Agenda of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

07 September 2023

Auckland Plan 2050 Annual Monitoring Report 2023

File No.: CP2023/03653

Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report

1. To provide a progress update on the key challenges and six outcomes of the Auckland Plan 2050.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Plan 2050 was adopted in June 2018, following extensive engagement with Aucklanders. It sets the long-term, strategic direction for Auckland.

3. Reporting on progress against the Auckland Plan 2050 is done in three ways:

a) Annual monitoring reports – the Annual Monitoring Report 2023 is summarised in this report and the full report is provided in Attachment A.

b) Three yearly progress reports – the last report was received by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in March 2023 and provides detailed analysis of progress against the plan’s outcomes using a range of measures and additional data to inform the Long-term Plan 2024-34.

c) Development Strategy Monitoring Report – the next report (for the year July 2022 - June 2023) is expected to be published by the end of 2023.

4. The annual monitoring report uses 33 measures to assess general progress and trends across the Auckland Plan’s six outcomes. Eleven measures have sub-measures. Progress is assessed against the baseline. The report shows that:

· 6 measures (and 7 sub-measures) have positive trends

· 3 measures (and 6 sub-measures) have negative trends

· 8 measures (and 13 sub-measures) show no significant change

· 5 measures (and 3 sub-measures) have insufficient data to establish a clear trend.

5. The annual monitoring report mainly uses data from 2022. The report captures the continuing impacts of COVID-19 in some instances such as on quality of life and public transport patronage.

6. The Auckland Plan 2050 was created as a living plan that is able to reflect emerging or changing issues, as well as provide updated data and evidence. The Annual Monitoring Report 2023 will be available on the council’s website by the end of 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the Auckland Plan 2050 - Annual Monitoring Report 2023.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Auckland Plan 2050 is a 30-year spatial plan for Auckland adopted in June 2018, following extensive engagement with Aucklanders (PLA/2018/62). The plan was reviewed in 2022 to reflect new data and incorporate strategic direction set by council since 2018. A summary of updates to the digital plan was included in a memo to the Planning Committee in September 2022 (PLA/2022/114).

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

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

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

· identify policies, priorities, land allocations and programmes and investments to implement the strategic direction.

9. The Auckland Plan 2050 Annual Monitoring Report 2023 (Attachment A) supports the evidence base of the plan by identifying key trends across the six outcomes. This is the fifth annual monitoring report since the adoption of the plan.

10. The Three Yearly Progress Report, reported to the Planning Committee in March 2023 (PEPCC/2023/28), supplements the annual monitoring reports and provides a more detailed analysis of trends for each outcome. The analysis draws on a range of other reports and data sets to understand where progress has been made and to identify opportunities for greater progress. The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee endorsed the opportunities for greater progress (as identified in the Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report) as a basis for alignment with the 10-year budget and other decision-making as appropriate (PEPCC/2023/28).

11. Since then, the Mayor and councillors provided more detailed, political direction to the council group on strategic priorities to inform development of the 2024-2034 Long-term Plan (LTP). The Auckland Plan 2050 is a plan for Auckland. The political direction for the LTP clearly articulates council’s vision for Auckland and clarifies council’s role in delivering on that vision. The LTP issues and options development process provides an opportunity to address issues raised in this report.

12. The Development Strategy sets out how Auckland will grow and change over the next 30 years. The fifth monitoring report for the Development Strategy (for the year July 2022 - June 2023) is expected to be published by the end of 2023. There are three common measures that are reported in both the Auckland Plan annual monitoring report and the Development Strategy monitoring report.

13. A new Future Development Strategy (FDS), a requirement under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, is currently under development and once adopted, will supersede the Development Strategy. A new monitoring framework will be established for the FDS as part of the FDS Implementation Plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the following three key challenges that must be addressed if we are to achieve the Auckland we want:

· population growth and its implications

· reducing environmental degradation

· sharing prosperity with all Aucklanders.

15. The Annual Monitoring Report uses 33 measures to assess general progress and trends across the six outcomes. Trends are summarised under each outcome below. The measurement framework will continue to change over time as the availability and quality of data improves. Proposed changes to the data sets are noted below.

Belonging and Participation

16. The report provides updated data for one of the six measures for this outcome. The percentage of Aucklanders who rated their knowledge of te Tiriti o Waitangi positively has declined slightly since 2018 (43 per cent).

17. Results from the next Quality of Life survey, from which the data for this outcome is sourced, will be available in 2024.

Māori Identity and Wellbeing

18. The proportion of Māori youth in education, employment or training has remained at 78 per cent recovering from the sharp drop (of 5.4 per cent) noted in 2020.

19. Māori decision-making is measured by the number of co-governance / co-management arrangements, which has remained the same since 2018. This measure is supplemented with data on the level of Māori participation in the local elections in this annual monitoring report. The baseline for 2019 is 25 per cent – this has remained static for the 2022 elections.

Homes and Places

20. Three of the five measures have been updated this year. The number of new dwellings consented in Auckland continues to reach record highs and there is a clear shift to multi-unit dwellings. More detail will be provided by the Development Strategy Monitoring Report in October.

21. Housing costs as a percentage of household income have stayed largely the same. However, this percentage varies significantly across households with renters and low-income households feeling the burden of housing costs most strongly.

22. While there is no updated official data on homelessness since 2018, the need for housing support has increased, as evidenced by a much higher demand for public housing.

Transport and Access

23. One measure and three sub-measures have been updated this year. COVID-19 and related lockdowns impacted most transport measures throughout 2020 and 2021, which has led to less demand for travel. Additional impacts on the use of public transport resulted from critical renewals on the rail network.

24. Patronage numbers for public transport increased during 2022, however there was a decrease in cycling numbers.

25. The number of serious injuries on Auckland’s roads were higher than in 2021, but the number of fatalities were lower.

26. There is potential for a greater focus on emissions reduction within these measures, which will be considered in alignment with the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway (TERP).

Environment and Cultural Heritage

27. Updated data is provided for 17 sub-measures this year. Good progress is being made in protecting biodiversity through urban tree plantings and management of native habitats and native species.

28. Stream water quality continues to be highest (‘good’) in catchments with native forests. Open coast water quality continues to be ‘good’ (well protected), and lake water quality has improved for Lake Pupuke only.

29. Air quality sub-measures (fine particulate matter and NO₂levels)are generally improved for the Penrose site and fluctuate above and below the baseline for all other sites.

30. Water quality measures are unchanged compared to their baselines.

Opportunity and Prosperity

31. Six of the seven measures have been updated this year. Labour productivity has improved and remains above the national average.

32. Average wages in Auckland increased across all ethnicities.

33. The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since 2008. The pandemic resulted in a lift in unemployment rates for all groups, but this was relatively short-lived, and by mid-end of 2021 unemployment rates were falling again to historically low levels for all groups.

34. Growth in employment in advanced industries has recovered from a low in the previous year and outperforms employment growth in industries overall.

35. The educational achievement of young people, as measured by the percentage of those aged 20-24 with a Level 4 qualification or above, has declined between 2014 and 2021.

36. Zoned industrial land had a net increase of 42 hectares between 2022 and 2023.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan guides our response to climate change. Continued monitoring is expected to inform future decisions that impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the approach to reduce emissions.

38. Some of our existing programmes play a role in reducing our emissions. There has been specific recognition in the 10-year budget of the need to focus on our role in reducing emissions through funding a specific package of climate action.

39. A Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway (TERP), adopted by Auckland Council in 2022 (ECC/2022/74), outlines the pathways to support the required transport-related emissions reductions reflected in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40. There are no immediate impacts of the report on other parts of the council group although continued monitoring is expected to inform future decisions. The report draws on published data collected across the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

41. There are no local impacts. Some data sets can be disaggregated by local board area such as measures included in the Quality of Life Survey. Continued monitoring is expected to inform future decisions at the local level. The views of local boards were not sought in the preparation of this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. The report includes four measures on Māori identity and wellbeing, with 1 measure and two sub-measures being updated in this report. Directions for improving outcomes for Māori are included within most of the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and therefore progress or otherwise in these areas will have an impact on Māori. Trends and results that are specific to Māori (for example, health, housing, education and employment statistics) are detailed within each of the outcome areas.

43. While the reporting of this data has no direct impacts on Māori, the way council uses this information to inform decisions on financial spend, spatial location of services and facilities and the nature of services provided to Māori is critical. The views of Māori were not sought in the preparation of this report.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. The strategic direction set in the Auckland Plan 2050 supports decision-making on council’s long-term plans and should provide the foundation for considering how and where council spends its money. Staff are working to ensure that the programmes that have been funded through the current long-term plan are tracked to support better decision-making for the long-term plan 2024-34.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47. The Annual Monitoring Report 2023 will be made available on the council’s website as soon as possible.

48. The Development Strategy annual monitoring report will be made available on the council’s website by the end of 2023 and a memo will be provided to the Planning Environment and Parks Committee.

49. Staff will continue to look at ways to improve the measurement and reporting of Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes including opportunities to align with other existing council reporting processes. This includes considering the frequency and breadth of reporting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Plan 2050 Annual Monitoring Report 2023

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karryn Kirk - Principal Strategic Adviser Auckland Plan Implementation

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

07 September 2023

Annual update on delivery of Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan (2023)

File No.: CP2023/11862

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an annual update on the delivery of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan Progress Report (Progress Report), September 2022/2023 is attached to this report (Attachment A).

3. The Progress Report identifies that 3 per percent of actions are completed, 31 per cent of actions are on track, 52 per cent are underway but require more work, and 13 per cent are not in progress. Auckland Council has different levels of responsibility and control over the actions in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, which reflects the regional focus of the plan.

4. There are currently a similar number of actions “underway” and actions “not in progress”, compared to the previous progress report (September 2022). The proportion of actions completed has risen to 3 percent vs 1 percent in the previous report. Overall, this represents progress, but significant additional action and commitment is required by a range of stakeholders.

5. Important progress was made by Auckland Council on climate action in 2022/2023, including the start of various programmes and projects funded by the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR), a $1.056 billion investment in buses, ferries, walking, cycling and our urban ngahere (forest). This investment has started delivering outcomes for Aucklanders, such as new frequent bus routes, the procurement of new electric ferries, and procurement of tree planning services.

6. The Progress Report includes key initiatives planned for 2022/23, including further engagement with mana whenua to discuss the delivery of Te Tāruke a Tāwhiri and the establishment of a Regional Leadership Group to accelerate climate action through collaboration and partnerships. Other planned initiatives include the improvement of the climate action progress and monitoring framework to provide clearer understanding of progress on climate targets.

7. This Progress Report provides an update on the regional greenhouse gas inventory to 2019, published in late 2022. Overall, from 2016 to 2019, gross and net emissions have increased by 647 kt CO2e (or 5.4% for gross emissions, 6.0% for net emissions). Emissions were higher from energy, transport and industrial processes and process unit (IPPU) sectors, but lower from waste and agriculture sources.

8. Despite the progress being made on climate action, Auckland’s emissions are not remotely tracking in line with the target to reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2030. All stakeholders need to increase their commitment to climate action if we are to achieve our climate goals.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan Progress Report, September 2023 included as Attachment A of the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

9. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan is a long-term approach to climate action for the Auckland region. It sets out eight priority action areas to deliver our goals to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Key actions are outlined within these priorities as well as key partners required to deliver on these actions.

10. Regular monitoring and reporting is fundamental to understanding progress towards the main goals of reducing emissions and adapting to climate change impacts.

11. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri states we will report on progress of actions contained within the plan annually and that we will use a series of indicators to identify trends and measure success in delivery against our climate goals.

12. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan was launched in December 2020. This is the third annual update on the progress of actions. The last annual progress report was published September 2022.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan Progress Report, September 2023 (Attachment A) outlines the percentage of actions that are completed, on track, partially underway but require more work, or not in progress. It also provides highlights of progress and key challenges for each priority in the plan along with a summary of key initiatives planned for next year.

14. There are a total of 58 action areas, and 179 actions in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri with Auckland Council having different levels of responsibility and control, reflecting the regional focus of the plan.

15. The Progress Report 2023 reports that 3 per cent of actions are completed, 31 per cent of actions in the plan are on-track, 52 per cent are underway but require more work, and 13 per cent are not in progress. The Progress Report 2022 reported that one per cent of actions were completed, 33 per cent were on-track, 51 per cent were underway but requiring more work, and 15 per cent were not in progress.

16. From 2022 to 2023, there has been an increase in the number of actions that are completed (1 per cent to 3 per cent) and a decrease in the number of actions that have not been started (15 per cent to 13 per cent). This represents encouraging progress but significant additional action and commitment is required by a range of stakeholders to meet our climate goals.

17. Headline indicators are reported in the Progress Report and will be reported against annually. All indicators will be reported on every three years. The indicators will be reviewed each year to ensure they are fit-for-purpose. A baseline indicators report was released in November 2022 for all indicators and confirms the 33 indicators that will be used for ongoing monitoring.

18. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri sets out eight priorities to deliver our goals to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Te Puāwaitanga ō te Tātai outlines te ao Māori principles that should be interwoven throughout the other Priorities and are fundamental to the delivery of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. Te Puāwaitanga ō te Tātai does not outline specific actions in the same way as other Priorities. There are currently no specific progress indicators for measuring progress against the te ao Māori principles outlined in Te Puāwaitanga ō te Tātai. Further work is needed to understand how we can measure progress and develop indicators for Te Puāwaitanga ō te Tātai and evaluate how the te ao Māori principles are being embedded across the other Priorities.

19. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (now the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum), a collective of the 19 hapū and iwi authorities of Tāmaki Makaurau, worked closely with Auckland Council throughout the development of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri.

20. Over the past twelve months, Māori specialist staff have provided support to build knowledge and capability amongst staff working on Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri in preparation for the next phase of delivery. This includes initiating the two engagements with the I&ES Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum to discuss the implementation of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri and establishment of a Regional Leadership Group. Engagement will continue on a quarterly basis going forward.

21. The Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR) was developed and approved in FY22, and in FY23 the programme was established. The CATTR generates an additional $1.056 billion investment in buses, ferries, walking, cycling and our urban ngahere (forest) over the next 10 years. Programme activity has accelerated over the last year, with increased delivery expected in FY24 as the programme matures. The CATTR is an important step forwards to reduce emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change, but is not a silver bullet, and much more needs to be done.

22. The Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway (TERP) was developed by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport and sets out a pathway to reduce transport emissions by 64 per cent by 2030 in line with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. Progress on embedding TERP has been mixed and Auckland is not on track to significantly reduce its transport emissions. However, recent direction for the LTP is well aligned with the TERP. In particular the focus on increasing public transport patronage, better aligning renewals with improvements and tactical changes to prioritise buses, bikes and pedestrians, will provide TERP consistent direction to the RLTP. Nevertheless, more funding will be required if significant progress toward TERP objectives is to be achieved.

23. Delivery of the $152m climate investment package in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 is accelerating, with key outputs outlined in the Progress Report. The previous headwinds faced in 2021/22, predominantly due to delays in recruitment for key roles, and the affects of Covid-19 lockdowns, are subsiding. Significant climate action and outputs have started to be delivered, with the highest levels of activity, both output based and financial spend, recorded in FY23.

24. Following the Auckland Anniversary floods in January and Cyclone Gabrielle in February, multiple lines of work were initiated or accelerated to enable council to be prepared for future storms and lessen the ongoing impacts of climate change on our organisation and communities. Among these was the adoption of the Storm Response Fund, a $20 million per annum targeted rate to begin in FY24.

25. Climate action investment programmes, such as the CATTR, the $152m climate investment package in the 10-year Budget, and the Storm Response Fund are an important aspect of the change that needs to occur but are not sufficient on their own. To achieve our climate goals, climate action needs to be embedded across all our planning, investment and decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. There is no decision associated with this report that could impact on greenhouse gas emissions or be affected by climate change.

27. The delivery of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri and the progress of actions impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the extent to which Auckland is impacted by climate change. Auckland’s current trajectory is still one of increasing emissions. Meeting our targets set in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, and meeting commitments to the Paris Agreement, is therefore becoming harder. This means the emissions curve is getting steeper and the interventions required are becoming more drastic.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. There is no decision associated with this report that could impact on the council group.

29. The Progress Report includes initiatives and activities from across the council group. Information for the Progress Report, including updates on the progress of actions, was received from across the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. There is no decision associated with this report that could impact on local boards.

31. The views of local boards were not sought in the development of the Progress Report.

32. Local boards have a critical role to play in advocating for specific initiatives or improvements that support their communities to transition to low carbon/ low impact lifestyles and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Local boards therefore drive and fund various initiatives and projects that enable this, and that contribute to the goals of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. There is no decision associated with this report that could have particular beneficial or adverse effects on Māori.

34. The impacts of climate change on the cultural, social, environmental, and economic wellbeing of Māori are potentially profound. Therefore, our response to climate change through the delivery of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri and the progress of actions impacts on Māori.

35. Addressing climate change for the benefit of current and future generations aligns strongly with Māori values of environmental and inter-generational wellbeing.

36. Partnership with iwi, hapū and Māori organisations in delivering climate action was a common theme during public consultation on the development of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

38. Through Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, Auckland Council has set the overarching targets of a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 (against a 2016 baseline) and net zero emissions by 2050. These ambitious targets will require transformational change and we are yet to get on the pathway to fund them. Unprecedented funding and reprioritisation of investment will be required by council and other regional stakeholders to realise these targets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39. There is no decision associated with this report to present a risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. Staff to add Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan Progress Report, September 2023 to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri digital plan website - climateakl.co.nz

41. A fourth annual update on progress of actions contained within Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri will be prepared for around September 2024, depending on committee dates.

42. The final section of the Progress Report outlines key climate action initiatives and deliverables for FY24 and beyond.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	2023 Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri Auckland's Climate Plan Progress Report
b ⇨	Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri Auckland's Climate Plan Progress Report Overview

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nick McKenna - Programme Manager - Climate Action

Authorisers

Lauren Simpson - Acting Chief Sustainability Officer

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

07 September 2023

Annual update on delivery of the Auckland Water Strategy
File No.: CP2023/10605

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on the implementation of the Auckland Water Strategy (2022-2050) over the period 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Water Strategy (2022-2050) outlines a thirty-year regional vision to achieve te mauri o te wai, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water is protected and enhanced.

3. Council staff have prepared an inaugural Auckland Water Strategy Annual Progress Report, July 2023 (Attachment A) to provide an update on the implementation of the Auckland Water Strategy over its first year of implementation (1 July 2022 - 30 June 2023).

4. The Annual Progress Report, July 2023 shows that:

a) the Strategy is being delivered via multiple new and ongoing work programmes across the council group, and the three Actions scoped for delivery in Year 1 (2022/2023) remain underway.

b) half of all 58 Actions set out in the Strategy are underway, and ninety percent of the Actions scoped to begin in Year 1 are progressing within the timeframes given in the Implementation Plan. Four Actions have been completed or are considered ‘functionally complete’ with an ongoing nature.

c) the Strategy has already achieved its water supply and demand targets set out for 2030, based on figures provided by Watercare Services Ltd (Watercare). The record rainfall experienced in Auckland during the reporting period is noted.

d) the Water Services Reform and limited resourcing pose the greatest risks to delivery of the Strategy within timeframes envisioned in the Implementation Plan.

e) staff have undertaken a prioritisation exercise to facilitate decision-making around the allocation of resources to implement the Strategy in 2023/2024.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the Auckland Water Strategy (2022/2050) Annual Progress Report, July 2023 included as Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note key findings of the Auckland Water Strategy (2022/2050) Annual Progress Report, July 2023:

i) the Strategy is being delivered by council group. Half of the Strategy’s 58 Actions are underway, and ninety percent of Actions scoped to begin in Year 1 are on track for delivery within given timeframes in the Implementation Plan. At the time of reporting, four Actions are considered complete, and the three Actions scoped for delivery in Year 1 (2022/2023) remain underway.

ii) the Water Services Reform and limited resourcing pose the greatest risk to delivery of the Strategy within timeframes envisioned in the Implementation Plan.

iii) staff have undertaken a prioritisation exercise to facilitate decision-making around the allocation of resources to implement the Strategy going forward.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Auckland Water Strategy (2022 – 2050) (Strategy) is Auckland Council’s thirty-year approach to water, guided by the vision te mauri o te wai, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water is protected and enhanced.

6. The Strategy was approved by the Environment and Climate Change Committee (ECC) on 10 March 2022, along with an accompanying Implementation Plan (Resolution ECC/2022/2054). Both documents can be accessed via this link.

7. The Strategy sets out eight overarching shifts (‘Strategic Shifts’) in describing Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland's desired long-term future, each with approximately 5-10 individual Strategic Actions (‘Actions’) to progress towards the aim of that Strategic Shift. The Implementation Plan outlines staggered timelines for the completion of Actions.

8. The Strategy is intended to be monitored and evaluated on two main scales:

a) five-yearly dual-benchmarking of Auckland’s progress towards achieving the vision of the Auckland Water Strategy, using both a Water Sensitive Cities index as well as a Mātauranga Māori Benchmarking Framework (in development), and

b) annual progress reports on the implementation status of the eight Strategic Shifts and supporting Actions.

9. The inaugural Auckland Water Strategy Annual Progress Report, July 2023 (Attachment A) provides an update on the implementation of the Strategy over the period 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. Staff have implemented the Strategy over the first year of implementation through:

a) embedding direction from the Strategy in our work and mandates related to water

b) scoping the delivery of long-term aspirational goals of Strategic Shifts and Actions, and

c) initiating new work programmes to deliver specific Actions of the Strategy.

11. The Strategy sets out aspirational and long-term goals, which can be difficult to evaluate on timeframes as short as one year. The Annual Progress Report therefore has a heavy focus on the status of progress against specific Actions, however, staff acknowledge that this alone does not reflect the full value and impact of the Strategy.

12. Half of the 58 Actions set out in the Strategy are already underway, and ninety percent that are scoped to begin in Year 1 are progressing within timeframes given in the Implementation Plan. Four Actions have been completed or are considered ‘functionally complete’ (i.e., with an ongoing nature requiring regular review).

13. The Implementation Plan identifies three Actions for completion in Year 1 (by 30 June 2023):

a) Action 1.1 Apply dual framework to benchmark water outcomes.

b) Action 5.1 Adopt a council position to address affordable water access.

c) Action 5.2 Develop a plan to address affordable water access in Auckland.

14. These three Actions have not been delivered within Year 1 (2022/2023) and are anticipated to be completed in Year 2 (2023/2024). Limitations in resourcing, due to additional time needed for engagement with mana whenua on a draft benchmarking framework (Action 1.1), and the diversion of staff resources to flood response work in early 2023 (Actions 5.1 & 5.2) have delayed the completion of these Actions.

15. Noting record rainfall experienced during the reporting period, the Strategy has already achieved its water supply and demand targets set out for 2030, based on figures provided by Watercare:

a) the average consumption of drinking water in Auckland as of June 2023 was 241.33 million litres/day/person,[1] which exceeds the 2025 target (253 million litres/day/person) and even exceeds the 2030 target (247 million litres/day/person)

b) the recycled water capacity for beneficial use in Auckland between 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023 was 21.70 million litres/day (MLD), which exceeds the 2030 target of 20 MLD. This does not include rainwater tank volumes across Auckland, and therefore is estimated to be even greater.

16. A snapshot of the status of Actions for implementation in Year 1, as well as additional Actions that have also progressed in Year 1 are included in the Annual Progress Report (Attachment A), with an associated red / amber / green status. Green indicates the Action is on-track, amber indicates that the Action is progressing with some challenges, and red indicates the Action is overdue against the timeframe set out in the Implementation Plan.

17. Resource constraints are already challenging council group staff to progress the significant number of Actions scoped for delivery in Years 1-3. Therefore, staff have undertaken a prioritisation exercise to understand and action the highest priority direction from the Strategy over the next two years. Noting that all Actions are significant, staff have sought to identify priority Actions based on the following criteria:

a) urgency (when the Action is targeted for delivery in the Implementation Plan)

b) impact (how directly the action protects and enhances te mauri o te wai)

c) low risk (the likelihood that factors outside our control could derail progress), and

d) alignment (with other ongoing and high priority activities for Auckland Council).

18. Using these criteria, the Annual Progress Report (Attachment A) sets out the priority Actions for Year 2 of implementation (1 July 2023 - 30 June 2024) and provides suggested direction for staff on where to allocate limited resourcing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. Climate is one of two cross-cutting themes for the Auckland Water Strategy, along with equity.

20. The Strategy shares specific goals and targets with Te-Tāruke-a-Tāwhiri to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase Auckland’s resilience to a changing climate. For example, council’s water infrastructure providers have set emissions reduction targets for water infrastructure aligned with those required by Te-Tāruke-a-Tāwhiri, and are developing emissions reduction plans, as set out in the Strategy (Action 4.2).

21. The Strategy incorporates significant direction across its eight Strategic Shifts to consider climate change and enhance our resilience through our water-related functions, including through:

a) the water allocation framework (Shift 3: Equitable Access and Sustainable Allocations)

b) infrastructure planning and provisions (Strategic Shift 4: Regenerative Infrastructure)

c) supply and demand management (Strategic Shift 5: Water Security), and

d) planning and regulatory functions (Strategic Shift 6: Integrated Land Use and Water Planning).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. Auckland Council and Watercare staff have collaborated on the translation and implementation of several Actions over the first year of implementation. This has included:

a) the initial stages of developing a water literacy framework for Auckland (Action 2.1)

b) delivery of a Peak Management Plan to proactively plan for peak demand and drought management (Action 5.3), and

c) developing a Knowledge Governance Framework for Water (Action 8.1).

23. The pending Water Services Reform over 2022/2023 has required significant allocation of time and resources by Watercare and the Healthy Waters department, limiting capacity to jointly scope the implementation programme for some work, including:

a) adding a level of service to integrate drought response and peak demand (Action 5.3), and

b) including impacts on demand and non-dam water sources in modelling the impacts of climate change on water sources (Action 5.4).

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. Staff briefed Local Board Services staff on the Strategy during the development of Local Board Plans in March 2022.

25. Staff will present the Annual Progress Report (July 2023) to Local Board members in September 2023, along with priority areas for implementation over the coming year for their awareness and to enable them to advance towards any desired Strategy aims over the next year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. Engagement with mana whenua on the Strategy continued after its adoption in March 2022 with all twenty recognised mana whenua entities, in a continuation of the coordinated approach with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) and the Water Services Reform teams.

27. The Strategy’s progress over its first year of implementation was presented to Te Pou Taiao (environment committee) of the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum with an accompanying information memo in June 2023.

28. Partnership with mana whenua is central to achieving the vision of the Strategy and is explicitly directed in the Strategic Shift focused on Treaty Partnership. Addressing the challenges to achieving meaningful partnership for water outcomes with all twenty Tāmaki Makaurau mana whenua entities recognised by council will take time. However, initial steps have been progressed over the reporting period (2022/2023). Details are included in the Annual Progress Report, July 2023 (Attachment A) and Appendix 1, 'Detailed Strategic Shift & Action Progress 2022/2023’ (Attachment B).

29. The Strategy also directs council staff to work with mana whenua for the delivery of specific Actions, including the completion and application of a Mātauranga Māori Benchmarking Framework as the first Action (Action 1.1) for delivery under the Strategic Shift focused on Treaty Partnership (‘Strategic Shift 1’). Additional details about this and other Actions can be referenced in Appendix 1 to the Annual Progress Report (Attachment A).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. While some Actions of the Auckland Water Strategy are progressing through use of existing budgets and work programmes across council, implementation of the whole Strategy is not fully funded. Accordingly, achieving some within the timeframes of the Implementation Plan has been a challenge due to this lack of resourcing. As more Actions are progressively scheduled to start and be completed, delivery will likely fall further behind.

31. Staff recognise the constrained budget environment and have undertaken a prioritisation exercise to support decision-making that will facilitate the allocation of limited resourcing to the most impactful Actions over the 2023/2024 financial year. This will, however, mean some Strategic Actions may not be completed within indicated timeframes.

32. Where consistent with the ‘Long-term Plan 2024/2034: Direction to council from the Mayor and Councillors’ (August 2023), staff will are prepare an estimate of resourcing required to deliver priority Actions over the next three years for consideration in the Long-term Plan 2024/2034. By way of example, further resourcing for engagement and partnership with mana whenua and additional regulatory compliance staff will be required to meaningfully progress towards the vision te mauri o te wai, the life-sustaining capacity of Auckland’s water is protected and enhanced.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. Along with the Water Services Reform changes, resource limitations pose the greatest risk to implementing the Strategy. This is primarily regarding staff capacity, but also includes financial resources directed at priority Actions which is a potential change from business as usual. A prioritisation exercise has been completed that will help staff allocate resourcing to the most impactful Actions going forward. Divisional and departmental managers will need to consider this strategic priority against others, with a view to realigning existing activities to that expected of the approved Strategy and its associated Implementation Plan.

34. There are no enforcement mechanisms for delivering the Strategy, and accountability across council group presents a risk. An internal three-year operational workplan was developed in the first year of implementation and uptake of that workplan will need to be further considered by senior management. An additional governance mechanism to promote commitment across council to delivering the workplan may need to be considered. Staff suggest adding an Implementation Action to the Strategy to explore a wider governance structure within council to support accountability to the workplan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. The Strategy identifies thirty-four Actions to be delivered by July 2025. Council group staff will utilise the prioritisation criteria in considering how to resource these Actions when reallocating existing resources and/or preparing Long-Term Plan cost estimates.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Water Strategy Annual Progress Report, July 2023
b ⇨	Appendix 1 - Auckland Water Strategy Detailed Strategic Shift & Action Progress 2022/2023
c ⇨	Appendix 2 - Auckland Water Strategy Alignment Opportunities 2022/2023

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tess Langworthy - Project Manager Water

Olivia Blanchette - Senior Analyst Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

07 September 2023

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management - update and pre-notification engagement approach

File No.: CP2023/12676

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on progress with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) implementation programme.

2. To outline the planned approach for engagement on the implementation of the NPS-FM prior to notification of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).

3. To establish the process for approval of the engagement material for public release in November 2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

6. Recent work in the NPS-FM programme has been focused on: developing draft plan provisions relating to visions, values and environmental outcomes; the identification of baseline states; development of issues and options for addressing the NPS-FM requirements; engagement with mana whenua and stakeholders.

7. The next stage of work includes community engagement on the draft plan provisions noted above, and on the policy development and technical support needed to establish target attribute states and limits on resource use and action plans in order to achieve relevant environmental outcomes and ensure that our waterways meet the prescribed national bottom lines for ecosystem health and human contact.

8. A Political Working Group (PWG) was re-established in March 2023 to oversee the implementation of the NPS-FM. It is recommended that this Working Group be used to approve the material for the community engagement later in 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the following engagement approach for the plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan required under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020:

i) Ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua.

ii) Stage one community engagement in July / July 2022.

iii) Stage two community engagement in November 2023.

iv) Workshops and communications with policy and local stakeholders from July 2023 to mid 2024.

v) Workshops and meetings with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, local boards, and the NPS-FM Political Working Group in 2024 to consider feedback from Mana Whenua, stakeholders and the community on the implementation of the NPS-FM.

vi) Public notification of a proposed plan change by 31 December 2024.

b) whakaū / confirm the timing for the planned community engagement of 6 November 2023 – 4 December 2023.

c) tautapa / delegate to the NPS-FM Political Working Group the approval of the community engagement discussion document for public release in November 2023.

Horopaki

Context

Requirements of the NPS-FM 2020

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

· stop further degradation of freshwater

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· identify the FMUs in the region

· identify values for each FMU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. The NPS-FM requires that various special features must be identified for each FMU, including monitoring sites, primary contact sites, habitats of threatened species, outstanding water bodies, and natural inland wetlands. There are also specific requirements that must be considered for streams, wetlands and fish passage.

The NPS-FM Political Working Group

18. A report to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting on 2 March 2023 provided an update on implementation of the NPS-FM and proposed that a working group be re-established. The Committee resolution was:

Resolution number PEPCC/2023/34

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

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

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

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

i) Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

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

iii) Cr A Baker and Cr J Fairey

iv) One Independent Māori Statutory Board member.

19. The Independent Māori Statutory Board appointed Member Edward Ashby to the NPS-FM PWG.

20. Since it was established, the PWG has had meetings on 16 May and 17 July, and will meet on 4 September 2023.

Update on NPS-FM implementation progress

21. Since the last report to the Committee, the NPS-FM programme has focused on engagement and the foundational workstream, covering matters such as:

· Te Mana o te Wai

· RPS provisions

· visions

· values

· environmental outcomes

· sub-FMUs and the AUP structure

· development of the baseline state report for compulsory attributes

· enabling NOF implementation.

22. Policy development work has been undertaken in relation to several attributes relating to nutrients, sediments, human contact, water quantity and aquatic life and habitats. A draft Fish Passage Action Plan has been developed. Options have been developed for how the plan change may fit into the AUP chapter structure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The need for a comprehensive engagement approach

23. The NPS-FM includes consultation requirements that are in addition to the usual requirements for a plan change under the RMA. This is set out in several parts of the NPS-FM:

· cl 3.2: every regional council must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, and in doing so must actively involve tangata whenua in freshwater management (including decision making processes) and engage with communities and tangata whenua to identify long-term visions, environmental outcomes, and other elements of the National Objectives Framework (NOF).

· cl 3.3: every long-term vision must: be developed through engagement with communities and tangata whenua about their long-term wishes for the water bodies and freshwater ecosystems in the region; and express what communities and tangata whenua want the FMU, part of the FMU, or catchment to be like in the future.

· cl 3.7: at each step of the NOF process, every regional council must engage with communities and tangata whenua.

24. Engagement on the implementation of the NPS-FM is being undertaken through three integrated strands of work: Mana Whenua, stakeholders and community engagement.

Mana Whenua

25. Mana Whenua engagement is ongoing and builds on a series of hui that have been taking place since 2021. The most recent hui took place on 10 August 2023 with representatives from council engaging on a number of ‘water’ related proposals, including engagement on the NPS-FM.

Stakeholders

26. Stakeholders are clustered into four interest areas:

1) Primary sector (including pastoral farming, horticulture, and forestry)

2) Environment and conservation (including both policy interest and community-centred) and recreation (including swimming and boating)

3) Development and infrastructure (including developers, consultants, contractors, infrastructure, industrial and trade premises)

4) Government bodies

27. A three-tiered approach is being undertaken to engagement with each cluster, based on their understanding of the NPS-FM, the ability and interest to engage, and the contribution individuals can make to practical aspects of plan consultation and implementation.

• Tier one “Policy stakeholders”: they have high interest and are directly aligned at a regional or national level, have a high level of understanding of NPS-FM, high interest in policy and science settings, and can offer opportunities to council to test, explore and refine policy and action options.

• Tier two “Local representatives”: they have interests that are directly aligned at a local or sub-regional level. However, they have variable level of understanding of NPS-FM. Engagement with local representatives provides opportunities to test specific aspects of the NPS-FM programme, building long-term relationships with local sectors.

• Tier three “Public”: the general public have interest in management outcomes but low to medium understanding of NPS-FM. They have limited capacity to engage with detailed aspects of NPS-FM implementation.

28. The first stage of the stakeholder engagement was completed on 25 August 2023. Stakeholder engagement comprised a series of workshops with a range of interest groups and organisations who were identified as being skilled and informed policy stakeholders. The workshops explored high level policy and science settings with council staff responsible for drafting the NPS-FM plan change.

29. There will be additional stakeholder engagement later in 2023, with local representatives along with general public and community engagement, seeking feedback on proposals and directions on policy setting and action plans. There will be a subsequent stage of stakeholder engagement in 2024 to outline progress made on draft plan changes and action plans based on the public engagement.

Community

30. Community engagement for the NPS-FM programme is in two stages. The stage one engagement sought feedback on identifying freshwater values and visions, and on the proposed Freshwater Management Units. It was completed in June-July 2022 via the AK Have Your Say website, webinars, and library drop-in events. Stage two is planned to take place over four weeks between 6 November and 4 December 2023.

31. A discussion document is being developed as a core aspect of the material for the engagement. The current title of the discussion document is ‘Setting our Direction for improving freshwater in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’.

32. The discussion document is split into three parts:

· Part one - setting out the reasons for change: the state of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s freshwater, and the national direction given in the new NPS-FM.

· Part two - introducing the direction we want to take: establishing three Freshwater Management Units for the region, and setting out proposed visions, values and environmental outcomes.

· Part three - looking at the methods council can use to achieve our aspirations. This includes setting targets for the freshwater attributes (indicators) that we need to manage, and identifying the regulatory and non-regulatory methods we could use.

33. In the stage two engagement, council is seeking feedback from the community on:

· the proposed long-term vision for freshwater

· the characterisation of each Freshwater Management Unit (FMU), and what aspects of freshwater and waterbodies, if any, should be improved in any given FMU

· the identification of values and environmental outcomes for each value and whether there are other values that should be included for a specific FMU

· how council should manage the various attributes that are required to achieve the anticipated environmental outcomes and whether there are other measures we should take

· how council should identify and protect outstanding water bodies, freshwater dependent threatened species and how we should we manage freshwater primary contact sites

· the methods (regulatory/non-regulatory) council should use to achieve the objectives of the NPS-FM

· how council should manage activities affecting rivers, streams, and natural inland wetlands.

34. The community engagement will include a programme of events such as webinars, drop-ins and workshops. The event schedule is still being developed.

35. It is recommended that the approval of the community engagement material be delegated to the NPS-FM PWG. The Terms of Reference for the PWG allow for the Group to ‘make interim decisions in order to provide guidance on policy issues’ but not to make ‘final decisions on the implementation of the NPS-FM’. The final decision on the notification of a plan change next year remains the responsibility of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

44. Local boards will be updated prior to the next community engagement in November 2023. It is intended that the community feedback will be reported to the local boards early in 2024.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

46. Engagement with mana whenua in Auckland is being undertaken through an on-going process of hui with mana whenua entities throughout the NPS-FM implementation programme. Between July 2021 and March 2023 43 hui were held with the 19 iwi entities, ranging from one to four hui held with each iwi entity.

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

48. A combined hui ‘Wai Tāmaki Wai Ora Hui’ was held at the Viaduct Events Centre on 10 August 2023. This included sessions on the Water Services Entity, Making Space for Water, NPS-FM implementation and the Water Strategy Mātauranga Māori Benchmarking.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. There are no additional financial implications from the engagement programme as outlined in this report.

50. Programme planning to implement the NPS-FM undertaken earlier this year identified $9.4m in unbudgeted costs that will be required over the next 4 years to support plan development, technical analysis, public engagement, and the operation of an independent hearing panel.

51. The additional costs identified relating to the 2022/23 financial year were met through existing budgets and a re-prioritisation of work programmes. The remaining $7.7m required from FY24 to FY26 was included in the FY2023/2024 annual budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

56. The approval of the engagement approach will enable a core requirement of the NPS-FM programme.

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kath Coombes - Team Leader - Regional Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

07 September 2023

Auckland Unitary Plan - consideration of a private plan change request under Clause 25, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991- Warkworth South

File No.: CP2023/12113

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide how to process a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan from KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited (the applicant) in respect of land to the south of Warkworth.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The plan change request from the KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited relates to approximately 159ha of land located generally to the south of the existing Warkworth urban area. The proposal is to rezone land zoned Future Urban zone (FUZ) Open Space – Conservation and Rural – Rural Production to a mix of residential, business, open space and rural zones and the introduction of two new precincts – Waimanawa and Morrison Heritage Orchard. The plan change also seeks a small extension of 6,400 m2 to the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB).

3. The private plan change relates to district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan. A copy of the private plan change request is included as Attachment B, and the plan change provisions are set out in Attachment C.

4. The applicant considers that the plan change is consistent with the objectives of the Council’s planning documents and, in this regard, the reasons for the plan change are justified and consistent with sound resource management practice.

5. Auckland Council must decide how a private plan change request is processed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991^{^[2]} the council may either:

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

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

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

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

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

6. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) not reject the private plan change request by KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited (included as Attachments A to C of the agenda report) under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, on the basis that:

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

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

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

C) the substance of the request has not been considered and given effect to, or rejected, by the Council or the Environment Court. within the last two years.

D) having regard to relevant case law, at a coarse level of assessment, the requested plan change is not contrary to sound resource management practice.

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

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

b) whakaae / accept the private plan change request by the KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited, included as Attachment A to C, pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991, and having particular regard to the applicants section 32 evaluation report for the following reasons:

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

ii) Accepting the private plan change request enables the matters raised by the private plan change request and the matters raised in the coarse level assessment to be considered in detail, during a public participatory planning process.

iii) It is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change. The private plan change proposal is not a matter under consideration in council’s policy work programme. The private plan change does not address a gap in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016, introduce a new policy direction, nor does the private plan change have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region. The proposed changes are specific to the site and their appropriateness requires a full and detailed assessment through the notification and submission process. The applicant did not request that the council adopt the private plan change request.

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

v) The applicant requested that the council notify the private plan change request.

c) tautapa / delegate authority to the Manager Regional, North, West and Islands Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by the KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Site and surrounding area

7. The plan change request relates to approximately 159ha of land zoned Future Urban Zone (FUZ) Open Space – Conservation and Rural – Rural Production located generally to the south of the existing Warkworth urban area. The proposal is that the land will be rezoned to a mix of residential, business, open space and rural zones along with the introduction of two new precincts – the Waimanawa Precinct and the Morrison Heritage Orchard Precinct. The rezoning is proposed to provide capacity for approximately 1600 dwellings. The applicant group owns much (but not all) of the plan change area. The KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership sole shareholder is “Kaha Ake” which is partnership between the NZ super Fund and the Classic Group. The partnership was created to increase the NZ superfunds exposure to real estate and represents a stated 300-million-dollar commitment towards that end. This project is the first for Kaha Ake and is referenced as such in the NZ super fund annual report 2022. Classic Group is both a developer of land and a builder and has multiple residential and commercial projects completed and underway in New Zealand, including in Auckland.

8. The land the subject of the plan change request, is located towards the south of the existing urban area in Warkworth and is mostly within the existing RUB. It is bounded by the Mahurangi River in the west and straddles the previous SH1 and includes a small portion of land outside of the RUB in the south of the area immediately to the east of the old SH1. The plan change area has an irregular shape, with the Land currently outside the RUB being the southeastern end of the lots within the RUB. However, the land is generally separated from the existing urban area by undeveloped land that is zoned Future Urban Zone. The request includes an alteration to the RUB in order to include the land currently outside the RUB.

Figure 1 – Plan Change location and precinct boundaries.

9. The current land use within the plan change area is predominantly agriculture (mostly grazing). Various residential and rural buildings are present across the plan change area.

10. The Warkworth South area is broadly framed by a series of elevated ridges and hill slopes to the south which define the outer edges of the future urban area within the Warkworth ‘basin’. Within this catchment basin, a mixture of major streams, tributaries and more localised watercourses form a series of stream valleys and flood plains which are intermixed with a rolling matrix of spurs and hill slopes. Avice Miller Scenic Reserve defines the southern boundary of the eastern site which is covered by predominantly indigenous species including podocarp trees, kauri, rimu, tōtara and kahikatea. These forest remnants extend further eastwards to the Thompson Road ridge, all of which are identified as Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) under the AUP and form a large Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL) wrapping along the ridges framing the future urban land in Warkworth South. SEA are also located along the right arm of the Mahurangi River from the southwestern corner of the site towards a major stand of bush to the south.

11. While the site fronts directly onto the old State Highway 1, the main access to the site will now be from the north following the opening of the motorway “Ara Tuhono” which connects to the northern extent of Warkworth.

12. In terms of land use and built form in the immediate locality, the surrounding area is characterised largely by rural activities. The northern part of the site is located close to industrial and residential development located to the south off Woodcocks Road. However, there is little visual connection between that area and the plan change land due to the east-west ridge at this location which screens the plan change area from the north in this vicinity. While the land is visible from the residential ridgeline along McKinney Road, the plan change area is separated from this area by intervening farmland.

13. Warkworth township has a current population of approximately 5300 people and is predominantly comprised of lower-density suburban residential properties. The town is experiencing growth with new urban areas being developed largely in the periphery of the town. As noted above access to the town has been recently improved with the opening of a direct motorway link to Auckland and with the bypass for traffic to and from Matakana in the east.

Private plan change content

14. The purpose of the plan change is to re-zone land in Warkworth South to:

a) Provide for the continuation and expansion of the Morrison Heritage Orchard and further development of this site with supporting activities and limited residential development.

b) Enable the urban development of the remainder of the area (referred to as Waimanawa) to proceed generally in accordance with the outcomes sought through the council’s Warkworth Structure Plan https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/place-based-plans/structure-plans/Pages/Warkworth-Structure-Plan.aspx

15. The plan change introduces precincts into the AUP for the development of “greenfield” and currently Future Urban zoned land and for specific sites which have a unique land use activity in this instance, the Morrison Heritage Orchard.

16. The plan change seeks the following precincts are included within the AUP:

· The Waimanawa Precinct. This precinct will provide for residential growth in the Warkworth South area while also providing for a range of open spaces and a local centre. This precinct covers most of the plan change area and includes land on both sides of the old SH1. The proposed zonings with the precinct are;

o Business – Local Centre

o Residential – Large Lot

o Residential –Single House.

o Residential – Mixed Housing Urban

o Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings

o Open Space – Conservation

· The Morrison Heritage Orchard Precinct. This precinct applies to land in the north of the plan change area immediately to the west of the old SH1. The purpose of this precinct to ensure the retention, operation, and enhancement of the existing Morrison’s Orchard, located at 1773 SH1, while also enabling appropriate and sympathetic residential, tourist and visitor activities. The proposed zonings for the precinct are;

o Rural – Mixed Rural

o Residential – Large Lot.

17. The plan change also seeks the following controls be applied:

· The Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 control over the entire plan change area

· The old SH1 and a proposed wider western link road be identified as arterial roads.

18. The proposed zoning pattern is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Proposed Zoning

19. The reasons given by the applicant for the plan change request include the following;

The purpose of the plan change is to re-zone land in Warkworth South to:

a) Provide for the continuation and expansion of the Morrison Heritage Orchard and further development of this site with supporting activities and limited residential development.

b) Enable the urban development of the remainder of the area (referred to as Waimanawa) to proceed generally in accordance with the outcomes sought through the Warkworth Structure Plan.

The plan change is focussed on those planning zones, objectives, policies and rules which are essential to allow for the development of the land and its shift from rural activities to urban (except for Morrison Heritage Orchard).

The plan change follows the standard approach of introducing precincts into the AUP for development of greenfields and currently Future Urban zoned land and for specific sites which have a unique land use activity (for example, the Morrison Heritage Orchard).

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

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

· section 32 evaluation report

· specialist reports:

o Planning Report by Osborne Hay (North) Ltd and Tattico Ltd.

o Masterplan and Urban Design Report by Reset Urban Design Ltd (Appendix Two).

o Visual and Landscape Assessment by Reset Urban Design Ltd (Appendix Four).

o Engineering and Infrastructure Assessment by Maven Associates (Appendix Five).

o Geotechnical Assessment by LDE (Waimanawa Valley and 1768 State Highway One) (Appendix Six).

o Geotechnical Assessment by CMW Geosciences (Waimanawa Hills) (Appendix Six).

o Land Contamination Report by LDE (Waimanawa Valley) (Appendix Seven).

o Land Contamination Report by Focus Environmental Services Limited (Waimanawa Hills) (Appendix Seven).

o Integrated Transport Assessment by Traffic Planning Consultants Limited (Appendix Eight).

o Ecological Baseline Assessment by Bioresearches Ltd (Appendix Nine).

o Assessment of Economic Effects by Market Economics Limited (Appendix Ten).

o Archaeological Assessment by Clough and Associates (Appendix Eleven).

o Arborist Report by CWAL (Appendix Fourteen).

o Stormwater Modelling Report by Maven Associates (Appendix Fifteen).

o Soil and Resources Report by Hanmore Land Management (Appendix Sixteen).

o A cultural values assessment has been prepared for the plan change and provided by the Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust and is included in Appendix Twelve.

o A draft Stormwater Management Plan for the Warkworth South plan change area is included in Appendix Thirteen.

21. Following a request for additional information under Clause 23 of Schedule 1 to the RMA the applicant provided updates to a number of these documents and updated the requested plan provisions to reflect the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS). Council specialists have indicated that they now generally have sufficient information to make an assessment of the request. The applicant also subsequently provided information to support the alteration of the RUB and this is contained in Attachment A.

Timeframes

22. The applicant lodged the private plan change request on 23 January 2023. Further information was provided on 3 May 2023. Additional information was requested on 29 May 2023, and this was provided on 6 July 2023.

23. Council is required to decide how the private plan change request is processed within 30 working days of the latest date specified above. That period ends on 18 August 2023. Due to the need for the Council specialists to assess the additional information received and the time required to prepare this report for the Committee agenda, a s37 extension has been granted until 27 September 2023.

Decision-maker

24. Council allows a delegation to Plans and Places’ tier four managers or the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee the authority to make decisions on how to process private plan change requests. In this instance, the plan change request is being presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee for a decision due to the scale of the plan change proposals and because the proposed plan change is ahead of sequencing set out in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) (from 2028-2032) and because the private plan change request seeks to move the Rural Urban Boundary to include an additional 6,400m² of land within the urban area.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Statutory context: Resource Management Act 1991

25. Any person may request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal plan.^{^[3]} The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1, RMA. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted,^{^[4]} and procedural steps added^{^[5]} including the opportunity to request information.

26. Council must decide under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA which is the most appropriate processing option for each private plan change request. In making this decision council must have particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report when deciding. The clause 25 decision is the subject of this report.

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

28. The plan change request has been modified by the applicant as a result of requests for additional information.

29. The options available under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA are evaluated in the next sections of this report. Particular regard has been had to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report in undertaking the assessment of clause 25 options.

Options available to the council

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

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

31. If the plan change

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

b) provides for or relates to aquaculture activities

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

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

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

34. The request does not address a gap in the Auckland Unitary Plan’s planning provisions. It addresses the applicant’s ambitions for the future of land inside the RUB, some of which it owns, and the issues are limited to the Warkworth area.

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

36. Council meets all costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted. Council should not carry these costs if the request is primarily of direct benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public, or have other public policy benefits. The request is a site-specific proposal relating generally to land largely within the ownership of the applicant and the immediate benefactor of the changes to the zoning change will be the applicant and potentially a number of private properties within the plan change area.

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

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

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

39. Council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, only if one (or more) of the limited grounds of rejection set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA are present.

40. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) of schedule 1 of the RMA are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

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

a) is considered thoroughly in the application materials

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

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

42. The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request. The applicant group and the cooperating landowners own most of the land subject to the request,and has substantial funding and a proven ability in both land development and building and accordingly, it is not a speculative venture. The applicant is not requiring the council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or the subject of extensive community engagement or investment. Accordingly, it is considered that the private plan change request is not vexatious or frivolous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management?

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

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

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

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

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

50. The consideration of this ground should involve a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request - “at a threshold level” - and take into account the RMA’s purpose and principles – noting that if the request is accepted or adopted the full merits assessment will be undertaken when the submissions on the plan change are considered by independent hearing commissioners at the Council hearing.

51. The RMA’s purpose is set out in section 5 and the principles are set out in sections 6 to 8. Regarding these RMA Part 2 matters, the private plan change proposes changes to the zoning of land to allow new urban development. Issues of national importance of relevance to the plan change include the appropriateness of development near streams and significant ecological areas and the management of significant risks from natural hazards. These matters have not been raised as significant issues in respect of the requested plan change.

52. The applicant supplied technical reports and a section 32 evaluation report in support of the private plan change request. Experts were engaged by the Council to evaluate the proposed plan change. No overriding issues have been raised by the Council’s specialists that have identified the plan change as being contrary to sound resource management practice. The issue of the status of a wetland was raised but has been resolved. Issues relating to urban design matters were also raised, but these are matters ultimately for any subdivision and development phase and can also be addressed via the submission and hearing phase. None of the matters raised by the Council’s specialists are considered to meet the threshold of being contrary to sound resource management practice.

53. Most of the land is already zoned Future Urban Zone and accordingly, there is an expectation that the land will be rezoned for urban development at some point. A small area is zoned Open Space Zone (an existing esplanade reserve) and land to the south outside the RUB is zoned Rural Production Zone. The applicant has requested that the RUB be moved to incorporate this land within the RUB except for some of the open space land.

54. There are a number of specific matters related to the nature of the requested plan change that are appropriate to consider when deciding whether the plan change is in accordance with ‘sound resource management practice’. These are discussed below.

Separation of the Plan Change Area from Warkworth urban area

55. In the normal course of events, it is typical that new urban areas are developed immediately adjoining existing developed urban areas. This enables services to be extended in a logical manner and areas of undeveloped land within the urban area are avoided. In this proposal however, the plan change area is located just over 400m from the existing urban area of Warkworth, with Future Urban Zoned land being retained north of the plan change area, between the plan change area and the existing urban area at Warkworth. The northern portion of the plan change area adjoins the urban area in the vicinity of Mason Heights, but along the old State Highway 1 the closest point of the plan change area is approximately 450m south of the existing urban area. This shown on the map below where the plan change area is outlined with a red dotted line and the existing urban area is shaded salmon/pink.

56. The applicant’s response to this issue is summarised in its letter of 23 June 2023.

The Plan Change is adjacent to the existing Warkworth urban area in the vicinity of Mason Heights and there is a separation distance of just over 400m between the northern edge of the WW South Plan Change area and the urban zoning just south of McKinney Drive (with this area being zoned Future Urban).

As outlined in the supporting Planning Report, the key infrastructure for the urban development of Warkworth South (i.e. the water reservoir, wastewater pump stations) along with the local centre and the public transportation hub for Warkworth South are all within the Waimanawa precinct. This area therefore needs to be developed prior to the area to the immediate north unless Council was to purchase the required land and install this infrastructure itself to then allow for urban development to proceed southwards from McKinney Drive. Given the significant financial constraints faced by Auckland Council, such an option is not feasible. Policy 8 of the NPS-Urban Development specifically provides for situations such as this.

A shared pedestrian path/cycleway is proposed between the Warkworth South Plan Change area and McKinney Drive to ensure there is a practical and usable connection between the two areas.

57. A consideration must be whether providing for discontinuous development is an issue when the general development approach is for contiguous development, particularly for sequencing of infrastructure. There are arguments for both approaches. For example, while water infrastructure may be better provided as suggested by the applicant from within the plan change area, transportation infrastructure may be better provided in the reverse direction from the north and west. In terms of transport infrastructure, it is noted that the applicant proposes to provide walking and cycling infrastructure along the old SH1 between the plan change area and McKinney Road, which would effectively mean there would be no separation in terms of vehicular or pedestrian / cycle connection with the existing developed area of Warkworth. Policy 8 of the NPS: UD which the applicant refers to in respect of this matter states that;

Policy 8: Local authority decisions affecting urban environments are responsive to plan changes that would add significantly to development capacity and contribute to well- functioning urban environments, even if the development capacity is:

(a) unanticipated by RMA planning documents; or

(b) out-of-sequence with planned land release.

58. The applicant's view is that the development of its land assists in the development of the intervening land and there will be no transport issues arising from the separation. It is considered that in these circumstances the separation does not constitute unsound resource management practice and that additionally it is considered to be a matter that is best resolved through the notification and hearing process where the advantages and disadvantages of the applicant’s approach can be fully explored. In addition, the notification of the plan change request will enable other parties, including the owners of the intervening land, and agencies such as Watercare and Auckland Transport to participate in the consideration of this matter through the submission process.

59. It is concluded that this matter cannot be classed as being not in accordance with sound resource management practice and that it is best resolved through the notification process as provided for the RMA.

Development Ahead of Time

60. In the operative Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (FULSS) the land subject to the plan change request is proposed to be developed for urban development between 2028 and 2032.

61. The plan change is generally consistent with the FULSS in that even if the plan change were made operative by the end of 2024 it will be several years before development will be completed and houses occupied on site. It is considered that no weight can be placed on the draft Future Development Strategy for the purpose of this Clause 25 assessment given that it is a draft document that is still not finalised or adopted. However, at any later stage of the plan change process the adopted FDS would be a consideration.

62. Another consequence of development taking place ahead of time is that it may place undue pressure on the provision of infrastructure, especially on the funding of infrastructure. To mitigate this the applicant has undertaken to provide all necessary infrastructure and has listed this in its letter of 23 June 2023. This list includes

i) all local infrastructure within Warkworth South will be funded by the project in the normal manner.

ii) the upgrading of the existing SH1 through the plan change area to urban road standards;

iii) building a dedicated shared path walkway and cycleway from the plan change area to McKinney Road;

iv) funding the construction of the roundabout at WWLR; (Wider Western link Road)

v) funding a two lane strategic arterial road on the WWLR through the K A Waimanawa land;

vi) funding the potable water supply line from Warkworth-to-Warkworth South;

vii) vesting the land for the necessary water reservoir to service Warkworth South. Securing this land will futureproof either an extension or a duplicate reservoir for the rest of Warkworth South;

viii) vesting the land necessary for the wastewater pump station necessary to service the plan change area;

ix) construction of the pump station(s) to service the plan change area;

x) construction of a rising main from the pump station to the top of McKinney Road, with the opportunity to place a second pipe in the trench to service other parts of Warkworth South if developed in the future;

xi) construction of a gravity line, futureproofed for all of Warkworth South, from McKinney Road to the prime Warkworth pump station;

xii) setting aside land for the transport hub identified in the Strategic Growth Alliance programme and in the Structure Plan; and

xiii) setting aside land for future open spaces.

63. The infrastructure noted above is required to be provided by way of a series of objectives, policies and rules/standards in the plan change. The requested plan change includes relevant objectives and policies and related standards that require subdivision and development to be able to connect to public water and wastewater infrastructure. Infringements of these standards are classed as a non-complying activity. For example, proposed rule 1xxx.6.9 requires all lots except those in the Residential Large Lot Zone and the Open Space Conservation Zone to be connected to a reticulated wastewater and water supply network. This means that unless the Council grants a non-complying activity consent, the applicant will be required to supply the wastewater and water supply infrastructure prior to the development proceeding.

64. Proposed rule 1xxx.6.10 requires the applicant to have an approved Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) and for development to be in accord with such a plan. This will help ensure that stormwater management is consistent with the Council’s (Healthy Waters) network discharge consent. Importantly, these standards are strongly worded, and any infringement of the standards has full non-complying activity status.

65. There are also standards proposed in respect of the provision of the wider western link road (Rule 1xxx.6.8 which requires any development along this route to provide the applicable portion of this road to collector road standards) and again infringement of this standard is a full non-complying activity. The plan below shows the location of this road.

66. The provision of this road is an essential and significant aspect of the planning for roading and public transport infrastructure in Warkworth following the completion of the SH1 motorway extension to Warkworth which has significantly improved access to the town. A number of additional roads have recently been the subject of Notices of Requirement (NoRs) from the Supporting Growth (SG) Programme for improvement of the local road network within Warkworth. It is noted that Auckland Transport has not issued a NoR for this piece of roading as it is relying on the applicant to provide this road as part of the private plan change (should the plan change ultimately be approved or approved with modifications).

67. The map below shows the land that is proposed to be designated by SGA for the Wider Western Link Road.

68. As can be seen in this map the link between Old SH1 and the Mahurangai River (through the plan change areas) is not being designated. The explanation for this is set out on page 82 of the AEE for the NoR which states:

The southern section of the Wider Western Link corridor from the Mahurangi River through to the intersection with SH1 is not being designated as part of the Warkworth Package. It is anticipated that this section will be delivered by the landowner who intends to develop the area via a plan change.

69. The background material also states that the southern interchange to the motorway will not be able to be provided until such time that the Wider Western Link is in place, although there are no plans for the interchange which will be located outside of the plan change area. It is considered that the proposed plan change could make a positive contribution to the provision of roading infrastructure in Warkworth (such as early development of part of the wider western collector road), including infrastructure that is needed for efficient public transport in Warkworth, and that this is necessary to take full advantage of the recent improvement in the motorway connections to Auckland. The Wider Western Link Road and a transport interchange proposed to be located within the plan change land will form part of the future public transport network linked to the new motorway connection to Warkworth.

70. The plan change also provides a number of trigger points for the provision of other pieces of transport infrastructure in Rule 1xxx.6.15. These include the provision of the following:

· Upgrading of Valerie Close/State Highway One Intersection

· Upgrading of State Highway One through the WW South Precinct

· Construction of the pedestrian/cycle path on the eastern side of old SH1 from the Wider Western Link Road/ Old SH1 intersection to McKinney Road.

· Construction of the pedestrian/cycle path on the western side of State Highway One from the Wider Western Link/State Highway One Intersection to the Morrisons Heritage Orchard Entrance

· Construction of the Wider Western Link Road/State Highway One Intersection

· Construction of the Wider Western Link Road

· Construction of the Green Avenue

· Collector Road

· Upgrading of Mason Heights

71. These are in addition to the standard requirement to provide all local roads. Any infringement of this standard is listed as a full discretionary activity. There may be a case for this to be upgraded to a non-complying activity, but that is considered to be a matter that can be considered in detail through the submission and hearing process, and is not considered to be unsound resource management practice. Similarly, the wording of the trigger for three of the upgrades mentioned above referring to subdivision of more than 20 lots could be made more definitive to make it clearer the reference is to the first 20 residential lots to rule out a series of small subdivisions of less than 20 lots occurring. This is a matter that can be addressed via the submission and hearing process and is not considered to be unsound resource management practice.

72. The plan change proposes the provision of significant open space as set out on the map below.

73. While this is a matter of detail to be worked through at the submission and hearing stage, the provision of open space in accordance with this plan is a matter for discretion in Rule 1xxx.8.2 which allows some flexibility with the approval of the Council at the time of development.

74. Council officers have consulted with Watercare Services and Auckland Transport and the Healthy Waters department in respect of the adequacy of the infrastructure proposed to be provided.

75. Watercare Services has advised that it has been in consultation with the applicant. Watercare has advised as follows:

Watercare understand that the developers have agreed to fully fund all water and wastewater infrastructure required to adequately service their development. For wastewater this includes the local network to service the development, pumping stations, rising mains and gravity sewers required to transfer the development wastewater to the Watercare pumping station in Lucy Moore Park. This will also include the connection to the Lucy Moore Park pumping station. For water this includes the local network to service their development, an extension to the bulk main in Great North Road (from adjacent to the BP station in Fairwater Road) to the new reservoir to be constructed within the development. The developers have also committed to constructing a reservoir sized to service their proposed development and to install any booster pumps necessary.^{^[6]}

76. As noted above, the plan change contains strong standards relating to water infrastructure. Watercare has also advised that its bulk infrastructure upgrades within Warkworth, which are already underway and funded, will be sufficient to meet the needs of the plan change area by 2026. This timing appears appropriate given the time that will be taken to move the plan change through its statutory processes, and then if the plan change is approved (or approved with modifications), to then obtain the necessary consents and undertake work on the ground to provide buildable lots.

77. If the plan change is accepted now, and notified for submissions, and the plan change is then approved ( or approved with modifications), the earliest it is likely to be operative would be late 2024/ early 2025. Detailed design and consenting would likely take at least another year, if not longer (say early to mid-2026) and it would take another year for bulk earthworks (mid 2027) before actual subdivision could begin. It is unlikely that any building would take place before2027/ 2028. This is consistent with the FULSS.

78. Auckland Transport has advised that the transport infrastructure upgrades proposed by the applicant will be sufficient to serve the plan change area. There are some details that are still to be worked through. For example, whether the pedestrian and cycle path to the north should end at McKinney Road as proposed by the applicant, or whether it should be extended further to the north. However, this is a matter of detail to be resolved and does not mean the plan change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.

79. In addition, Healthy Waters staff have reviewed the application documentation (prepared in line with the Councils stormwater code of practice) and having seen the applicants 100-year flood extent and compared it to the Councils latest published flood plain, noted that the area predicted with high flood risk is proposed to be zoned to open space/wetland/streams. The applicants Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) has recommended locating all building platforms outside of the floodplains while also designing for secondary flow paths. Healthy Waters staff have advised that no aspect of the requested plan change is in fundamental opposition to the higher-level planning documents, and that there are no fundamental flaws in the approach when considered at this coarse level merits assessment. There may be matters of detail that need to be addressed, but the submission and hearing process can deal with these.

80. The Development Programme Office (DPO) raised some initial concerns that the plan change does not contain sufficient detail about funding and financing arrangements to ensure that the infrastructure listed in para 64 will be provided by the applicant. However, as already noted, the plan change includes strong infrastructure standards that apply non-complying activity status to any subdivision/ development not meeting all but one of the triggers. There is one trigger relating to local roading whereby not meeting the trigger becomes a discretionary activity, rather than a non-complying activity. This is an mater of detail that can be addressed through the submission and hearing process.

81. It is also noted that development within the plan change area would have minimal impacts on existing Auckland Transport roads, and that Auckland Transport and Watercare representatives have not raised any fundamental concerns with the plan change.

82. At a coarse level of assessment, the proposed plan provisions mean that, unless the Council grants consent for discretionary and non-complying activities, any development would be well co-ordinated with the provision of infrastructure and would complement and provide significant parts of the infrastructure necessary for the future development of Warkworth as a whole.

83. Overall, while there are details that will need to be worked through in the plan change, it is considered that having reviewed the applicant's planning and specialist reports, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the private plan change request, and taken the purpose and principles of RMA into account, the private plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice for the purposes of consideration under Clause 25(4)(c), Schedule 1.

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

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

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

86. The proposal gives effect to the NPS UD 2020 and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 in that it is providing for new residential development that will incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) through much of the area albeit with some qualifying matters identified. While the proposal is proposed ahead of the timing set out in the (FULSS) (i.e. 2028-2032), practicable construction of dwellings is unlikely before2027/ 2028 and therefore generally in accordance with the FULSS. It is also gives effect to the NPS: UD Policy 8 which recognises that there may be situations where plan changes may occur ahead of time and that Council decisions should be responsive to such plan changes. This is discussed in greater detail above.

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

88. The applicant has indicated it will set aside land for a public transport hub on the land in accordance with the structure plan and provide public transport, pedestrian and cycle linkages to the existing urban area. This will likely assist in providing alternatives to car use at least at a local scale and will give some support to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In coarse terms the proposal is generally consistent with the Warkworth Structure Plan. Existing and newly provided bulk infrastructure is adequate and will be completely ready for practical development. There are details that are best addressed through the submission and hearing process, but it is considered, that overall, the proposal at a coarse level is giving effect to the NPS: UD.

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

90. On the face of it, the request to provide urban zones to the land is consistent with this main direction of the RPS.

91. Initially the applicant proposed in the southern part of the plan change area, to provide urban zoning to a small area of land outside of the RUB, However, the applicant has concluded that this would be contrary to Regional Objective B2.2.1(4) which states that.

(4) Urbanisation is contained within the Rural Urban Boundary, towns, and rural and coastal towns and villages.

92. The plan change request has therefore been amended to include a request to alter the RUB to ensure all the proposed urban zoning falls within the RUB. The majority of the land involved in the proposed RUB shift (6,400m2) is proposed to be zoned Residential – Large Lot Zone, Residential – Single House Zone and Open Space- Conservation Zone. The land adjacent to the plan change boundary to the south is the Avice Miller Reserve. This reserve is a native bush covered reserve on the southern side of the ridgeline.

93. It is considered that there is little sense in stopping the plan change area exactly on the current RUB line. This is because the land between the RUB and the Avice Miller Reserve is too small to be used for rural purposes after subdivision along the current RUB boundary, and the requested plan change contains provisions that will ensure that this land is not intensively developed. This is addressed in the amended Section 32 report provided in Attachment A. When viewing this land from the south, the dominant visual feature is the native bush on the Avice Miller Reserve, and the ridgeline itself meaning any new urban development at the scale proposed will not be visible from the south.

94. The RPS provides some guidance about the location of the RUB in Policy B2.2.2(2). This policy allows the alignment of the RUB with strong natural boundaries or where these are not present with other elements such as property boundaries and open space. The applicant’s section 32 report states that the ridgeline is not an appropriate boundary, given it is visually obscured by the native bush on the Avice Miller reserve, and the location of property boundaries. Accordingly, at a coarse level, it is considered that the plan change request incorporating a shift to the RUB gives effect to the RPS. If after full consideration of the plan change and submissions following notification, it would be possible for commissioners to exclude this area from the plan change if they did not agree to the proposed RUB extension.

95. Like the NPS: UD 2020, the RPS also contains strong objectives and policies concerning the integration of land use with the provision of infrastructure. This aspect of the plan change is discussed in some detail the previous section of this report. Given the feedback from Auckland Transport and Watercare to date (which has not raised any fundamental concerns), and the coarse level assessment that has been undertaken, the plan change is considered to give effect to the relevant provisions of the RPS.

96. One aspect of the requested plan change that is a little unusual is the proposal to zone the Morrison Heritage Orchard site Rural – Mixed Rural Zone. It is generally accepted that there should be no land with a rural zoning within the urban side of the RUB. The applicant states that the objectives and policies for the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) do not necessarily exclude the proposed Mixed Rural Zone. The applicant further argues that the Future Urban Zone (FUZ) is also a rural zone, and although specifically identified to signal its likely suitability for urban purposes, there will clearly be properties that have different suitability for urbanisation. Where not suitable for urbanisation, these properties will be generally retained as open space or even in rural use if the location, extent and suitability of the land remain appropriate.

97. It is considered that because of the specific precinct provisions proposed to apply to the orchard site, the proposed rural zone can be tested through the submission and hearing process. While the RPS policies in Chapter B2 Urban Growth and Form at policy B2.2.2 are generally directive towards ensuring land within the RUB is used efficiently for urban purposes and creating a compact urban form there are other policies that are also relevant in this context.B2.3 relating to A Quality Built Environment contains objective B2.3.1 (1) and policy B2.3.2 (1) which refer to development responding to the intrinsic qualities and physical characteristics of the site and area, and which supports the planned future environment, including landscape and heritage.

98. The Council’s Warkworth Structure Plan clearly identifies the Morrison orchard as a heritage feature of the town, having been established in the 1870s and which still contains heritage apple varieties. The structure plan identified the retention of the orchard as a feature for any future development of Warkworth. Because the Future Urban zone does not prevent the continued operation of the orchard it is possible that the Future Urban zoning could remain, but the applicants have chosen to pursue a rural zoning. This is considered to be a matter that on balance does not make the requested plan change contrary to Part 5 of the RMA, but it will require further consideration through the plan change submission and hearing process, should the request be accepted.

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

Notice of Requirement

100. Auckland Transport has recently lodged notices of requirement for designations that affect land within the requested plan change area as follows:

· NoR3 for a designation in the Auckland Unitary Plan for a public work, being the construction, operation and maintenance of an upgrade to State Highway 1 between Fairwater Road and the Rural Urban Boundary to an urban arterial corridor with cycle lanes and footpaths.

· NoR8 for a designation in the Auckland Unitary Plan for a public work, being the construction, operation and maintenance of a new urban arterial cross-section with active mode facilities between Woodcocks Road and the Mahurangi River, known as the Wider Western Link – North. (WWLR)

101. It is considered that the plan change request is consistent with and integrates well these NoRs. NoR 3 is concerned with route protection to provide an urban standard road along the old SH1. This is consistent with the intentions of the plan change and the proposal to provide pedestrian and cycle access to McKinney Road. The indicative Wider Western link Road shown on the precinct plans is consistent with the intersections provided for in NoR 8.

102. In conclusion, a preliminary assessment indicates the private plan change request will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA. It is considered that the conclusions in the request documentation would be best evaluated via the submissions and hearing processes so that these matters can be considered in full.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

109. Council can decide to accept the request in whole, or in part. If accepted, the plan change cannot have legal effect until it is operative (provided that the private plan change request is approved, or approved with modifications). It is considered that it would be more appropriate to accept the plan change than adopt it.

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

111. If the private plan change is accepted, the private plan change request and any matters raised above can be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process through the submission and hearing process.

112. It is recommended that the council accept the private plan change request under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Conclusion: options assessment

113. The private plan change request has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include the clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA matters,and having particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation, and case law that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for consideration of a private plan change request. It is recommended that the private plan change request be accepted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement

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

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

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

115. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself. The clause 25 decision is unrelated to any greenhouse gas emissions. The decision requested is a decision of short duration. Climate impacts can be considered in the future hearing report on the private plan change request, and any submissions received. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered with reference to the Regional Policy Statement chapter of the AUP (i.e. does it encourage car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding and stress on infrastructure).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views

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

117. These responses are discussed earlier in this report. No significant concerns have been raised by these groups.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views

118. Local boards’ views are important in Auckland Council’s co-governance framework. The views of the Rodney Local Board will be sought on the content of the private plan change request after the submission period closes. All formal local board feedback will be included in thes42A hearing report and the local board will present its views to hearing commissioners, if the local board chooses to do so. These actions support the local board in its responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area, in relation to the content of Auckland Council plans.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement

Record of applicant’s consultation

120. An applicant should engage with iwi authorities in preparing a private plan change request, as a matter of best practice. It is also best practice for an applicant to document changes to the private plan change request and/or supporting technical information arising from iwi engagement.

121. The applicant advises that it has engaged with the following iwi authorities with an interest in the area (see below) providing the opportunity for feedback before the request was formally lodged with council.

122. The Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust (for Ngāti Manuhiri) was consulted at a very early stage in the preparation of the plan change both in terms of the possible name for this area (Waimanawa) and the proposed urban development of this area. Subsequent to this, the Trust has prepared a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) which has been addressed in Section 8 of the applicant’s request document. The CVA generally supports the plan change subject to a number of recommendations. With reference to the CVA, the applicant states that:

1 Significant areas of native vegetation have been identified and are being retained. This includes the established riparian planting along the two arms of the Mahurangi River.

2 A small number of natural wetlands have been identified and are being retained. Likewise, the wetland constructed by a former landowner is also to be largely retained (although some modifications to it will be required to accommodate the final design of the Western Warkworth Link Road).

3 Specific consideration has been given to the development around the Avice Miller Reserve to avoid adverse effects on this Reserve while also now providing public access to it.

4 A greenway network through the sites is proposed, generally following the various watercourses and this will be planted up as these areas are subdivided then developed. There will be a range of mechanisms requiring the maintenance and protection of these areas in the future. Planting in these areas will use native plants.

5 A stormwater treatment train is proposed to ensure all stormwater from the future urban development is treated prior to discharge into the Mahurangi River. The retirement of farming from this valley, the retention and enhancement of riparian planting and the implementation of the stormwater treatment train should have a long-term positive effect on the water quality of the upper reaches of the Mahurangi River.

6 A walking network will be developed through the site (and in many cases following the watercourse) and a pedestrian/cycle connection through to Warkworth along SH1 is proposed.

7 In terms of wastewater, the development will be fully serviced and connected to the Warkworth wastewater network. For the small number of large residential and mixed rural lots, these will have on-site wastewater treatment and disposal and at the time of resource consent they will need to show that these on-site systems comply with TP58. This will require the discharge fields to be setback from any watercourse/wetland to ensure there is no discharge into these waterbodies.

123. The applicant also advises that they will work with the Trust through aspects of the development of the land.

124. On 30 June 2022 an email introducing the plan change was sent to the following representatives of iwi identified by Auckland Council as having mana whenua status (in addition to Ngāti Manuhiri):

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust

· Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust

· Ngāti Poa Iwi Trust

· Ngāti Poa Trust Board

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngātiwai Trust Board

· Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated

· Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust

· Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

125. The following responses were received:

· Te Kawerau a Maki deferred to Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust deferred to Ngāti Manuhiri

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

128. The applicant states that it is committed to funding the infrastructure required to service the plan change area including new stormwater, water and wastewater infrastructure, along with upgrades to old SH1 adjacent to the plan change area and the provision of bus infrastructure.

129. At a coarse level of assessment, the primary impacts relate to water infrastructure and SH1. Existing Auckland Transport assets are not significantly by the plan change, and as discussed in this report, there are provisions in the plan change relating to the construction of new roads within the plan change area. It is also noted that Auckland Transport and Watercare representatives have not raised any significant concerns with respect to any funding and financing issues associated with the plan change.

130. With respect to SH1, if the plan change is accepted, should Waka Kotahi have any funding, financing or other concerns, it will be able to make a submission and present expert evidence at the hearing.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

c) reject the private plan change in whole or in part under clause Clause 25(4)

d) deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent. Under clause 25(3)

132. It is recommended that the private plan change request including the proposed shift to the Rural Urban Boundary is accepted. The applicant requested the private plan change be accepted. There is no risk of a legal challenge by the applicant utilising the clause 27 appeal rights if the request is accepted. If the plan Change request is rejected at this clause 25 stage, then there is the risk of an appeal to the Environment Court.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Updated Section 32 - Section for RUB shift
b ⇨	Updated Section 32 Warkworth South Plan Change Report - Final 24 August 2023
c ⇨	Warkworth South Private Plan Change Replacement Plan Change

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Wren, Planning Consultant

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	PC84 - Decision

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	PC71 and PM14 Decision
b ⇨	PC71 Environment Court Decision [2023] NZEnvC 153

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

07 September 2023

Allocation of the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2023/2024

File No.: CP2023/12112

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek allocation of the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund for financial year (FY) 2023/2024.

2. To seek approval of amendments to two existing Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund grants to enable their projects to progress.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund is a contestable fund which will invest up to $150 million over the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 to support development of sport and recreation facilities in the Auckland region.

4. Through the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund, Auckland Council has to date invested $29.6 million and leveraged a further $60.5 million of third-party investment into community-led sport and recreation facilities.

5. There is $13,402,152 available in the current funding round.

6. The two-stage application process began in November 2022 (Stage 1 application) with detailed applications invited in March 2023.

7. 20 Stage-2 applications were received in April 2023, processed and circulated to local boards, mana whenua and to an independent assessment panel in July 2023.

8. The independent assessment panel recommendations were workshopped with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in August 2023.

9. 18 applicants are now recommended to receive grants totalling $12,880,000. Unallocated funds ($522,152.00) will remain in the Fund for allocation in future years.

10. Two existing grant recipients (Howick Bowling Club Incorporated and Auckland Hockey Association Incorporated) require resolutions to approve changes necessary for their projects to progress.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund allocation for 2023/2024 totalling $12,880,000 as follows:

Recipient	Project	Funding up to:
Auckland Netball Centre Inc	Indoor/Outdoor Lights Replacement	$250,000.00
AUT Millennium Trust	AUT Millennium Stadium Track Reinstatement Project	$1,200,000.00
Counties Tennis Association	Counties Indoor Tennis Arena	$990,000.00
Highbrook Regional Watersports Centre Trust	Highbrook Watersports Centre	$350,000.00
Hobsonville Point Marine Sports Recreation Centre Charitable Trust	Upper Harbour Marine and Sports Centre	$4,000,000.00
Howick Pakuranga Netball Centre Incorporated	Investigation for improved playing facilities	$20,000.00
Kaitoke School, Claris	Kaitoke (and community) school pool	$50,000.00
Kolmar Charitable Trust	Old Changing Room Block Upgrade.	$2,000,000.00
Lynfield Tennis Club Inc.	Back on court - resurfacing 4 tennis courts	$17,000.00
Manurewa Tennis Club	Project Dome	$400,000.00
Mt Albert Rugby League Football Club Incorporated	Facilities Alterations and Development	$370,000.00
North Shore Canoe and Youth Club Inc	NSCC Facility Upgrade and Extension	$800,000.00
Orewa Surf Life Saving Club Inc	Orewa Surf Life Saving Community Hub Redevelopment	$2,000,000.00
Pakuranga United Rugby Club Incorporated (Howick & Pakuranga Community Sports Centre)	Howick Pakuranga Community Sports Centre Facility Expansion	$100,000.00
Titirangi Tennis & Squash Rackets Club Incorporated	Squash Courts Refurbishment	$50,000.00
Waitakere Cricket Club Incorporated	Waitakere Multipurpose Indoor Centre	$10,000.00
Waka Pacific Trust	Waka Pacific Climb	$250,000.00
YMCA North Incorporated	Metro Park Hub	$23,000.00

b) tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the General Manager Active Communities to prepare and execute funding agreements for all grant recipients, noting that the Orewa Surf Life Saving Club grant is to be administered according to the protocols developed for the Surf 10:20 Project.

c) tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the General Manager Active Communities to amend the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund Guidelines for the FY25 funding round.

d) whakaae / approve the amended project scope for the 2020/2021 Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund grant of $350,000 allocated to Howick Bowling Club Incorporated (PAC/2020/56) to deliver one instead of two covered bowling greens.

e) panoni / alter the 2022/2023 Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund grant of $4,500,000, previously allocated to Auckland Hockey Association Incorporated (PAC/2022/84), to the Auckland Hockey Facilities Trust (Inc Soc# 2722554).

Horopaki

Context

Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund

11. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund (the Fund) was established through the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 to support development of sport and recreation facilities in the Auckland region.

12. The Fund will invest up to $150 million over the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP) to:

· address sport and recreation infrastructure shortfalls  

· respond to changing participation preferences  

· deliver value-for-money by leveraging third party investment  

· get more Aucklanders more active more often 

13. The Fund is contestable. Applications are sought from organisations for significant facility development proposals to enable increased participation in sport and recreation.    

14. Grants made through the Fund will deliver value for money by leveraging external investment into these non-council facilities.   

15. Non-council owned facilities are crucial to Auckland’s sport and recreation facility network and meeting the evolving demand for sporting opportunities.

16. By supporting non-council facilities, the Fund aligns with key shifts in the LTP which identify a need for council to find alternative approaches to facility provision such as partnerships and grants.   

17. The four key shifts of the LTP also identify the need to consider communities of greatest need. Assessment criteria for the fund have been revised to prioritise projects that serve these communities.

18. Detailed information on the Fund is contained in the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund Guidelines (Attachment A).

Previous funding rounds

19. A summary of existing grant projects and payment progress is provided in Attachment B.

· Over three funding rounds the Fund has allocated $29.6 million across 43 grants and 5 council-led projects.

· 26 projects are completed (54%).

· Figure 1 illustrates progress on payment of all grants through the Fund to date.

· $15.67 million has been paid out (53%).

20. The leverage ratio on council investment through the Fund is approximately 2 to 1:

· Council investment $29.6 million

· Third-party investment $60.5 million

21. Figure 2 illustrates total leverage across all projects to receive investment through the Fund, including complete and incomplete projects.

A pie chart with numbers and words

Description automatically generated

22. Confirmed leverage on all completed projects to date is $2.20 of third-party investment for every $1 invested by Auckland Council through the Fund.

23. Confirmed leverage on completed grant projects (excluding council-owned projects) is $3.34 to $1.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Current FY2024 funding round

24. The current funding round titled “Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2023” will allocate the FY2023/2024 budget.

25. There is $13,402,152 available in the current funding round.

26. Total value of applications in this funding round was over $40.1 million.

27. 47 Stage 1 applications were received in February 2023, of which 20 were invited to submit Stage 2 applications.

28. 20 Stage 2 applications were received in April 2023.

29. These applications were processed and circulated to an independent assessment panel (IAP) in June 2023.

30. The IAP members were selected for their knowledge and experience in sport and recreation, grant making and Māori outcomes:

SRFIF 2023 Independent Assessment Panel:
Jo Wiggins	Spaces & Places Consultant, Sport NZ
Simon Tattersfield	Spaces & Place Manager, Aktive
Karla Matua	Kaiwhakahaere, Hei Oranga Poutama, Aktive
Leigh Redshaw	Investment Specialist, Active Communities, Auckland Council

31. The IAP met in July 2023 to consider the applications and make funding recommendations.

32. The IAP funding recommendations are set out below, and are reproduced with additional information and commentary in Attachment C:

Recipient Project	Funding requested	Funding allocation
Auckland Curling Club Inc Northern Ice	$900,000.00	$0.00
Auckland Netball Centre Inc Indoor/Outdoor Lights Replacement	$250,000.00	$250,000.00
AUT Millennium Trust AUT Millennium Stadium Track Reinstatement Project	$1,200,000.00	$1,200,000.00
Counties Tennis Association Counties Indoor Tennis Arena	$990,000.00	$990,000.00
Highbrook Regional Watersports Centre Trust Highbrook Watersports Centre	$4,300,000.00	$350,000.00
Hobsonville Point Marine Sports Recreation Centre Charitable Trust Upper Harbour Marine and Sports Centre	$4,000,000.00	$4,000,000.00
Howick Pakuranga Netball Centre Incorporated Investigation for improved playing facilities	$50,000.00	$20,000.00
Kaitoke School, Claris Kaitoke (and community) school pool	$50,000.00	$50,000.00
Kolmar Charitable Trust Old Changing Room Block Upgrade.	$2,000,000.00	$2,000,000.00
Lynfield Tennis Club Inc. Back on court - resurfacing 4 tennis courts	$50,000.00	$17,000.00
Manurewa Tennis Club Project Dome	$400,000.00	$400,000.00
Mt Albert Rugby League Football Club Incorporated Facilities Alterations and Development	$900,000.00	$370,000.00
North Shore Canoe and Youth Club Inc NSCC Facility Upgrade and Extension	$800,000.00	$800,000.00
Orewa Surf Life Saving Club Inc Orewa Surf Life Saving Community Hub Redevelopment	$2,000,000.00	$2,000,000.00
Pakuranga United Rugby Club Incorporated (Howick & Pakuranga Community Sports Centre) Howick Pakuranga Community Sports Centre Facility Expansion	$6,000,000.00	$100,000.00
The Colin Dale Kartsport Development Charitable Trust Colin Dale Park Kartsport Development	$2,500,000.00	$0.00
Titirangi Tennis & Squash Rackets Club Incorporated Squash Courts Refurbishment	$75,338.00	$50,000.00
Waitakere Cricket Club Incorporated Waitakere Multipurpose Indoor Centre	$29,000.00	$10,000.00
Waka Pacific Trust Waka Pacific Climb	$250,000.00	$250,000.00
YMCA North Incorporated Metro Park Hub	$30,500.00	$23,000.00

33. It is notable that the IAP recommendation includes funding for 18 of 20 applications – a 90% success rate for Stage 2 applicants.

34. The two unsuccessful applicants were Auckland Curling Club Inc and The Colin Dale Kartsport Development Charitable Trust. The IAP gave the following explanations for declining these applications:

35. Auckland Curling Club Inc: “Strong application against many criteria, but serious concerns about achievability. Unrealistic total project cost and fundraising plan. On current proposal, investment to support design and consent phase is too risky. Recommend scaling down the project to an achievable level and reviewing funding plan to ensure funding sources are credible”.

36. The Colin Dale Kartsport Development Charitable Trust: “Panel recognises the significance of Colin Dale Park as the regional motorsport site and acknowledges the merits of the Kartsport application to develop on this site. However, panel’s view is motorsport is not well aligned with the "People and Community" priority criteria of SRFIF. Council could consider funding kartsport from sources other than SRFIF.”

37. The IAP funding recommendations were workshopped with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 7 August 2023.

38. The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee considered an option to fund the kartsport application, in light of council’s own programme of strategic investment at Colin Dale Park, but chose to maintain integrity of the contestable funding process by following the IAP recommendations. This is further explained in the Council Group Impacts and Views section below.

Orewa Surf Life Saving Club – relationship to Surf 10:20 Project

39. The Surf 10:20 Project is a partnership between Auckland Council and Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated, to coordinate capital investment into the rebuild of Auckland’s surf-life saving facilities.

40. Auckland Council has invested $5.6M into the Surf 10:20 Project over Long-term Plan periods 2015-2025 and 2018-2028. To date three club rebuilds have been completed; one is currently under construction; and a further rebuild is likely to commence before the end of the calendar year.

41. On 23 August 2023 staff received a request from Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated (SLSNR) for new funding through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 for $10.46 million including $2.44 million for Orewa Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated (OSLSC).

42. This does not alter the recommendation to make a grant to OSLSC in the current round of the Fund. It is brought to the attention of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee for completeness and integration of advice; noting that it may inform consideration of the upcoming Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034.

43. Staff recommend that for consistency, and to leverage existing relationships and systems, the OSLSC grant should be implemented through the protocols established for the Surf 10:20 project – a tripartite agreement between Auckland Council, SLSNR and OSLSC.

Approval for amendments to existing grants

44. Two existing grant recipients require governance approval for certain changes in their projects.

Howick Bowling Club Incorporated

45. Howick Bowling Club Incorporated was awarded a grant of $350,000 from the Fund in 2020 (PAC/2020/56). The grant is contained in a funding agreement dated 16 May 2022.

46. Howick Bowling Club has requested permission to reduce the scope of its project from two covered greens to one covered green.

47. The justification for the reduced scope is that cost-escalations have made the original scope prohibitively expensive for the applicant.

48. The reduced project would be substantively different to that contemplated by the original resolution, to the extent that a new resolution is required.

49. Staff consider that a project to deliver one covered green would still align with the criteria of the Fund, offers a strong funding plan, and represents an achievable project that the recipient can deliver.

50. One covered bowling green will deliver increased capacity and improved participation outcomes compared to the existing uncovered greens.

51. The leverage on council investment is high due to a $700,000 investment from Bowls Auckland.

52. The project is also financially supported by the Howick Local Board.

53. Subject to approval from the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, staff will prepare a variation to the Development Funding Agreement to permit Howick Bowling Club Inc to proceed with the reduced project scope.

54. The alternative (not recommended) is to decline the request, in which case Howick Bowling Club is likely to decline the grant and the funding will return to the Fund for reallocation.

Auckland Hockey Association Incorporated

55. Auckland Hockey Association Incorporated was awarded a grant of $4,500,000 from the Fund in 2022 to develop two artificial hockey turfs at Colin Maiden Park (PAC/2022/84). The grant is contained in a funding agreement dated 30 June 2023.

56. The land in question is owned by Auckland Council and subject to an agreement to lease to the Auckland Hockey Facilities Trust (the Trust).

57. The Auckland Hockey Facilities Trust was incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 on 30 November 2018 (Inc Soc# 2722554). The Trust was established by Auckland Hockey Association Incorporated, with the Trust’s purpose being to develop, own, manage and maintain community hockey facilities in the Auckland area.

58. It is the intention of Auckland Hockey Association Inc. that the new hockey turfs will be owned by the Trust.

59. Staff recommend that the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approve the Auckland Hockey Association Inc. grant being transferred to the Trust because:

· To protect council’s investment, grant funding agreements must be with the asset owner/leaseholder.

· Auckland Hockey Association Inc. supports the grant being assigned to the Trust.

· This change will not affect the project scope, delivery timeframes or desired outcomes of the project.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

60. Te Tāruke ā Tāwhiri is Auckland’s Climate Plan, and Action Area B8 directly refers to the response for Sport and Recreation:

“Explore initiatives to reduce travel needs and adapt locations and scheduling for more local community events such as sporting events.”

61. Applications to the Fund are for facilities distributed across the region, supporting a network of facilities serving local catchments, which may enable a reduction in travel emissions.

62. Repair, maintenance and upgrade of existing facilities are also recognised as having less climate impact than that of new building development because it reuses the embodied carbon in the original construction, and reduces the embodied emissions created during new construction. Of 20 stage 2 applications, 12 are for repair maintenance and/or upgrade of existing facilities.

63. Applicants were asked about what steps they have planned to mitigate environmental impact from their projects. Responses indicated many applicants help sustainable design as a consideration in their projects and common references included rain-water capture, natural and solar lighting, building insulation, air conditioning and building material choice.

64. Staff recognise the need for greater commitment to respond to climate impacts when decisions are made for investment in sport and recreation facilities. There are two immediate actions planned for increased attention to emissions reduction, climate adaption and mitigation in future rounds:

· The next round of the Fund will commence approximately Oct/Nov 23. Prior to the funding round commencing, staff plan to seek input from the Chief Sustainability Office in amending the guidelines and application form to improve responsiveness to climate and environmental impact.

· Staff have commenced an internal review of the Fund’s performance and settings which is intended to inform future discussions with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee. Consideration of climate and environmental impact will be included in the review.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

65. Colin Dale Park was acquired by Manukau City Council in 2003 for motorsport activities, after legacy councils identified a lack of space for these activities, and has subsequently been developed as a motorsport precinct, including the investment of $8.98 million in land-owner works.

66. The IAP’s funding recommendation is to decline the application for $2,500,000 from The Colin Dale Kartsport Development Charitable Trust on the basis that motorsport does not align strongly with the “People and Community” priority criteria in the Fund.

67. While the IAP recommendation aligns with the funding criteria and policy objectives, staff recognised that the circumstances of the kartsport application may be sufficiently unique, such that direction from the committee was warranted. The IAP’s recommendations were workshopped with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 02 August 2023.

68. The committee was made aware that accepting the IAP’s recommendations would involve declining the kartsport application, which in turn may impact on progress of council’s wider strategic programme of investment at Colin Dale Park.

69. However, the committee also understood that accommodating the kartsport application would require significant adjustments to the IAP’s recommendations which would risk undermining the integrity of the contestable funding process. Council’s interest in its own investment strategy at Colin Dale Park was considered too far out-of-scope for the Fund’s criteria to justify such a change from the IAP recommendations.

70. Accordingly, the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee gave direction to follow the IAP funding recommendations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

71. A new opt-in approach to seeking local board views was implemented to remove duplication of effort, reduce unnecessary burden on elected member and staff time, streamline the administration and assessment of applications and encourage applicants to engage with their local boards early in their project development.

72. Applicants were asked to provide evidence of landowner support for their projects.

73. Where the landowner is a local board, the board’s support was inferred from evidence of previous local board decisions directly relevant to the project, such as: land-owner approval, lease or agreement to lease, identification in a sport and active recreation facilities plan, local park management plan or park master plan.

74. This removed the need for workshops and business meetings for boards to restate support they had already expressed.

75. A summary of Stage 2 applications was circulated local boards in June 2023. Local boards were invited to raise concerns with staff about any of the Stage 2 applications from their area.

76. No concerns were raised, but the Albert-Eden and Manurewa local boards noted their support of applications from their areas. This did not advantage those applications or disadvantage others where evidence of previous local board decisions was available.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

77. Stage 2 applicants were asked about their level of engagement with Māori and whether their proposed projects will meaningfully improve sport and recreation opportunities for Māori. Engagement with Māori was mixed. The main theme of responses highlighted the generic benefit that sport & recreation facilities deliver to communities, including Māori.

78. The Fund was discussed in a Mana Whenua forum in July 2023. Stage 2 application summaries and Māori outcomes responses were circulated following the hui, with Mana Whenua invited to express interest in further engagement on any projects.

79. Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Trust expressed interest in being involved with OSLSC, Titirangi Tennis and Squash Rackets Club, and YMCA North Metro Park Hub. Staff will liaise with Ngati Manuhiri to provide further information and make introductions for the applicants.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

80. The Fund is a regional budget allocated through the LTP 2021-2031.

81. There is $13,402,152 available in the current funding round.

82. The Fund is currently budgeted as follows for the next three years:

· $13.63 million in 2024/2025

· $13.86 million in 2025/2026

· $14.12 million in 2026/2027

83. With $12,880,000 recommended for allocation in FY24, unallocated funds ($522,152.00) will remain in the Fund for allocation in future years.

84. 1.5 per cent of the total fund budget is flagged for management of the Fund and to undertake additional work that may arise to maintain project momentum. To date staff have not sought to access these funds; they have remained in the contestable funding envelope and been allocated as grants. However, in future staff may seek feedback or direction from the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee to access these funds to support effective delivery of the investment.

85. In approving grants to organisations for planning, investigation and design it needs to be acknowledged that this work may not result in a viable project; it is effectively ‘sunk money’.

86. Similarly, if council-funded planning and investigation work supports the business case for a facility to proceed, there is a high probability that further funding applications will be received to support the capital development aspect of the project.

Cashflow versus allocation of funding

87. The nature of these projects is that council often plays the role of ‘cornerstone funder’, which projects rely on as a catalyst to approach other funders for backing and support.

88. Although there are budget allocations for each year, the drawdown of cash may not occur until several years later when conditions attached to the grants have been satisfied (e.g. all consents in place, all funds raised to enable the facility to be completed.)

89. The funding agreements used by council typically allow a three-year window for organisations to complete all the work necessary, including fundraising, to enable a project to commence construction.

90. There can be up to a three- or four-year difference between the allocation of funds and the actual drawdown of cash. Sunset clauses in the agreements enable council to reassess and reconfirm its commitment to the project, or to terminate the arrangement.

91. Any funds granted to an organisation are released on a progressive drawdown basis, according to the terms of the funding agreement.

92. The development of large regional and sub-regional facilities will lead to an increased number of requests for significant capital development funding in future funding rounds. The scale of investment may require multi-year funding.

93. Budget flexibility is important to take advantage of partner funding opportunities and timelines as they arise.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

94. Third party investment (e.g. class four gaming, philanthropic, commercial, central government, etc) plays a significant role in the development of sport and recreation facilities. This can create a risk of delay to project delivery where additional fundraising is required over and above council’s investment.

95. Two key mitigations have been taken in respect to project delivery risk:

96. Firstly, the deliverability of projects is a key weighting of the criteria used to determine funding recommendations. This includes:

· having an achievable funding plan in place

· having the necessary skills and expertise (in-house or procured) to deliver the project

· completion of relevant project milestones such as securing site tenure, consents, etc

97. Secondly, staff meet regularly with other sport sector funding organisations to discuss funding availability and grant round timing. Whilst each funder has their own funding priorities and decision-making processes to follow, recommendations are aligned where possible.

98. Staff note the highest risk projects for reliance on third party funding are Orewa Surf Life Saving Club and Hobsonville Point Marine Sports and Recreation Centre due to the large fundraising targets involved. Council traditionally plays the role of cornerstone funder in projects like this and staff have the funding plans put forward.

99. Council’s grant funds are not themselves at risk because council funding agreements stipulate that funds will not be released until conditions are met to give sufficient confidence that the project can be completed.

100. Some groups who expressed an interest in the fund but were not a high funding priority (based on grant criteria), were redirected to local board community grants or, other sport sector grant opportunities. Other groups may have been asked to refine their proposals before applying again in the 2024/2025 funding round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

101. Following a resolution by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee to allocate the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2023 (FY24), staff will prepare and execute funding agreements for each successful grant recipient.

102. Grant payments will proceed pursuant to the signed funding agreements. Any significant or unexpected delay in commencement will be reported to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

103. Following resolutions approving amendments to existing grants staff will prepare documents for variation (Howick Bowling Club) and assignment (Auckland Hockey Association) of the respective Development Funding Agreements.

104. Indicatively, the next funding round (FY25) will begin in November 2023 with an allocation decision in August/September 2024.

105. Promotion of the funding round and engagement with potential applicants will continue.

106. An internal review of the Fund’s performance and settings is underway. Findings will be shared with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee for discussion and direction within the current financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund Guidelines (Nov 2022)
b ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund - Existing grant progress summary
c ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2023/2024 - Independent Assessment Panel funding recommendations

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nick Harris - Sport & Recreation Lead Team Leader

Authorisers

Dave Stewart - General Manager Active Communities

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Memorandum - Gazettal of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, 10 August 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Memorandum - Te Uru Kahika regional sector submission on developing an exception from the low slope map threshold requiring stock exclusion, for lower intensity farming, 10 August 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group – Agenda, 30 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group – Minutes, 30 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group – Minutes Attachments, 30 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2023 – allocation of grants, 2 August 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Planning, Environment and Parks Committee - Forward Work Programme, reviewed 7 September 2023

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

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

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

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

[6] Email from Lars Fog Programme Lead Major Projects at Watercare Services dated 4 August 2023

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

Date	Subject
10/8/2023	Gazettal of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity
10/8/2023	Te Uru Kahika regional sector submission on developing an exception from the low slope map threshold requiring stock exclusion, for lower intensity farming

Date	Subject
30/6/2023	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group – Agenda
30/6/2023	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group – Minutes
30/6/2023	Climate Action Targeted Rate Governance and Oversight Group – Minutes Attachments
2/8/2023	Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2023 – allocation of grants
23/8/2023	Future Development Strategy (Confidential) – no attachment
30/8/2023	Plan Change Update (Confidential) – no attachment
30/8/2023	Strengthening the Auckland Unitary Plan in relation to natural hazard management (Confidential) – no attachment
6/9/2023	Future Development Strategy (Confidential) – no attachment

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

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987