regarding his views on this proposal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. There are no climate implications from providing feedback on proposals to implement a more equitable local board funding scheme.

28. In the future, a more equitable regime for local board funding may allow more influence from local boards and local communities on how local funding is used to implement climate-friendly projects.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. Staff have been working for several years to understand and incorporate any potential implications for policy, strategy, and operations across the council group. Multiple iterations of these proposals have been discussed, and feedback given, since 2017.

30. Most recently, these revised proposals have been discussed at:

i) JGWP meetings in May and July 2023

ii) local board workshops in July and August 2023.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. Local board views have been sought a number of times through the Governance Framework Review, and this report seeks formal local feedback on the latest iteration of proposals that will go back to the JGWP and to the Governing Body later in 2023.

32. Depending on the final shape of these proposals there is likely to be significant implications for local boards, and these will be clarified further as the proposals are developed into policy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. There is no specific impact for Māori of providing feedback on proposals to implement a more equitable local board funding scheme.

34. In the future, a more equitable regime for local board funding may allow local boards to be more responsive to mana whenua and mataawaka in their rohe in deciding how local funding is used to support their communities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. There are no specific financial implications for providing feedback on proposals to implement a more equitable local board funding scheme.

36. The final implementation of these proposals will have significant financial implications, and these are outlined in detail in the attached discussion paper.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. There are a range of risks and proposed mitigations outlined in the discussion paper. The impact of these risks will vary depending on which options and timeframes are pursued.

38. The key risk is that if local board funding inequities are not addressed as proposed in this report, then the timeline will either revert to the 10–15-year timeframe adopted by the Governing Body in 2021, or additional time will need to be taken developing further alternative options.

39. At the same time as progressing proposals for local board funding equity, the JGWP will also be receiving advice from staff on local board reorganisation. While a reorganisation proposal is likely to take longer than the three years being proposed for changes to local board funding, staff have advised that the principles on which the equity programme are based should be able to apply regardless of the number of local boards. This will be analysed further as the reorganisation proposal progresses.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. A JGWP meeting is scheduled for late September to receive feedback from local boards.

41. At this meeting, the JGWP will make recommendations that will inform the Governing Body’s approach to local board funding equity. This will be finalised by December and included in the Mayor’s Proposal for the Long-term Plan 2024-34.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - 11 July 2023 - JGWP Minutes	159
b ⇨	Attachment B - Discussion Paper - LB Funding Policy (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

2025 Auckland Council elections - electoral system

File No.: CP2023/09545

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback to the Governing Body on whether the electoral system should change from First Past the Post to Single Transferable Voting for the 2025 Auckland Council elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The council has previously decided to retain First Past the Post as an electoral system, giving priority to keeping the voting experience as simple as possible for the voter.

3. Single Transferable Voting has recognised benefits as an electoral system and the Future for Local Government Review has recommended it be mandatory for all councils.

4. A key feature of Single Transferable Voting is that it permits the voter to vote for the candidate they prefer without being deterred by the prospect their vote might be wasted if the candidate is not a popular choice. Single Transferable Voting allows the voter’s vote to count towards the voter’s second preference if their first preference is not elected. Their vote may be transferred to subsequent preferences if this is required.

5. Another key feature of Single Transferable Voting is that it can allow a more proportional outcome in a multi-member election. A “quota” defines the number of votes required to be elected. Under Single Transferable Voting a minority group might have enough votes to elect the group’s candidate whereas under First Past the Post a minority group may never be represented (those in a majority group will always outnumber those in a minority group).

6. A downside to Single Transferable Voting is that it can add complexity to the voting experience for voters who do not have sufficient knowledge about candidates. In these situations, it is difficult enough for a voter to decide for whom to vote, without then having to decide a ranking. However, Single Transferable Voting as practiced in New Zealand does not require a voter to indicate a preference for each position. A voter could just indicate a first preference if that is their wish.

7. It is also debatable whether voters in New Zealand local government elections vote in groups, whether those groups are political parties, or demographic groups. In local government elections overseas where Single Transferable Voting is used candidates stand in political parties and voters align with such political parties. Single Transferable Voting ensures the success of political party candidates is proportional to the voting patterns in the community. In New Zealand local government elections, voters and candidates do not align with political parties to the same extent (though there is some alignment) – the meaning of a proportional outcome is less clear.

8. This report sets out the key advantages and disadvantages of Single Transferable Voting. On balance there may be a benefit to voters through being able to express preferences thereby avoiding wasting their vote, even though this introduces some complexities for some voters. The complexity associated with Single Transferable Voting can be mitigated with simple and clear instructions on how to vote.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakarite /provide feedback to the Governing Body on whether the electoral system should be changed from First Past the Post to Single Transferable Voting for the 2025 elections.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) provides for two electoral systems for council elections:

i) First Past the Post (FPP)

ii) Single Transferable Vote (STV).

10. Prior to each council election the council can decide which electoral system to use. If the council wishes to change its electoral system to STV it must resolve to change to STV for the next two elections by 12 September 2023 (LEA section 27). A council may resolve to conduct a poll (referendum) on whether to change to STV. This might be held as a standalone poll or in conjunction with the next election. Also, a petition from five per cent of electors can demand that the council conduct a poll.

11. Whenever the Governing Body has considered these matters in the past it has decided to retain FPP, its focus being on the voter and making the voting experience as simple as possible.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

First Past the Post

12. First Past the Post (FPP), also known as plurality voting, has the feature that candidates having more votes win over candidates having fewer votes. In a community which has minority groups, minority groups might never be represented if it is assumed that groups vote only for candidates representing their group or community of interest.

13. A simple scenario illustrates the implications. In this hypothetical scenario an electorate has a majority group and a minority group and each group puts up candidates for a multi-vacancy election (for example a multi-member ward). The majority group will out-vote the minority group for each vacancy because it has more voters and each voter can vote for each vacancy. FPP is characterised as a ‘winner takes all’ electoral system. In this simple scenario of a majority group and a minority group the minority group will never be represented. It does not have enough votes to out-vote the majority group. (In this example the term “group” is used generically. Discussion about FPP and proportional systems like STV in the literature is typically in terms of political groups. However, the same arguments apply if the groups are demographic groups such as ethnic groups or age groups).

Single Transferable Vote - features

14. For Single Transferable Vote (STV), voters mark the candidates in order of preference -1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. To determine who is elected, a quota is determined from the number of votes and the number of positions to be filled. The first preferences for each candidate are counted. Any candidate who has votes equal to or greater than the quota is elected. Any surplus votes (over the quota) of the elected candidates are redistributed to voters' next preferences. When all surpluses have been redistributed, the last placed candidate is excluded and their votes redistributed to voters' next preferences. This process continues until the total number of candidates to be elected is reached.

15. One key feature of STV is the “quota”. This is the number of votes a candidate must receive in order to get elected. Because each voter has only one vote the total pool of votes is equal to the total number of electors who are voting. The quota is obtained by dividing the total votes by one more than the number of vacancies and adding a small number^{^[12]} to avoid a tie. For example, if the total number of voters is 10,000 and there are 4 vacancies, then the quota is obtained by dividing 10,000 by five to give 2,000 votes (plus a small number) as the quota. Any candidate reaching the quota will be elected^{^[13]}. If there was a majority group of 6,000 voters and a minority group of 4,000 voters the minority group now has a chance of electing a representative because it is able to provide the required 2,000 votes to elect a candidate (whereas under FPP the majority group could take all seats).

16. STV is considered to be a proportional electoral system in that the outcome of an election will be more closely proportionate to the voting patterns in the community, particularly in a multi-member election (single or double-member wards would not provide the scope for a range of groups to be represented).

17. A second key feature of STV is that it addresses the issue of wasted votes by enabling voters to express their preferences. FPP can discourage a voter from voting for the candidate they prefer because they know their vote would be wasted if the candidate was not likely to get elected. Under STV a voter’s first preference might be for the candidate they prefer but if that candidate was eliminated then their vote would go to their second preference and so on. Under STV it is safer for a voter to vote for the candidate they actually prefer because they know that if their preferred candidate is not eventually elected then their vote will count toward their second and subsequent preferences.

18. The aspect of wasted votes under FPP has been highlighted at mayoral elections. In the most recent mayoral election candidates withdrew to avoid voters wasting their votes on them. If STV had been in place this might not have been necessary.

19. For single-seat elections such as a mayoral election or election of one member in a single-seat ward, STV has the feature that a winning candidate will receive a majority of votes and not just more votes than other candidates. This is because at each iteration of vote counting the lowest scoring candidate is eliminated until, at the final iteration, the contest is between two candidates.

20. The Governing Body might resolve to provide for Māori representation by way of one or more Māori wards. There would, at most, be two members elected from a Māori ward. STV could assist those voting on the Māori roll – a voter could express a first preference for a candidate that represents their own mana whenua group and also express a second and subsequent preferences in case that candidate did not get elected.

Single Transferable Vote – concerns

Voter turnout

21. The effect of varying patterns of voter turnout might be a greater concern than achieving proportionality. For proportionality to be achieved it is best to have multi-member electorates. Governing Body wards are currently single or double member wards. As noted in the review of the 2022 elections there are widely varying voter turnout patterns around Auckland. If, say, a six-member ward was created, being three times the size of a double-member ward, then the differences in voter turnout within the ward might be of more significant concern than achieving proportionality through STV.

22. For example, if the Manukau, Howick and Manurewa-Papakura wards were combined then the part of this new large ward that would have the most voter turnout would be in the Howick area. It is possible that Howick voters would determine who represented Māngere and Ōtara.

23. The ward system spreads representation around Auckland geographically and because of the varying voter turnout patterns might be of more importance in terms of achieving representation of communities than adopting STV. STV might still be of benefit in single-member ward elections because of its preferential voting features which address the wasted vote issue. Local board elections use multi-member electorates (members are elected at-large or by subdivisions) and STV could be of benefit in achieving proportional representation.

New Zealand council elections not party- based

24. In New Zealand local government elections achieving a proportional result might not be very meaningful. The proportionality benefits of STV are usually explained in terms of voters voting in groups for candidates that represent the voters’ groups. For example, if there are younger voters who make up a proportion of the electorate but there are a greater number of older voters who vote for candidates in their own age group the younger voters as a group might not be represented under FPP^{^[14]} but under STV might be able to achieve sufficient votes to reach the quota. However, if voters do not vote in groups then it is difficult to explain how STV might enhance proportionality. In local government elections voting in groups does not occur to the extent it occurs in Parliamentary elections when voters align with political parties.

25. In local elections overseas where STV is used such as Ireland and Scotland, candidates are party-based. If, in New Zealand local government elections, voters tend to vote for candidates they consider to be the best candidates regardless of political group, age group, ethnic group or other type of group, then the proportionality benefits of STV are more difficult to argue.

Complexity

26. STV adds complexity for the voter. For example, at the 2022 local elections the Manurewa Local Board had 8 vacancies and 29 candidates. The voter is faced with deciding not only which 8 of the 29 candidates should be elected but how to rank them (noting there is no requirement to vote for, or express a preference for, each vacancy). This could make the task of voting more difficult for a voter who does not have any knowledge of candidates other than the information presented in the accompanying profile statements. On the other hand, it might make voting a better experience for a voter who does have knowledge of all candidates, has clear preferences for candidates and wishes to use their vote to have an effect on who is elected. Ensuring the voting experience is user-friendly has been a key concern of the council in the past.

27. Hamilton City Council in 2022 moved to STV (and also established a Māori ward) for the first time. It experienced the lowest voter turnout nationally in 2022 at 29.4%.

Single Transferable Vote – other councils in New Zealand

28. The following tables list which city and regional councils adopted FPP / STV for the 2022 elections^{^[15]}.

29. Territorial authorities – Auckland Council and city councils (omitting district councils).

30. Data in the table below includes voter turnout, informal votes and election of women councillors. There tend to be more informal votes under STV (voters not marking their voting documents correctly and therefore not counted). STV does not seem to have had a significant effect in 2022 on voter turnout (except for Hamilton) or the election of women councillors.

		Total votes	Voter turnout	Informal votes	Informal votes %	Total councillors	Women councillors	Women councillors %
Auckland Council	FPP	404,541	35.2%	488	0.0	20	8	40.0
Christchurch City Council	FPP	120,210	44.4%	432	0.0	16	5	31.3
Hutt City Council	FPP	64,002	41.0%	250	0.001	12	5	41.7
Invercargill City Council	FPP	20,907	53.2%	87	0.003	12	4	33.3
Napier City Council	FPP	18,451	43.9%	31	0.002	12	6	50.0
Upper Hutt City Council	FPP	24,296	43.9%	42	0.002	10	4	40.0
Dunedin City Council	STV	48,133	40.1%	961	0.001	14	6	30.6
Hamilton City Council	STV	32,357	29.4%	846	0.001	14	7	50.0
Nelson City Council	STV	41,794	53.2%	937	0.001	12	2	16.7
Palmerston North City Council	STV	21,370	38.6%	515	0.002	15	6	40.0
Porirua City Council	STV	15,640	37.3%	212	0.002	10	4	40.0
Wellington City Council	STV	73,067	45.5%	287	0.001	15	8	53.3

Regional councils

Bay Of Plenty Regional Council	FPP
Southland Regional Council	FPP
Hawke's Bay Regional Council	FPP
Northland Regional Council	FPP
Taranaki Regional Council	FPP
Waikato Regional Council	FPP
West Coast Regional Council	FPP
Canterbury Regional Council	FPP
Otago Regional Council	FPP
Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council	FPP
Wellington Regional Council	STV

Single Transferable Vote – Future for local government review

31. The Future for Local Government Review Panel has recommended that STV becomes mandatory for all council elections^{^[16]}:

32. “STV can be more representative of voters’ choices because a vote can be transferred if a preferred candidate does not meet a certain threshold. This transfer of votes avoids wasted ballots. Early research demonstrates that STV leads to improvements in the representation of women (Vowles and Hayward 2021). However, the representative benefits of STV work best when there is a large pool of candidates and wards with more than one seat being contested.”

33. It is unknown whether this, or any other recommendation, will be implemented by the incoming Government in time to be in place for the 2025 elections.

Single Transferable Vote – poll

34. The council is required to give public notice by 19 September 2023 of the right for five per cent of electors to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used for the 2025 elections. Such a public notice is required prior to each election and, in the past, has not resulted in any interest for a poll on whether to change to STV.

35. The council itself may resolve to conduct a poll on the electoral system to be used. A stand-alone poll on changing to STV for 2025 would cost $1.2 – $1.3 million. A poll held in conjunction with the 2025 elections on whether to change to STV for 2028 would cost an additional $90,000 - $120,000.

Conclusion

36. While there are arguments for and against STV, on balance the ability for voters to express preferences is a benefit and is likely to become mandatory if the Future for Local Government Review Panel’s recommendations are implemented.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37. A change of electoral system will not impact climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38. A decision about the electoral system affects the election of the mayor, councillors and local board members. It does not have an impact on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. This report sets out the benefits and disadvantages of the STV electoral system. The choice of electoral system impacts the election of local board members. Because local board elections are at-large or by multi-member subdivision the proportionality aspects of STV could be of benefit in achieving an outcome that is proportional to the voting patterns in the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. The Governing Body is considering providing for Māori representation by way of a Māori ward. STV would allow those on the Māori roll to express first preferences for their own mana whenua group candidates while allowing second and subsequent preferences to be counted if their first preference is not elected.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. There would be some minor additional cost associated with using STV as compared to FPP due to STV requiring more processing.

42. There would be an additional cost if the council chose to conduct a poll on whether to change to STV as outlined earlier in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. If the electoral system is changed to STV it will be important to provide very simple and clear advice to voters on how to vote.

44. Ballot order effect can be more pronounced the harder voting is for a voter. Under STV there may be more of a risk that candidate names at the top of the list might be selected. One mitigation would be to order candidate names randomly. A report on the order of candidate names will be presented for feedback in due course.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. The feedback from the local board will be conveyed to the Governing Body.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Operations and Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

16 August 2023

Approval of the 2023/2024 Rodney Local Board Customer and Community Services work programme - Tranche 2

File No.: CP2023/11309

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the remainder of the 2023/2024 Rodney Local Board Customer and Community Services work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents the remaining four Rodney Local Board Customer and Community Services work programme items for the 2023/2024 financial year for approval.

3. This report is supplementary to the report presented to the Rodney Local Board at their business meeting of 19 July 2023, at which the substantive local board work programme from the following departments was approved:

· Active Communities

· Connected Communities

· Community and Social Innovation

· Parks and Community Facilities

· Regional Services and Strategy.

4. The 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 Customer and Community Services – Parks and Community Facilities Department capital work programme was also approved in principle at the July business meeting.

5. Subsequent to the July meeting, operational funds to the value of $377,544 remained unallocated. This report seeks to allocate the funds to work programme items in Parks and Community Facilities and Connected Communities for delivery in the 2023/2024 financial year.

6. The work programme has been developed with the local board providing feedback to staff on project and activity prioritisation through a series of workshops, held between May, June and July 2023.

7. The work programme development process takes an integrated approach to planning activities, involving collaboration between the local board and staff from across the council.

8. Once approved, the local board will receive quarterly progress updates on the delivery of the 2023/2024 work programme.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the following operationally funded 2023/2024 Customer and Community Services work programme items:

Activity	Description	Budget	Delivery Department
Animal pest trapping in parks (#20)	Additional funding work programme item #20 towards essential pest control tools for the Pest Free Mahurangi East Peninsula Project, delivered by Restore Rodney East. To be utilised in the local parks in Algies Bay, Goodall Reserve, Te Whau Walkway, and Snells Beach.	$15,000	Parks and Community Facilities
Rubbish bin service funding top up (NEW)	Ensuring that 100% of the existing rubbish bins in the Rodney Local Board area are serviced for one year. This is to reinstate the 30% regionwide reduction in rubbish bins as adopted by the Governing Body to optimise savings in parks maintenance, which was consulted on as part of the Annual Budget 2023/2024.	$60,000	Parks and Community Facilities
Youth partnering pilot (NEW)	Provide resourcing and support for projects and activities designed and delivered by (or in collaboration with) young people. The projects must benefit wider groups of young people and could include activities such as events, recreational and creative activities, placemaking projects, environmental initiatives. While there will be an even spread of projects across the Rodney area, there will be a particular focus on higher need areas. Project partners will be the council, young people themselves and any groups and organisations that provide support for them.	$60,000	Connected Communities
Rodney - deliver open space, streetscape and township improvements (#26260)	Additional funding for work programme item #26260 to deliver further open space, streetscape and township improvements in the Rodney area, in collaboration with the community. Puhoi to be prioritised with this tranche of funding.	$193,919	Parks and Community Facilities

Horopaki

Context

9. Development of the work programme is based on consideration of community needs and priorities, availability of resources and funding, Treaty of Waitangi obligations, external partnerships and risk assessment.

10. Development of the work programme follows an integrated approach to planning activities through collaboration with the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Directorate and the following departments of the Customer and Community Services Directorate:

· Active Communities

· Connected Communities

· Community and Social Innovation

· Parks and Community Facilities

· Regional Services and Strategy.

11. The additional work programme activities will align to one or more of the following 2020 Local Board Plan outcomes:

· Outcome 1 - Safe, improved transport options connect our communities

· Outcome 2 - Our natural environment is healthy and protected

· Outcome 3 - Infrastructure and development meets the needs of our growing communities

· Outcome 4 - Our communities are resilient and have access to what they need

· Outcome 5 - Our local parks and recreation facilities meet the needs of our growing community.

12. The first tranche of the Customer and Community Service local board work programme was approved on 19 July 2023, with an amount of $377,544 operational funding remaining unallocated.

13. At a workshop on 26 July 2023 the local board discussed the allocation of the remaining funds.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. The work programme demonstrates the phasing of programme and project delivery for the 2023/2024 financial year.

15. Delivery of the work programme commences from 20 July 2023, and in some cases comprises a continuation of implementation from previous financial years, including annually occurring events or projects and ongoing programmes.

16. Parks and Community Facilities presents a three-year rolling work programme so that delivery and financial commitments against the capital works programme can be planned.

17. Approval of unique multi-year projects, particularly capital works, in the 2023/2024 work programme may lead to contractual commitments to the future budget needed to complete the project in 2024/2025 or 2025/2026.

18. The remainder of Customer and Community Services presents the work programme in descending three-year increments and are therefore only presenting year three of the three-year work programme.

19. The local board will formally be updated by staff on the delivery of the programme by way of quarterly performance reports. Parks and Community Facilities will continue to provide informal monthly updates on work programme performance.

Work programme budget types and purpose

20. Work programme activities are funded from various budget sources, depending on the type of delivery. Some activities within the work programme are funded from two or more sources, from both local and regional budgets.

21. The work programme items reflected in this report form part of the local boards’ Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operational budget. This fund is used to advance local operational activities at the discretion of the local board.

Process for changes to the approved work programme

22. Some projects in the work programme require further local board decisions as they progress through the delivery process.

23. Where further decisions are anticipated, decisions will be sought as required through local board business meetings.

24. In response to more detailed design and costing information, community consultation, consenting requirements and similar factors, amendments to the work programme or specific projects may also be required as projects progress.

25. Amendments to the work programme or specific projects will be managed in accordance with the established local board delegations to staff.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. As Customer and Community Services is a significant service provider and property owner, the directorate has a leading role in delivering Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

27. In providing asset-based services, Customer and Community Services contributes most of council’s operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through its facilities and infrastructure.

28. Property managed by the directorate, in particular coastal assets, will be adversely affected by climate change. The work programme includes actions, consistent with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri to halve council’s operational GHG emissions by 2030, and to adapt to a changing climate.

29. Actions include reducing operational GHG emissions through improving the efficiency of facilities, investing in renewable energy, and adopting the Sustainable Asset Policy.

30. At the same time, the directorate will mitigate GHG emissions and improve climate resilience through delivering tree planting programmes across the region. This includes the transitioning of unproductive farmland on regional parks to permanent native forest and delivering ecological restoration projects with community groups.

31. Recent significant weather events have influenced criteria for renewing assets. Each renewal project will be assessed for flood plain impacts, as well as any new known consequences council has experienced due to the weather.

32. Work is ongoing to build on the above actions and embed climate change considerations into investment decision-making, planning, and corporate policies, including asset management plans and local board plans.

33. As approved through the 10-year Budget 2021-2031, council’s mandated approach to ‘deliver differently’ is also anticipated to help reduce the council carbon footprint by creating a sustainable service network. This may include a shift to digital service models or the consolidation of services into a smaller footprint.

34. Each activity in the work programme has been assessed to identify whether it will have a positive, negative or neutral impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and affect Auckland’s resilience to climate change.

35. Types of activities in the work programme that will have positive impacts on emissions and improve community resilience to climate change, include community-led environmental and educational programmes, supporting volunteer planting, delivering council-led planting and sustainable design.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36. The Customer and Community Services work programme was developed collaboratively by staff from the directorate’s departments and Local Board Services, to ensure that the activities and delivery of the work programme are integrated, complementary, and reflect council wide priorities.

37. Development of the work programme also follows a cooperative approach to planning activities through association with other directorates like the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Directorate.

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

Local impacts and local board views

38. The feedback received from the local board through a series of workshops in May, June and July 2023 has informed the proposed Customer and Community Services work programme.

39. A focus area of the work programme is to respond to local board aspirations through consideration of the local board plans. The work programmes consider communities of greatest need and the building of capacity within those communities through community-led delivery and partnerships.

40. Planning and delivery of some activities involves consultation with the community to ensure that their aspirations are understood and responded to.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

41. The provision of services, facilities and open spaces support the realisation of the aspirations of Māori, promote community relationships, connection to the natural environment and foster holistic wellbeing of whānau, hapū and iwi Māori.

42. It is recognised that engagement with Māori is critical. If not already completed, engagement will occur on a programme or individual project basis, where appropriate, prior to any work commencing. Engagement outcomes with Māori will be reported back separately to the local board at the appropriate time.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. The 2023/2024 activities recommended for local board approval can be accommodated within 2023/2024 budgets and staff resources.

44. The budgets are based on the allocations in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031. Budgets are subject to change during council’s Annual Budget and future long-term plan processes. Where decisions on the Annual Budget result in budget reductions, the work programme will need to be amended to align to these budgets via future decisions of the local board.

45. During delivery of the 2023/2024 work programme, where an activity is cancelled or no longer required, the local board can reallocate the associated budget to an existing work programme activity or create a new activity within that financial year. This process will include agreement from each department and will need to be formally resolved on by the local board.

46. The Rodney Local Board had $377,544 of unallocated Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating funding for the 2023/2024 financial year after the approval of Tranche 1 of the Customer and Community Services work programme. This was as a result of the Governing Body's decisions on 8 June 2023 to decrease the amount of the proposed reduction to local board funding.

47. The local board sought staff advice on a number of projects which could be delivered in 2023/2024 financial year. The following additional work programme items are included for local board approval to assist in the balancing the local board’s LDI operating budget:

Activity	Description	Budget	Delivery Department
Animal pest trapping in parks (#20)	Additional funding work programme item #20 towards essential pest control tools for the Pest Free Mahurangi East Peninsula Project, delivered by Restore Rodney East. To be utilised in the local parks in Algies Bay, Goodall Reserve, Te Whau Walkway, and Snells Beach.	$15,000	Parks and Community Facilities
Rubbish bin service funding top up (NEW)	Ensuring that 100% of the existing rubbish bins in the Rodney Local Board area are serviced for one year. This is to reinstate the 30% regionwide reduction in rubbish bins as adopted by the Governing Body to optimise savings in parks maintenance, which was consulted on as part of the Annual Budget 2023/2024.	$60,000	Parks and Community Facilities
Youth partnering pilot (NEW)	Provide resourcing and support for projects and activities designed and delivered by (or in collaboration with) young people. The projects must benefit wider groups of young people and could include activities such as events, recreational and creative activities, placemaking projects, environmental initiatives. While there will be an even spread of projects across the Rodney area, there will be a particular focus on higher need areas. Project partners will be the council, young people themselves and any groups and organisations that provide support for them.	$60,000	Connected Communities
Rodney - deliver open space, streetscape and township improvements (#26260)	Additional funding for work programme item #26260 to deliver further open space, streetscape and township improvements in the Rodney area, in collaboration with the community. Puhoi to be prioritised with this tranche of funding.	$193,919	Parks and Community Facilities

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The most significant risk is that delivery of the Customer and Community Services work programme is dependent on the local board approving the work programme.

49. The majority of operational (opex) activities in the work programme are ongoing and occur annually. Risks associated with these activities have been identified in previous years and are managed on an ongoing basis.

50. The table below outlines the key risks and mitigations associated with the work programme once it has been approved:

Risk	Mitigation
Non-delivery, time delays and budget overspend of activities that are managed through the work programme.	Having agreed processes to amend the work programme if activities need to be changed or cancelled.
Health, safety and wellbeing factors, including external influences relating to implementing the work programme may impact the delivery of activities, resulting in activities requiring adjustment.	Health and safety assessments will be conducted prior to commencement of projects. Work programme activities and projects will be adjusted accordingly should these risks occur during the delivery phase.
Extenuating economic and environmental conditions, as well as the possibility of further COVID-19 outbreaks, may continue to create capex delivery challenges, including increased material and labour costs, as well as shortages in both sectors, this in turn will lead to increased overall project costs and may lead to delays in project delivery.	Development of the work programme has included consideration of potential impacts on delivery due to extenuating economic and environmental conditions, as well as possibly of further COVID-19 outbreaks for all activities. Timeframes for some activities are set to enable delivery within the agreed timeframe despite possible delays. Where activities need to be cancelled the local board can reallocate the budget to other activities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. The projects listed above, as receiving funding through this report, will be added to the local board’s work programme as approved at the business meeting of 19 July 2023.

52. Delivery of the Customer and Community Service work programme is scheduled to continue until 30 June 2024.

53. The local board will receive progress updates on a quarterly basis, with the first quarterly report available in November 2023.

54. When further decisions for activities are needed at project milestones, these will be brought to the local board at the appropriate time.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Haves – General Manager Regional Services and Strategy

Mirla Edmundson – General Manager Connected Communities

Taryn Crewe – General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Brent Bailey
Deputy Chairperson	Louise Johnston
Members	Michelle Carmichael
	Mark Dennis
	Tim Holdgate
	Colin Smith
	Geoff Upson
	Ivan Wagstaff
	Guy Wishart

Commencement Date	1 September 2023
Initial Term	Five (5) years
Renewal	Two (2) further rights of renewal of five (5) years each
Final Expiry	31 August 2038
Permitted Use	Licensed café

Author	Ignacio Quinteros - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager