I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 5 October 2023

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti mō te Whakarite Mahere, te Taiao, me ngā Papa Rēhia / Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

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

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sandra Gordon

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

2 October 2023

 

Contact Telephone: +64 9 890 8150

Email: Sandra.Gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

A close up of a logo

Description automatically generated

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies                                                   5

2          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest                                                               5

3          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes              5

4          Ngā Petihana | Petitions                                       5  

5          Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input                 5

6          Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input                                                            5

7          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business     5

8          Demographic Advisory Panels: Strategic Priorities 2022-2025 Term                                    7

9          Adoption of the Future Development Strategy                                                                              13

10        Potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land             27

11        Auckland Unitary Plan: Making operative Private Plan Change 25 - Warkworth North     35

12        Regional Event Grants Allocation 2023/2024 Round 1                                                                41

13        Approval of seasonal closures of vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach                                                                   51

14        Auckland Council submission on the Inquiry into Climate Adaptation                                     59

15        Biodiversity Credit System – central government discussion document                   63

16        Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2022-2023: Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report 2022-2023                                                71

17        I Am Auckland three year review                      77

18        Age Friendly Auckland annual report              87

19        Summary of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 5 October 2023  95

20        Te Whakaaro ki ngā Take Pūtea e Autaia ana | Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

21        Te Mōtini ā-Tukanga hei Kaupare i te Marea | Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                               97

C1       CONFIDENTIAL: Auckland Unitary Plan – Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification – Submissions on city centre zone and precincts                                                                              97

 

 

 

 

 


1          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

 

2          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

 

 

3          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

            Click the meeting date below to access the minutes.

 

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)          whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 7 September 2023, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

4          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

 

5          Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input

 

 

6          Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input

 

 

7          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Demographic Advisory Panels: Strategic Priorities 2022-2025 Term

File No.: CP2023/13871

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on the demographic advisory panels and to gain approval of their strategic priorities for the term.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Since their inaugural meeting in May 2023, the panels have undertaken an induction programme including an overview of the council’s key strategic framework, policies and operational plans, and have taken part in a range of engagements. This provided context for the development of their strategic priorities which are attached and will be presented by the co-chairs for approval by the committee.

3.       The strategic priorities for each panel have been provided in appendices A-F.

4.       This report also details the results of election of permanent co-chairs. Short bios of the co-chairs presenting to the committee are provided in appendix G.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve the demographic advisory panel strategic priorities for the 2022-2025 term.

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the outcome of the elections of co-chairs.

c)       whakamihi / thank the demographic advisory panel members, interim chairs, and permanent co-chairs for their engagement and contribution from the start of their term.

Horopaki

Context

5.       In accordance with their terms of reference, the demographic advisory panels have developed strategic priorities for the term.

6.       Since their inaugural meeting in May the panels have undertaken an induction programme including an overview of the council’s key strategic framework, policies and operational plans. This provided context for the development of their strategic priorities which are attached and will be presented by the co-chairs for approval by the committee.

7.       Panel members have discussed their strategic priorities at a range of opportunities including the inaugural meeting, a cross-panel strategic priorities induction session, during the first two rounds of panel workshops, and during online and in-person panel sessions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Panel update

8.       Since the panels’ inaugural meeting on 22 May 2023 panel activity and engagement has included:

         i)   Induction session one, 26 June: role of the advisory panels, role of a panel member, former panel member kōrero

         ii)  Induction session two, 17 July: community and social policy, strategic engagements, identification of early cross-panel priorities

         iii)  Workshop round one, 3-16 July: included whakawhanaungatanga, Liaison Councillor introductions and updates, Auckland Council strategic framework, key priorities and aspirations continued from inaugural session work programme development

         iv) Workshop round two, 21-29 August: included panel specific strategies such as Pasifika Strategy Ara Moana, I Am Auckland, Tāmaki Makaurau Tauawhi Kaumātua (the Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan) and the Disability Operational Action Plan

         v)  Cross-panel forum on Storm Recovery and Resilience, 24 August. This was a four hour workshop with 27 representatives from the six panels on the Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Plan, Making Space for Water and Tāmaki Makaurau Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan with members of the Recovery Office, Healthy Waters and Civil Defence Emergency Management teams. The panels produced a written report which has been included in consultation feedback. At the time of writing panel representatives from the forum are scheduled to present to the Governing Body meeting considering the consultation feedback on 28 September.

         vi) All panels early engagement on the Long-term Plan, 21-29 August

         vii) Auckland Transport engagement on the draft Regional Public Transport strategy, 21-29 August.

         viii)            Recruitment and appointment of members to address identified gaps on the Youth Advisory Panel including rangatahi and membership under the age of 18

         ix) Co-chairs session with the Commissioners and executive leadership of the NZ Royal Commission of Inquiry COVID-19 Lessons learned on the experience of the pandemic and impact on Auckland’s diverse communities, 6 September

         x)  Co-Chairs Induction, 6 and 25 September

9.       The panels have also elected their permanent co-chairs. The permanent co-chairs bring a mix of previous experience of the panels and new membership.

Election of co-chairs

10.     As per the terms of reference the Mayor appointed an interim chair while the panels got underway and during the first two rounds of panel workshops. This afforded panel members the opportunity to understand the role and function of the panels and get to know fellow panelists before electing permanent co-chairs. The contribution to the leadership and establishment of the panels provided by the interim chairs is greatly valued and appreciated.

11.     The interim chairs were:

·    Disability Advisory Panel: Martine Abel-Williamson, QSM

·    Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel: Teresa Platt

·    Youth Advisory Panel: Vira Parky

·    Seniors Advisory Panel: Claire Dale

·    Ethnic Communities Advisory Panel: Ireen Rahiman-Manuel

·    Pacific People’s Advisory Panel: Litiana Karika

12.     Elections of permanent co-chairs took place during 21-29 August. The following members have been elected as co-chairs for the term:

·    Disability Advisory Panel: Martine Abel Williamson, QSM and Barry de Geest

·    Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel: Teresa Platt and Josh Martin

·    Youth Advisory Panel: Vira Parky and Sanat Singh


 

·    Seniors Advisory Panel: Claire Dale and Edwina Pio, ONZM

·    Ethnic Communities Advisory Panel: Ireen Rahiman-Manuel and Krish Naidu

·    Pacific People’s Advisory Panel: Litiana Karika and Seumanu Simon Matāfai

13.     Brief bios on the panel co-chairs are attached.

Strategic priorities

14.     Panels have identified key priorities for their panels which are summarised by title in the following table.

15.     The strategic priorities are detailed for each panel in appendices A-F.

Advisory Panel

Title Summary of Strategic Priorities

Youth

·    Connection and Belonging

·    A Resilient Auckland

·    Thriving Young People

Ethnic Communities

·    Belonging and Inclusion

·    Wellbeing and Safety

·    Economic Growth and Development

·    Transport

·    Climate Action and Sustainability

Rainbow Communities

·    Council Kaimahi Awareness and Service Provision

·    Community Engagement

·    Cost of Living

Seniors

·    Working to implement Age-friendly Auckland, Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua

·    Housing

·    Safety

·    Access to Services

·    Transport

Disability

·    Climate and extreme weather resilience and preparedness, response and recovery

·    Accessible and inclusive recruitment

·    Robust Disability Operational Action Plan monitoring and updating of processes

·    Housing accessibility and affordability for disabled people, including working with Council in advocacy to central government

Pacific Peoples

·    Climate justice: adaptation and community resilience

·    Civic engagement, participation and democracy

·    Mental health and wellbeing

16.     The strategic priorities will be presented by the panel co-chairs for approval by the committee.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17.     During the 2019-2022 term a cross-panel Climate Change Working Group was a mechanism to provide diverse community advice to guide the implementation of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

18.     The Climate Change Working Group met quarterly and comprised one to two representatives from each demographic advisory panel.

19.     Panels have included climate change and climate justice as an important consideration in their strategic priorities. This also emerged as an issue of panel-wide mutual interest during induction.

20.     Depending on the strategic engagement approach determined by the new body of panel co-chairs it is anticipated a cross-panel working group with a focus on climate and extreme weather resilience will be formed.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21.     The panels’ role includes providing advice to Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and staff.

22.     Auckland Transport has met individually with the Youth, Seniors, Rainbow Communities, Ethnic Communities, Pacific Communities, and Disability Panels to receive advice on the draft Regional Public Transport Strategy. Further input has been requested in October.

23.     Auckland Transport has also engaged with the panels on the draft City Centre parking management strategy and is seeking to meet with the Disability Advisory Panel this month.

24.     Tātaki Auckland Unlimited has indicated limited capacity to engage with the panels but will seek to do so where capacity allows. 

25.     Further engagement with the CCOs is expected to take place in response to the strategic priorities identified by the panels.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.     While the panels have been set up to advise on regional strategies, plans and policies, local board members will be invited to attend open panel meetings.

27.     It is likely that there will be some engagement with local boards, particularly in community-based open meetings and community forums. The Rainbow Communities and Pacific People’s Advisory panels have identified this as an area of interest this term.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     Each panel, except the Ethnic Communities Advisory Panel, has at least one member with lived experience in Te Ao Māori and knowledge of the contemporary issues facing Māori communities.

29.     Advisory panels’ strategic priorities are aligned with the Auckland Plan that focuses on enabling Māori aspirations through recognition of Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30.     Expenditure is within approved budget.

31.     This report has been reviewed and approved by the Commercial Finance Manager.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32.     Panel meetings are scheduled to the end of term every eight weeks with large set pieces such as the cross panel on storm recovery and long term plan taking place in between regular meetings as well as regular calls for out of sync engagement. The forward programme and requests to engage need to be managed to ensure the Council receives the benefit of the panels’ advice in a timely fashion while maintaining a reasonable workload and call on panel member time as well as on the volunteer staff helping support the panels.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33.     Progress in respect of the strategic priorities will be monitored and reported six monthly to the Committee with more frequent updates via memo.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel Strategic Priorities

 

b

Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel Strategic Priorities

 

c

Youth Advisory Panel Strategic Priorities

 

d

Seniors Advisory Panel Strategic Priorities

 

e

Ethnic Communities Advisory Panel Strategic Priorities

 

f

Disability Advisory Panel Strategic Priorities

 

g

Demographic Advisory Panel Co-Chairs brief bios

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Victoria Wicks-Brown - Principal Advisor Panels

Authorisers

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Anna Bray - Acting Director - Governance and CCO Partnerships

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Adoption of the Future Development Strategy

File No.: CP2023/13180

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek adoption of Auckland Council‘s Future Development Strategy (FDS) as required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council is required to update the FDS under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD).

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

4.       The PEP Committee approved the draft strategy for consultation on 4 May 2023 (resolution number PEPCC/2023/62).

5.       Public consultation, under the Special Consultative Procedure, took place from 6 June to 31 July 2023.

6.       10,084 submissions were received during the consultation feedback.

7.       The Future Development Strategy largely follows the quality compact approach Auckland Council has been pursuing since the first Auckland Plan, and the approach in the current Development Strategy. It mostly contains refinement of concepts and approaches in recognition of known problems related to Auckland‘s growth and development.

8.       However, the strategy proposed for adoption has two major changes from previous strategies:

i.    A much stronger focus on adaptation, particularly in relation to flooding hazards and the protection of life and property.

ii.   A greater recognition of the financial challenges facing Auckland Council and ratepayers, giving the development sector clear signals about these constraints and when council is likely to be able to invest in infrastructure and services in respective areas, particularly in greenfield bulk infrastructure. The aim is to give the sector as much certainty as possible for their own planning and a potential ‘pathway’ for development that wishes to proceed earlier.

9.       The majority of submissions support the approach in the draft strategy, and in some cases requested the council to go further on matters such as climate change and its impacts, or development needing to pay the costs it generates. There was also feedback that raised disagreement with the draft strategy, concerns or suggested changes.  These were predominantly from the development sector and were sizeable submissions.

10.     Numerous, and in some cases, substantial changes are proposed in response to this feedback.

11.     The NPS-UD requires that a comprehensive implementation plan be prepared to support the FDS. This will be developed after the strategy is adopted. It will provide more detail on the scope of the actions described in the strategy and ascribe roles, responsibilities and indicative timeframes.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whai / adopt the Future Development Strategy (Attachment A of the agenda report)

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the extent of change from the draft Future Development Strategy in response to public submissions.

c)       tautapa / delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to make any final changes to the strategy before publication.

d)      whakarite / provide this report to all local boards, thanking them for their valuable input into the development of the draft plan and the formal feedback they provided to inform finalisation of the plan.

 

Horopaki

Context

12.     Auckland Council is required to update the FDS under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD).

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

14.     The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approved the draft strategy for consultation on 4 May 2023 (resolution number PEPCC/2023/62).

15.     Public consultation, under the Special Consultative Procedure, took place from 6 June to 31 July 2023.

16.     The draft strategy and supporting material were available on the AK Have Your Say webpage and in libraries and service centres. Supporting material included an overview document, evidence reports, and translated summary documents.

17.     The consultation included:

·    six ‘drop-in’ Have Your Say events at locations around Auckland

·    two events for organisations and special interest groups to provide feedback directly to elected members

·    three online public information sessions to answer questions about the strategy

·    numerous meetings or online briefings at the request of particular groups (e.g. HouGarden (a Chinese real estate online platform), residents groups in Papakura/Drury, developer organisations or their representatives etc.).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Submissions overview

18.     10,083 submissions were received during the consultation period. Of these:

·    8,552 responses were from individuals

·    256 responses were from organisations, including eight Māori organisations

·    1,275 responses were from pro forma submissions

19.     The AK Have Your Say consultation web page asked for feedback on four key aspects of the strategy. The four questions formed the core of the proposal and were:

·    what do you think of our approach to focus most of Auckland’s growth in existing urban areas?

·    what do you think of our approach to focus development near local centres?

·    what do you think of our approach to avoid further growth in areas which are exposed to significant environmental hazards?

·    what do you think of our approach to prioritising nature-based infrastructure that responds to the impacts of climate change?

20.     The feedback form asked respondents to indicate support (agree, disagree, other, I don’t know) for each of the consultation questions as well as giving the opportunity to add freeform feedback and attach more detail.

21.     Staff analysed all comments and coded them into common themes. Some comments were coded against multiple themes.

22.     Some respondents chose to provide feedback in different formats that did not directly respond to the questions asked on AK Have Your Say. These responses were analysed and included into the common themes where relevant. Where respondents provided feedback on topics not directly related to the consultation questions, their feedback was considered separately.

23.     Following consultation, staff shared a summary of the key themes from the feedback in a memo to the PEP Committee on 17 August and shared all submissions on 31 August. PEP committee workshops were held on 23 August and 6 September, focusing on the feedback and proposed responses. Local board chairs were invited to these.

Public feedback

24.     Overall, the majority of submissions supported the approach for each of the questions asked. A more detailed report summarising the consultation feedback is available in Attachment B.

25.     Question 1 “What do you think of our approach to focus most of Auckland’s growth in existing urban area?” received the following high-level responses:

·    of the 8,466 individual responses, 66 per cent support the approach, 27 per cent did not support, and seven per cent provided another response.

·    of the 157 organisation responses, 37 per cent support, 41 per cent did not support, and 21 per cent provided another response.

·    of the five Māori entity responses, three did not support, and two provided another response. 

·    of the 1,274 pro forma campaign responses, one per cent support, 18 per cent did not support, and 81 per cent provided another response. Of the 81 per cent that provided another response, their feedback was predominantly that greenfield growth needed to be included in the proposal and that intensification should be limited to locations with sufficient infrastructure.

26.     Question 2 “What do you think of our approach to focus development near local centres?” received the following high-level responses:

·    of the 8,439 individual responses, 74 per cent support the approach, 19 per cent did not support it, and seven per cent provided another response.

·    of the 149 organisation responses, 48 per cent support, 23 per cent did not support, and 28 per cent provided another response.

·    of the five Māori entity responses, one support, one did not support, and three provided another response. 

·    of the 37 pro forma campaign responses, 10 support, 23 did not support, and four provided another response.

27.     Question 3 “What do you think of our approach to avoid further growth in areas which are exposed to significant risk of environmental hazards?” received the following high-level responses:

·    of the 7,136 individual responses, 80 per cent support the approach, 13 per cent did not support it, and eight per cent provided another response.

·    of the 150 organisation responses, 59 per cent support, 19 per cent did not support, and 22 per cent provided another response.

·    of the four Māori entity responses, one support, one did not support, and two provided another response. 

·    of the 37 pro forma campaign responses, 22 support, nine did not support, and six provided another response.

28.     Question 4 “What do you think of our approach to prioritising nature-based infrastructure that responds to the impacts of climate change?” received the following high-level responses:

·    of the 7,110 individual responses, 74 per cent support the approach, 14 per cent did not support it, and 12 per cent provided another response.

·    of the 153 organisation responses, 58 per cent support, 19 per cent did not support, and 23 per cent provided another response.

·    of the four Māori entity responses, one support, one did not support, and two provided another response. 

·    of the 37 pro forma campaign responses, 20 support, ten did not support, and seven provided another response. 

29.     Regardless of whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the approach, the key themes that came through relate to the provision of infrastructure:

·        transport infrastructure was mentioned most often, and in particular, the need for improvements in public transport to facilitate mobility in higher density areas.

·        significant concern about the capacity of water infrastructure, following the weather events of 2023.

·        infrastructure needs to come before housing, both within brownfield areas and if/when greenfield areas are developed.

·        urban amenities and social infrastructure such as parks, community facilities, and schools, were also highlighted as critical to supporting a good quality of life and a sense of community, and respondents saw a need for these to be delivered at the same time, if not before, new housing in an area (whether that was brownfield or greenfield).

30.     256 organisations provided feedback on the strategy. Many of these were from organisations associated with greenfield development. Key themes from organisational feedback included:

·    the need for a holistic approach that looks at all of the different factors involved in supporting Auckland’s growth such as transportation, education, public spaces and healthcare

·    concern that focusing growth in brownfields would put too much stress on current infrastructure and/or that current infrastructure needs to/will need to be improved and requires more investment

·    concern about process issues with the FDS, including the time available for consultation, the lack of an updated Housing and Business Assessment for them to review and insufficient engagement with the development sector in preparing the draft FDS

·    feedback about specific aspects of the FDS that relate to their business interests, in particular about changes to future urban areas such as concern about the timing / delay of future urban areas and/or concern about the infrastructure requirements associated with respective future urban areas.

31.     Of the pro forma responses, 1,031 were from a campaign called Future Auckland and 199 from Bayleys Real Estate.

32.     The Future Auckland pro forma requested that greenfield development be included in the proposal and that intensification should be limited to locations with sufficient infrastructure. The pro forma emphasised the lack of information and time provided in the consultation for the public to be able to provide informed feedback. It requested that hearings be held so that their concerns could be shared with elected members.

33.     The Bayley’s pro forma opposed the approach of the Future Development Strategy, especially focusing growth in existing urban areas. The pro forma emphasises that brownfield residential areas cannot be further developed because the infrastructure is already at its limit. It requested that the FDS be deferred by two years until Plan Change 78 is resolved and an accurate assessment of feasible brownfield capacity is completed.

Central government feedback

34.     Submissions were received from:

·    Kāinga Ora

·    Ministry of Education

·    Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

·    Waka Kotahi

·    Other government entities including Auckland Regional Public Health Service, New Zealand Defence Force, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, KiwiRail and the Infrastructure Commission.

35.     Key themes included:

·    support for focusing most growth within the existing urban area and around local centres, for avoiding growth in areas with significant environmental hazards and for prioritising regenerative infrastructure that responds to the impacts of climate change

·    questions about the Spatial Priority Areas identified in the draft and suggestions for changes to these

·    requests for a greater focus on how the FDS addresses housing affordability

·    some concerns about the proposed delays in timing of the future urban areas and the perceived negative impacts on housing supply and available capacity

·    comments about the use of infrastructure triggers to determine timing and sequencing of future urban areas

·    more detailed comments relating to their specific portfolios.


 

Iwi feedback

36.     Eight submissions from iwi entities were received: 

·   Te Ahiwaru

·   Ngāi Tai Whenua (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki) 

·   Te Ākitai Waiohua

·   Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

·   Waiohua–Tāmaki rōpū

·   Ngāti Tamaoho

·   Te Kawerau a Maki

 

37.     Key submission themes from iwi entities are:

·        recognise the compounding impact of change on mana whenua

·        all development should enable mana whenua and broader Māori wellbeing, whether greenfield or brownfield

·        support the environmental focus, however the kaitiaki role of mana whenua should be further enhanced and strengthened

·        actively provide for and protect the rights of mana whenua, including development rights

·        preventing or limiting growth in some areas (including rural areas) fails to recognise traditional and cultural relationship with the land – Te Tiriti implications

·        comments on the importance of the council supporting and enabling development in specific locations, such as Waiuku, Beachlands and the Te Auaunga Precinct (Carrington Road).

Changes to the draft FDS as a result of feedback

38.     The Future Development Strategy largely follows the quality compact approach Auckland Council has been pursuing since the first Auckland Plan, and the approach in the current Development Strategy. It mostly contains refinement of concepts and approaches in recognition of known problems related to Auckland‘s growth and development.

39.     However, the strategy proposed for adoption has two major changes:

i.    A much stronger focus on adaptation, particularly in relation to flooding hazards and the protection of life and property. It aims to address the issue of development in floodplains (and discharge to floodplains with downstream effects) as well as preparing for adaptation in the most vulnerable locations and communities. This is largely absent from the current Development Strategy.

ii.   A greater recognition of the financial challenges facing Auckland Council and ratepayers and aiming to give the development sector clear signals about these constraints and when council is likely to be able to invest in infrastructure and services in respective areas, especially in greenfields. The aim is to give the sector as much certainty as possible for their own planning. Still, the FDS also allows a ‘pathway’ for development that wishes to proceed earlier than council can, provided there is no cost to council and well-functioning urban environment outcomes can be met. The current Development Strategy resulted in expectations for council investment in infrastructure that council cannot afford and cannot meet.

40.     In response to consultation feedback, numerous changes to the draft document are recommended. Some of the response results in substantial change. The revised FDS is available in Attachment A but the key changes include:

·    Updates to the Te Tiriti o Waitangi section to reflect iwi feedback in relation to the role of growth and development and the influence on iwi outcomes, and the introduction of a new sub-section later in the document to clarify the approach to iwi development.

·    Updates to the principles to clarify intent.

·    Updates to include key findings from the 2023 Housing and Business Assessment (HBA).

·    Updates to the spatial priorities for clarity purposes and the findings of the 2023 HBA.

·    New sub-section on the benefits of creating more residential capacity to support a responsive and competitive market.

·    Bringing forward timing of some future urban business land to reflect feedback from the development sector and the findings of the 2023 HBA.

·    Clarifying infrastructure prerequisites (previously called infrastructure triggers) to reflect feedback from the development sector.

·    Improved maps and descriptions of areas prioritised for development and future growth locations .

·    Updated approach to the removal of four future urban areas for urban development, removing those parts within the floodplain and ‘red-flagging’ those areas not within but discharging to the floodplain, to ensure associated requirements are met if development is to occur.

·    Resolving areas that were identified in the draft FDS as requiring further investigation.

41.     In addition to these more significant changes, there are numerous smaller changes throughout the document that respond to feedback received.

The FDS will guide decision making across the council group

42.     The FDS provides an integrated and coordinated strategic approach to Auckland’s spatial planning.

43.     It will guide decision-making and investment across the council group in three important ways:

i.     by articulating the strategic spatial direction and principles that guide decision-making;

ii.    by setting out spatial priority areas for LTP investment over the first 10 years of the strategy;

iii.    through specific near-to-medium term actions identified for implementation, including changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).

44.     The FDS identifies four types of spatial priorities to inform resource allocation through the LTP:

·    Nodes - focused areas within the city centre and Westgate are identified for investment in the short to medium-term. Note that all nodes will require investment on an ongoing basis and the Albany and Manukau nodes, and as the rural nodes of Pukekohe and Warkworth, will need to be considered for investment in the longer term.

·    Joint priorities between the council and central government - focuses on the Auckland Housing Programme. This programme includes the development of significant areas where bulk infrastructure is needed to enable regeneration, housing, jobs and recreation areas. These priorities are reduced in number and scope from the previous Development Strategy, though remain aligned to previously agreed areas.

·    Local areas and community investment - to support growth in the existing urban area, as it happens. Investment in these areas is to provide for projects that strengthen communities through smaller scale interventions. Investments may be of shorter duration or broken into stages and may well be combined with local board funded projects and initiatives.

·    Infrastructure deficit priorities - areas where either bulk or more localised network infrastructure constraints (transport, water, wastewater) limit development in an otherwise good location. Prioritised locations are market attractive, accessible and free from significant natural hazards. In many cases the exact nature of the solutions to address the infrastructure deficit is yet to be confirmed.

Implementation and review of the FDS

45.     The NPS-UD requires that a comprehensive implementation plan be prepared to support the FDS. This will provide more detail on the scope of the actions described in the strategy and ascribe roles, responsibilities and indicative timeframes. This is required to be updated annually.

46.     Staff will prepare the implementation plan following adoption of the strategy.

47.     It is important to note that implementation of the FDS will require time and resources from across the council group. In particular, actions that require changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan will need to be resourced through decision-making in Annual Plan and Long-term Plan processes.

48.     The NPS UD requires that the FDS is reviewed and updated if necessary, every 3 years, in time to inform the next LTP. It is important to note that the recently introduced Spatial Planning Act, when implemented, will replace the FDS with a new spatial plan. It is not yet clear in which ’tranche’ Auckland will be in the roll-out of this Act.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

50.     Adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change were strong themes within public feedback on the draft strategy. While there were some submissions that were sceptical of the impacts of climate change and wished to see less emphasis on this in the strategy, the vast majority of people who commented about climate change supported the approaches proposed in the FDS or wanted the FDS to go further in its response.

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

52.     The FDS also creates stronger links between development in future urban areas and the ability to fund public transport infrastructure and services. Development without these public transport services will be car dependent, increasing VKT and likely lock in travel behaviours that may be hard to change once, or if, public transport services can be provided. The FDS links development readiness to infrastructure pre-requisites for development, which includes public transport infrastructure. This is expected to result in relatively positive emission outcomes compared to the alternative of not requiring public (and active mode) transport in future urban development.

53.     The FDS identifies four future urban areas for removal from urban development.  These areas have significant natural hazard risks. This is expected to result in relatively positive resilience outcomes compared to the status quo.

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


 

55.     The FDS sets the strategy and direction. Achieving its direction and the climate change outcomes sought is dependent on following through in implementation. This includes actions aligned with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, particularly actions around the built environment and the protection and enhancement of the natural environment, and both national and Auckland specific targets to reduce vehicle kilometres travelled and transport greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

59.     Staff from across the council group were involved in the development of the strategy:

·    Healthy Waters, Resilient Lands and Coasts, and Plans and Places provided detailed advice and evidence to support the approach to avoiding development in hazard areas.

·    Timing and sequencing of future urban areas for development was informed by the Development Programme Office, Watercare and Auckland Transport (as well as non-council infrastructure providers Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail).

·    Staff from across the council group were involved in other aspects of the strategy, and in particular the development and evaluation of the growth scenarios.

60.     There is broad agreement across the council group of the strategy’s core approach to continue focusing most growth within the existing urban area and particularly around local centres, to avoid growth in areas with significant natural hazards and to prioritise nature-based infrastructure that responds to the impacts of climate change.

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

Local impacts and local board views

61.     Local boards were involved in, and made a significant contribution to, the Future Development Strategy. This included representation at PEP Committee workshops and meetings, local board briefings and memos, and individual board business meetings.

62.     There were two opportunities for local boards to pass resolutions on the draft strategy’s development. The first was during development of the initial strategic direction in July 2022. The second was after receiving a summary of the feedback from public consultation in August 2023.

63.     Local board resolutions from August 2023 have informed finalisation of the strategy (Attachment C). These resolutions were shared with the PEP Committee and were summarised and discussed at the workshop on 6 September.

64.     There was support from 20 local boards for the broad approach of the draft FDS, including the approach to focusing most growth in the existing urban area, the approach to significant hazard areas and the approach to more resilient, nature-based infrastructure.

65.     There was support for greater intensification, particularly in areas near centres, along the Rapid Transit Network (RTN) and in areas with greater transport options. Many local boards commented that this presented the greatest opportunity to reduce emissions and was a more cost-effective and efficient use of existing infrastructure that would lead to more vital local centres and improved access to employment opportunities close to where people live.

66.     Many local boards also commented that this support was contingent on a number of factors:

·    increasing investment in infrastructure and services within brownfield areas relative to greenfield areas to support greater intensification,

·    protection of existing green spaces and an increase in urban ngāhere / green spaces, especially for urban areas that currently have lower coverage,

·    equitable investment to address existing infrastructure deficits in some local areas,

·    improvements in local planning to ensure higher quality intensification.

67.     Many local boards raised other specific issues, including about specific local areas. Where these could be addressed in the FDS, they have been included in the proposed changes. Full detail of their requests can be found in Attachment C.

68.     Local board chairs were invited to PEP Committee workshops in August and September to discuss the overall consultation feedback and proposed response.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

69.     Tāmaki Makaurau has the largest concentration, nearly one-quarter, of all Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand.  How Tāmaki Makaurau grows and develops has a major impact on Māori wellbeing and socio-economic outcomes.  As a population, not much benefit has accrued to Māori from Auckland’s growth and development.  Land confiscation led to the loss of an important economic base for iwi and loss of influence over decisions that shaped the region.  The FDS provides an opportunity to recognise and amplify iwi and hapū aspirations to contribute to outcomes for Māori.

70.     Mana whenua were engaged through the development of the FDS, the process and outcomes of which have been previously reported.  Key themes included the importance and integration of mātauranga Māori at all levels of decision-making, recognising mauri as a life-sustaining principle of living systems, and a holistic view from maunga to moana that sees Tāmaki Makaurau as an interconnected living system.

71.     Iwi Management Plans, iwi environmental documents, and iwi input into previous council engagements on Te Tāruke-a-Tāwhiri, Auckland’s Water Strategy, and Thriving Communities Strategy added to and reinforced the themes that contributed to shaping the consultation document.

72.     Eight iwi organisations made submissions during the consultation period. Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which guaranteed the rights of mana whenua, including development rights that the council needed to actively provide for and protect, was a consistent theme. Of the iwi that submitted, many were concerned about the potential effect of parts of the FDS on developments they were involved with or leading. Development can and should enable mana whenua and wider Māori wellbeing. Preventing or limiting growth in some areas (including rural areas) fails to recognise traditional and cultural relationships with the land and limits economic opportunities for iwi. 

73.     Changes to the draft document are recommended to reflect feedback. These relate to Te Tiriti o Waitangi section and a new sub-section to clarify the approach to iwi development.


 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

74.     The NPS UD states that one of the purposes of the FDS is to assist with the integration of planning decisions under the RMA with infrastructure planning and funding decisions. The NPS UD also strongly encourages councils to use the FDS to inform its Long-term Plan, particularly its Infrastructure Strategy. This is done through setting the strategic direction for growth.

75.     Adoption of the FDS will have financial implications as the FDS prioritises locations for investment and this prioritisation will guide capital and operational spending over the next 10 years.

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

77.     By focusing most, but not all, growth in the existing urban area, the FDS aims to make the best use of existing infrastructure and services, and to focus new investment to achieve the greatest financial and social return.

78.     The FDS also states council’s position on when it will be able to fund new bulk infrastructure projects in greenfield areas (acknowledging that circumstances change over time), and that, should greenfield landowners wish to bring the development of such land forward/earlier, this will be considered by council provided suitable alternative funding methods can be found and/or there is no cost to council, and that ’well-functioning urban environment’ outcomes can be met.

79.     The FDS identifies a range of actions to implement its strategic direction. Implementing these will have budgetary implications over time.

80.     Some actions will be completed using existing resources and will require no additional cost other than staff time.

81.     Where actions do require additional spend, this will be considered through council’s Annual Plan and Long-term Plan processes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Risk

Assessment

Mitigation/Control measures

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

 

Medium-High risk

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

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

Given council’s climate change goals, the retention of these large areas of future urban development creates risk to achieving those goals, especially with regard to reductions in transport emissions if public transport infrastructure and services are or cannot be provided.

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

Infrastructure pre-requisites (for development in greenfields) have been introduced and include transport related pre-requisites. When council can provide these pre-requisite projects have resulted in a change in timing for when council can support growth in these locations. 

 

 

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

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

The council receives legal challenge (judicial review) due to concerns about the process of developing the FDS

Medium – High risk

A number of submissions, mainly from organisations but also through pro-formas, express concern about the process of developing and consulting on the draft FDS.

Once initial concerns from the development community were raised about the length of consultation and lack of opportunity to speak directly to councillors, the consultation period was increased from four weeks to eight weeks and Have Your Say events were added for organisational and special interest groups to present directly to councillors.

Significant changes have been made to the draft version of the FDS to reflect the feedback received during consultation. This reflects the considerable time staff have spent understanding these detailed submissions and in cases talking to organisations who have expressed concerns.

Recognition that submitters always have the right to take legal action, regardless of actions council may take.

The council does not adopt the FDS in time to inform the Long-term Plan.

Medium – High Risk

The NPS-UD requires Auckland Council to prepare an FDS in time to inform the LTP.

Council could use the existing 2018 Development Strategy to inform the Long-term Plan however this would keep infrastructure investment expectations at levels that the council cannot meet.

It is noted that the council could be in breach of a statutory requirement in such a case.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

Publication

82.     If the FDS is adopted, any final changes will be made with approval of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks (PEP) Committee, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board. 

83.     Staff will complete final formatting of the FDS and will then make the FDS and supporting documentation publicly available on the council’s website. Internal and external communications (including an ‘Our Auckland’ article) are planned.

84.     All submitters to the process will be informed of the finalisation of the FDS. A summary version of the strategy will also be made publicly available. The audience of the summary version is an interested Aucklander who would not need large amounts of detail.

Implementation

85.     There will be a growth model update to reflect the adopted strategy to inform Long-term Plans and asset management planning.

86.     Once adopted, work will begin on the Implementation Plan.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Future Development Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

FDS consultation summary report

 

c

Local board resolutions

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

 

 

Authors

Sarah Smith – Portfolio Manager

Claire Gray - Manager Growth and Spatial Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

File No.: CP2023/13212

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To inform the committee about the potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land and to delegate members to approve an Auckland Council submission on the potential changes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land came into force in October 2022. Stakeholders have raised two issues with the Ministry for the Environment about the restrictions on uses and development that do not rely on the soil resource of the land. These issues are:

·    The lack of a clear consent pathway for construction of new infrastructure on highly productive land. This mostly relates to solar farms from entities than do not have the power to designate land.

·    The lack of a clear consent pathway for intensive indoor primary production (e.g. piggeries and poultry farms) and greenhouses (e.g. hydroponic food production) on highly productive land.

3.       The Ministry for the Environment is consulting on potential changes to the National Policy Statement that would make it easier for new infrastructure, intensive farming operations, and hydroponic greenhouses to locate on highly productive land.

4.       Submissions on the potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land close on 31 October. As the only Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting prior to that date is 5 October, there has been insufficient time to enable a full submission to be drafted for endorsement at the 5 October meeting. Therefore, this report seeks that delegation be given to some members of the committee to approve a council submission.

5.       This report does not recommend a particular stance for a council submission, but rather it highlights some of the matters that will need to be considered by the delegated members in developing the submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / agree to lodge a submission from Auckland Council on the potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land, using any previously identified council positions as a foundation for the submission

b)      tautapa / delegate the approval of an Auckland Council submission on the potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land to the Chair, Deputy Chair and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board

c)       tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and the Independent Māori Statutory Board will have an opportunity to provide input on the draft submission prior to its approval.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL) came into force in October 2022. It directs the Auckland Council to introduce maps of highly productive land (HPL) into the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) within three years (October 2025). Due to other priorities, this work will not commence until next year.

7.       In the interim there is a transitional definition of HPL. The areas of land meeting the transitional definition within Auckland are shown in Attachment A to this agenda report.

8.       The NPS-HPL adds a layer of policy to be considered by councils for proposals on HPL such as land use and development, subdivision, and rezonings.

Use and development of highly productive land

9.       The NPS-HPL requires council to avoid inappropriate land uses and development on HPL. All land use activities are considered inappropriate unless they are “Land-based primary production” activities, or they are explicitly included in a list of exceptions.

10.     The list of exceptions covers a range of matters including providing for supporting activities to land-based primary production, addressing risks to public health and safety, enhancing indigenous biodiversity, and providing public access. The full list of exceptions is included in Attachment B to this report.

Issues behind potential changes to the National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land

11.     Stakeholders have raised two issues with the Ministry for the Environment about the NPS-HPL’s restrictions on non-land-based uses and development. These are:

·    the lack of a clear consent pathway for construction of new specified infrastructure on HPL in clause 3.9(2)(j)(i)

·    the lack of a clear consent pathway for developing and relocating intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL.

12.     The Ministry for the Environment is currently seeking feedback on potential amendments to the NPS-HPL that would provide a clear consenting pathway for these activities. The Ministry for the Environment discussion document on the potential changes is included in Attachment C to the agenda report.

New specified infrastructure on highly productive land

13.     The first potential change to the NPS-HPL relates to new infrastructure. ‘Specified infrastructure’ is a defined term in the NPS-HPL and includes (but is not limited to) road and rail networks, wastewater, stormwater, water supply, and electricity generation/distribution. The wording of the NPS-HPL enables the ongoing maintenance, operation, upgrade or expansion of specified infrastructure, but it does not include the construction of new specified infrastructure. This creates a difficult consenting pathway for some new infrastructure on HPL.

14.     It is noted that most infrastructure in Auckland is provided by ‘requiring authorities’. These are entities that have the power under the Resource Management Act 1991 to ‘designate’ land for infrastructure purposes. Therefore, they have a pathway to develop their infrastructure and as such are not significantly impacted by the potential changes to this part of the NPS-HPL.

15.     However, there are specified infrastructure providers that do not have designation powers under the RMA and therefore have no apparent consent pathway to develop new infrastructure on HPL. The main example of this is the renewable electricity generation sector where often solar farms and battery energy storage systems are being proposed and/or developed by entities that do not have designation powers.

16.     There is significant demand for additional renewable electricity in New Zealand and solar farm proposals are increasingly common[1]. For example, since late 2021 just through the Covid fast-track consent process there have been five large-scale solar farm projects referred, potentially generating 635 megawatts[2].

17.     Solar farm developments often seek to develop on flat rural land because it is more economical, easier to source large blocks of land, and often receives high solar radiation. However, Auckland’s flat rural land is also where areas of HPL are located.

18.     The Ministry for the Environment see that a potential option to provide for activities such as solar farms on HPL is to amend the NPS-HPL by adding in the word “construction” to the exception for specified infrastructure.

Intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on highly productive land

19.     ‘Intensive indoor primary production’ refers to farming that occurs within buildings and includes uses such as piggeries and poultry farms. Modern greenhouses mostly use artificial media to grow plants (e.g. hydroponics).

20.     As these activities do not rely on the soil resource of the land, they are not “land-based primary production”. Therefore, the NPS-HPL considers that these activities are inappropriate and directs that they be avoided on HPL.

21.     Some primary industry stakeholders have argued that the NPS-HPL should specifically provide for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL because they have a functional and operational need to operate there (e.g. necessary to locate the activity close to markets, labour sources, supporting infrastructure etc).

22.     They also argue that there are limited alternative locations that would be economically viable for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses. This is because HPL is flat and therefore more cost-effective to develop. HPL is also often near packhouses, rural labour markets, transport routes, nutrient solution management and discharge infrastructure.

23.     The Ministry for the Environment see that a potential option to provide for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL is to add these activities to the list of exceptions. This would provide a bespoke consenting pathway for developing intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Timing of submission

24.     Submissions on the potential changes to the NPS-HPL close on 31 October. As the only Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting prior to that date is 5 October, there has been insufficient time to enable a full submission to be drafted for endorsement at the 5 October meeting.

25.     Therefore, this report seeks that delegation be given to some members of the Planning, Environment, and Parks Committee to approve a council submission.

26.     This report does not recommend a particular stance for a council submission, but rather it highlights some of the matters that will need to be considered in developing the Auckland council submission.


 

Issues to consider for a submission around new specified infrastructure

27.     The main initial beneficiary of any change to the specified infrastructure exception would likely be private entities (who are not requiring authorities) seeking to establish new infrastructure on HPL. This is most likely to be developers of solar farms and battery energy storage systems.

28.     The potential changes to make the NPS-HPL more enabling of new infrastructure on HPL are likely to affect Auckland more than other parts of New Zealand. This is due to Auckland’s large population, making the region an attractive location for future solar farm ventures – as the electricity generated is close to the end users. This proximity reduces energy loss that occurs when electricity is transmitted over long distances and increases the resilience of electricity supply.

29.     There are three solar farm resource consent applications being processed or recently granted in Auckland, with a number of other solar farm and battery energy storage system proposals at a pre-application stage. In total, if all these proposals were developed, they could cover around 2,000 hectares of land (most of that likely to be HPL). Therefore, there is the potential that the changes to the NPS-HPL could result in the loss of significant areas of HPL in Auckland.

30.     Solar farm proposals often highlight that primary production uses can co-exist with the example of sheep grazing between the panels. However, while some basic grazing activities could occur, the presence of a solar farm on HPL inherently reduces the potential range, intensity, and yield of land-based primary production activities.

31.     Solar farms are seen as an avenue for New Zealand to meet its goal of generating 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. However, it is also noted that solar farms are just one of the renewable energy sources available in New Zealand, so there may be other methods that can meet the country’s renewable energy goals without losing HPL.[3] The inability of solar farms to establish on HPL is unlikely to threaten New Zealand’s renewable energy goals.

32.     In addition, while solar farms prefer rural locations with flat land, there are other options for solar energy. Solar panels can be located on hilly terrain, rooftops, industrial land, former landfills and quarries, contaminated land, lower productivity rural land, and offshore.

33.     The specific consultation questions that the Ministry for the Environment seeks feedback on in relation to specified infrastructure are:

·    are you aware of any other issues that could impede the development of new specified infrastructure on HPL?

·    do you think the NPS-HPL requires an amendment to provide for the construction of new specified infrastructure on HPL?

·    do you think the proposed amendment to clause 3.9(2)(j)(i) – adding ‘construction’ – will resolve the issues?

·    which option do you prefer? Why?

34.     A council submission could give feedback on these specific questions, or comment on the potential changes overall.

Issues to consider for a submission around intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses

35.     While there are not a high number of new developments for intensive indoor primary production (intensive farming) and greenhouses in Auckland, when developments do occur they can be relatively large. For example, poultry farms tend to cover around one hectare in buildings and there is a current application lodged for around two hectares of buildings (made up of eight sheds). Small greenhouse developments start off at around 0.5 hectare but are often significantly larger than this. There are examples of greenhouses in Auckland that cover over ten hectares and the largest is around 25 hectares.

36.     The developers of intensive farms and greenhouses argue that they have a functional and operational need to locate on HPL. That is, the need to be close to markets, labour sources, and supporting infrastructure. However, these features apply to much of Auckland’s rural land. To demonstrate a functional and operational need for an activity to locate on HPL, the rationale would more logically revolve around the activity’s need/use of the soil of the site for primary production activities.

37.     The potential change by the Ministry for the Environment could undermine the NPS-HPL by carving out an exception for activities that have no relationship to the soil of the site. If it becomes acceptable for large industrial scale buildings that do not use the soil (e.g. intensive farms and greenhouses) to locate on HPL, it could make it difficult for the council when processing applications for other non-land-based activities on HPL.

38.     The potential change to the NPS-HPL would also introduce new complexities to its administration. For example, how would the council respond to a proposal for a building on HPL that produces synthetic meat or eggs? Hydroponic greenhouses, piggeries, poultry farms and a synthetic meat/egg factory are all activities that operate inside industrial scale buildings, do not rely on the soil resource of the site, and have a final output of food for human consumption. It would be difficult for the council to make a distinction between these activities for consenting purposes.

39.     Auckland Council’s submission on the draft NPS-HPL in 2019 was supportive of the overall intent of the NPS to protect HPL for only ‘land-based’ primary production. The council’s submission stated:

“It does not seem logical to protect the HPL soil resource from being paved over from urban expansion, but then allow it to be paved over for a horticulture operation that uses soilless media. Such an activity does not rely on the productive capacity of the soil and therefore does not need to be located on HPL.

The NPS-HPL should be protecting the full HPL resource including the soil. The purpose of the NPS-HPL is not to protect areas of flat land for large scale, industrial-type growing, but rather to protect the land resource which includes the soil.

40.     The Ministry for the Environment acknowledges that there is limited evidence of the extent of the intensive farming and greenhouse issue given the short time since the NPS-HPL came into effect. It also accepts that the potential change is misaligned with the original intent of the NPS-HPL, which was for any primary production that does not rely on soil to be excluded from being considered an appropriate use and development of HPL.

41.     The specific consultation questions that the Ministry for the Environment seeks feedback on in relation to intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses are:

·    do you think the NPS-HPL requires an amendment to provide a consent pathway for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses to be developed on HPL? Why?

·    what do you think are the risks with amending the NPS-HPL to provide for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses on HPL?

·    do you support option 1 (retaining the status quo)? Why?


 

·    do you support option 2 (a pathway under clause 3.9)? Why?

·    are there any other options we should consider?

42.     The council may wish to give feedback on these specific questions, or comment on the potential changes overall.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43.     The 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.

44.     Auckland’s Climate Plan (2020) includes a ‘food priority’ with a goal of “a low carbon, resilient, local food system that provides all Aucklanders with access to fresh and healthy food”. The plan recognises the importance of local food production and preserving productive soil. It states that “soils play a critical role in meeting our emissions targets as carbon is stored in soils. The more soil we lose, the less chance we have of meeting our emissions targets.”

45.     A priority action area in the plan is to “Protect our productive soils and move toward regenerative practices to increase food security and carbon sequestration”. This involves the following actions:

·    advocate for and implement regulation that protects Auckland’s productive soils for growing food and supports a change to more regenerative growing of food

·    advocate for the proposed National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land.

46.     The potential changes to the NPS-HPL do not align with Auckland Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47.     Watercare and Auckland Transport are relatively unaffected by the changes around specified infrastructure as they are requiring authorities with the power to designate land (including HPL) for infrastructure purposes.

48.     However, they both support the potential changes to the NPS-HPL as it would enable them to put in new infrastructure via a resource consent pathway (rather than needing to rely on the designation process).

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

Local impacts and local board views

49.     All local boards were given a high-level briefing of the potential changes to the NPS-HPL. In addition, staff have presented directly to the local boards with the greatest proportion of HPL in Auckland – Franklin, Rodney, and Waiheke.

50.     Any feedback from local boards received in early October will be considered in the development of a council submission. Any local board feedback will also be directly appended to the council’s submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

51.     The NPS-HPL contains specific clauses directing the council to actively involve tangata whenua (to the extent they wish to be involved) in giving effect to the NPS-HPL. In addition, specified Māori Land is included in the list of exceptions for use and development. This exception means that any use or development of specified Māori Land is not constrained by the presence of HPL. The Ministry for the Environment is not proposing any changes to these parts of the NPS-HPL.

52.     As part of a potential council submission, views from iwi are being sought. An email has been sent to all iwi to give them an opportunity to provide their views on the potential changes. Any feedback from iwi that is received in early October will be considered in the development of a council submission. Any iwi feedback will also be directly appended to the council’s submission (should iwi agree with this). Iwi have also been advised that they may make their own submissions directly to the Ministry for the Environment.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53.     Any council submission will be funded from existing operational budgets. There are no financial implications of agreeing to lodge a submission and delegating its approval to members of this committee. 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

54.     The process for potential changes to the NPS-HPL is being run by the Ministry for the Environment. There are no significant risks to the council providing feedback on the potential NPS-HPL changes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

55.     Should the committee agree, delegated members will meet with staff in mid-October to discuss the matters raised in this report as well as any other issues related to a submission. The delegated members will also consider feedback from local boards, iwi and the Rural Advisory Panel.

56.     Formal resolutions from any local boards will be appended to any council submission in addition to any written feedback from iwi (should iwi agree) and the Rural Advisory Panel. Submissions to the Ministry for the Environment on the potential changes to the NPS-HPL closes on 31 October 2023.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Areas of Auckland that meet the transitional definition of Highly Productive Land

 

b

List of exceptions for land use and development in Clause 3.9(2) of the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

 

c

Discussion document from the Ministry for the Environment on potential changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Auckland Unitary Plan: Making operative Private Plan Change 25 - Warkworth North

File No.: CP2023/13218

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make Private Plan Change 25 – Warkworth North to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 25 (PC25) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) is a private plan change request that sought to rezone 99 hectares of land north of Warkworth from Future Urban Zone to a mix of residential and business zones and apply a new precinct called the Warkworth North Precinct. The plan change request went through the formal notification, hearing and decision-making process.

3.       The decision by independent commissioners was publicly notified in March 2020 and four parties appealed the decision. Following negotiations, all except one party were able to agree to a set of provisions for PC25 and these provisions were signed off by the Environment Court through a consent order. PC25 was then made operative in part by the Auckland Council in late 2021.

4.       The one party with an appeal remaining was Middle Hill Ltd. The matters in their appeal related to the zoning and rules relating to their specific site and were able to be legally separated from the other matters in the consent order.

5.       The Middle Hill appeal was the subject of an Environment Court hearing in July 2021 and a final decision from the Court was issued in August 2022 (refer to Attachment A). The Court decision ruled that the zoning for the site should be Business – General Business with specific transportation and landscape planting standards added to the precinct. Middle Hill disputed the landscape planting standard, but the Court issued a final decision in July 2023 leaving the planting standard in place.

6.       No High Court appeals were received in relation to the Environment Court decision. The relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 25 July 2023 (refer to Attachment B).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve making the remaining (not yet operative) parts of Private Plan Change 25 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (as set out in Attachments A and B) operative under clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

b)      tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Private Plan Change 25 becomes fully operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Background

7.       PC25 was requested by Turnstone Capital Limited and sought to rezone approximately 99 hectares of Future Urban zoned land to a mix of residential (73.4ha), business (23.4ha), and open space zones (2.5ha). This would provide for approximately 1,000 - 1,200 dwellings and a new Local Centre.

8.       The proposed private plan change as notified introduced a new precinct over the land with additional controls to provide for an integrated stormwater solution, protection of ecological values, and provision of open space and future road connections such as the Western Link Road. The land covered by PC25 is shown on the map in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Location of the land covered by Plan Change 25

9.       Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the RMA, PC25 was:

·    publicly notified on 16 May 2019

·    open for public submissions until 5 July 2019

·    open for further submissions until 12 September 2019

·    heard by independent commissioners on 6, 7, 8, and 21 November 2019

10.     An independent hearing panel were delegated the authority to make decisions by the Regulatory Committee. The panel’s decision was dated 18 March 2020. The decision was publicly notified on 26 March 2020.

11.     Overall, the decision approved the plan change with modifications. The decision largely rezoned the PC25 area and added in a new precinct in accordance with the request of Turnstone Capital Ltd. However, the decision did not rezone some areas of PC25 and instead left the zoning as Future Urban. The land that remained zoned as Future Urban included land owned by Middle Hill.

Appeal

12.     The PC25 decision from the hearing panel was appealed by four parties – Turnstone Capital Limited (the requestor), Robert White, Atlas Concrete, and Middle Hill Ltd. Atlas Concrete later withdrew their appeal, while Turnstone Capital and Robert White were dealt with via Environment Court consent order. The Council then made operative those parts of PC25 covered by consent order in November 2021.

13.     The Middle Hill appeal was not able to be resolved by consent and accordingly it was the subject of an Environment Court hearing in July 2021. The Middle Hill appeal was in relation to the zoning of the land outlined in red and hatched on the map below. The appellant sought rezoning of the land from the Future Urban zone to the Business – Mixed Use zoning, while the council sought that it be rezoned to Business – General Business (or retain its Future Urban zone).

Figure 2 – Land subject to the Middle Hill appeal on Plan Change 25 (outlined in red and hatched)

14.     A decision from the Environment Court was released on 26 August 2022 (see Attachment A). The decision upheld the appeal to the extent that the zoning for the Middle Hill site was changed from the Future Urban zone to the Business – General Business zone (as sought by Council in the hearing process). The court also directed that specific traffic provisions and a landscape planting standard for the Middle Hill land be introduced into the Warkworth North precinct.

15.     The Court directed Auckland Council to file the final provisions for approval. The transportation provisions were agreed by the parties, but Middle Hill disputed the landscape planting standard. After Middle Hill and council had provided written submissions to the Court on this matter, the Court issued a decision on 25 July 2023 (see Attachment B) confirming the landscape standard as per the council’s submission.

16.     The appeal date on this latest decision from July 2023 has now passed and no appeals to the High Court have been received. Therefore, these last (not yet operative) parts of PC25 can now also be made operative. This means that PC25 (which is currently operative in part) can now be made fully operative.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17.     Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.  Clause 17(1) states that “A local authority shall approve a proposed policy statement or plan (other than a regional coastal plan) once it has made amendments under clause 16 or variations under clause 16A (if any).” 

18.     As the appeal period has closed, and no appeals have been received, the Council can approve the last (not yet operative) parts of PC25 under clause 17 of Schedule 1. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the process that is required to be undertaken by the Council to make that part of PC25 operative. Staff within the Plans and Places department will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning, Environment, and Parks Committee’s resolution. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19.     As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20.     As a procedural request, no views are being sought from any council departments.

21.     All council groups were notified of the plan change request and had the opportunity to make submissions. Watercare and Auckland Transport both made submissions and presented evidence in support of those submissions at the hearing. Auckland Transport were a s274 party in the appeals and agreed to the content of the consent order. Auckland Transport were not part of the Middle Hill appeal hearing.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22.     Local Board views were not sought for this report as making PC25 fully operative is a procedural matter.

23.     The Rodney Local Board was briefed on PC25 in November 2019. Feedback at this time was that the Rodney Local Board did not support the private plan change request. At that time, the board considered it could undermine the draft Warkworth Structure Plan and result in a future land use pattern which is not necessarily best placed or scaled to serve the long-term future of Warkworth.

24.     These matters were included in the planner’s section 42A report and it is noted that the council officer hearing report recommended that Plan Change 25 be declined for similar reasons to those outlined by the Rodney Local Board. However, the hearing panel decision was to approve the plan change with modifications.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25.     As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of PC25, and it being made operative.

26.     The applicant circulated the original plan change to Mana Whenua groups recognised as having authority in the area in June 2018. A site visit was held with both Ngati Manuhiri and Te Kawerau a Maki and both mana whenua groups prepared Cultural Values Assessments.


 

27.     All iwi authorities were sent letters when PC25 was publicly notified. Ngati Manuhuri lodged a submission as part of the notification of PC25. The submission sought that the plan change be accepted subject to ensuring that mana whenua values were incorporated into the precinct provisions.

28.     There were no appeals by any iwi authorities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29.     There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving PC25 in part and amending the AUP is a statutory requirement and is cost recoverable from the private plan change requestor.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30.     There are no risks associated with making PC25 fully operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31.     The final step in making the last (not yet operative) parts of PC25 operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative in full, and to update the AUP.  This would occur should this committee make resolutions as recommended in this report.

32.     Should the committee make the resolutions as recommended in this report, Plans and Places staff will then undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make PC25 operative in full.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Decision on Middle Hill appeal on PC25

 

b

Decision on Middle Hill appeal relating specifically to the landscape planting standard

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Regional Event Grants Allocation 2023/2024 Round 1

File No.: CP2023/09763

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve grant allocations for the 2023/2024 Regional Event Grants Programme Round 1.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The 2023/2024 Regional Event Grants Programme has a budget allocation of $600,000, which is distributed across two funding rounds.

3.       Applications were sought through a first funding round, open from 3 July 2023 to 31 July 2023.

4.       38 applications, totalling $1,357,552, were received and assessed using the criteria in the Events Policy 2013.

5.       Staff recommend allocating grants to 21 applicants totalling $404,000. 

6.       A second grant funding round will be scheduled, with decisions in March 2024, to distribute the remaining unallocated budget of $196,000.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve the following funding allocations for the 2023/2024 Regional Events Grant Programme Round 1:

Applicant

Event

Recommended funding allocation ($)

Crackerjack Events

Auckland International Buskers Festival

40,000

The Auckland Children's Christmas Parade Trust

Farmers Santa Parade

17,000

Auckland Region Outrigger Canoe Association Incorporated

Auckland Regional Waka Ama Sprints

10,000

Domain Concerts Trust

Coca-Cola Christmas In The Park

45,000

Show Jumping Waitematā

Show Jumping Waitematā Festival

11,000

Auckland Pride Incorporated

Auckland Pride Month

27,000

Eventing Auckland Incorporated

Puhinui International Horse Trials

15,000

Kelmarna Community Farm Trust

Kelmarna Harvest Festival

3,000

Athletics New Zealand (Incorporated)

2024 Sir Graeme Douglas International

6,000

Auckland Anniversary Regatta Incorporated

Auckland Anniversary Day Regatta

17,000

Interacting

InterACT 2024!

16,000

Burnett Foundation Aotearoa

Big Gay Out 2024

17,000

The Polyfest Trust

ASB Polyfest

75,000

Mahurangi Action Incorporated

Mahurangi Regatta

6,000

Waiheke International Jazz Festival Ltd

Waiheke Jazz Festival 2024

8,000

The Preparatory Committee of New Zealand Taiwan Day Trust

New Zealand Taiwan Day 2024

11,000

Easter Classic 2024

The Easter Classic 2024

10,000

Total Sport Limited

The DUAL

8,000

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Foundation

Mana Moana | Songs of the Pacific

25,000

Environment Hubs Aotearoa

EcoFest

25,000

New Zealand Eid Day Trust

New Zealand Eid Day Eid al Fitr 2024

12,000

Total

$404,000

 

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that a second funding round will be scheduled, with decisions in March 2024, to consider distribution of the remaining unallocated budget balance of $196,000.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The 2023/2024 budget includes an allocation of $600,000 for the contestable regional event grants programme. 

8.       Applications for a first funding round opened on 3 July 2023 and closed on 31 July 2023.

9.       Staff received 38 applications totalling $1,357,552 for this round, as detailed in Attachment A. This compares with 19 applications for $499,695 in 2022/2023 Round 1.

10.     The events funded through the grants programme deliver on a range of outcomes, and benefit communities through building and maintaining a sense of place and connection. 

11.     The role of The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in relation to regional grants programmes is described in the council’s Community Grants Policy (paragraph 17) as being to: “award grants to regionally significant organisations, services, events and activities that benefit residents across Auckland”.

12.     The policy also highlights (paragraph 145) the role of the committee in shaping the grant programme in terms of:

·        Drawing on the relevant regional strategic documents to set funding priorities

·        Considering staff assessments of grant applications and their recommendations for which proposals to fund

·        Awarding grants

·        Receiving reports to understand how their grants have benefited Auckland and Aucklanders.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.     Staff assessed each application against regional event funding criteria outlined in the Events Policy 2013 (Attachment B).

14.     Each application has been assigned an overall score to inform recommendations (Attachment C).

15.     The scores are based on the criteria in Table 1, which are weighted according to the percentages indicated for each area of consideration:

Table 1: Grant assessment criteria

Criteria

Weighting (%)

Supports key priorities

12

Delivers desired impacts

12

Expands the variety or range of events on offer

12

Level of positive community benefits generated

12

Amount of community support, involvement and/or active partnerships

12

How effectively the event was run in the past or how well planned

12

Other considerations as outlined in the policy

12

Alignment with Māori priority

8

Alignment with youth priority

8

TOTAL

100%

16.     Staff also considered additional factors to determine the amount of funding recommended, such as:

·     the event budget

·     event plans

·     organiser experience

·     accessibility

·     previous event outcomes

·     alignment with key Auckland dates, such as Matariki, or Auckland Anniversary weekend.

17.     Whether the applicant had received significant funding from other areas of council for the same event was also factored into the assessment process.

18.     The events recommended for funding:

·     include many that are free/low cost to attend

·     deliver to a range of Auckland’s diverse communities

·     are distributed across the region

·     support a range of sporting, arts and cultural themes.

19.     Of the 21 events recommended for funding, 8 are sports related, and 13 relate to arts and culture.

20.     Chart 1 shows the geographic spread of applications recommended for funding.


 

Chart 1: Regional distribution of events recommended for funding.

21.     The recommended funding allocations are based on the assessment scores against policy criteria and consideration of the additional factors outlined in paragraph 16.

Applications recommended for funding

22.     Staff recommend 21 events to be approved for funding and 17 to be declined.

23.     Some applications align with the criteria for event funding, as well as criteria for other council grant funds, such as arts and culture, and sport and recreation.

24.     Staff considered overlaps to ensure a coordinated approach is taken to the overall provision of council funding for these events. In some situations, grants will be provided from one grant fund, and in others the total funding may be shared between two or more grant funds.

25.     In the case of events grants to sporting events, the focus is on audience interest and wider social outcomes of the activity, for example social cohesion, identity, and sense of belonging. This differs from other sports related grant programmes which may be more focused towards encouraging participation in, or development of, the sporting activity.

26.     Table 2 outlines the events that are recommended to be approved, including the funding amount and alignment with key priorities, as outlined in the funding criteria.

27.     The recommended funding amount is intended as a contribution to the total event cost, recognising that council is not the main funding provider in most cases.

Table 2: Events recommended for funding and strategic alignment

Event

Alignment with key priorities

Requested funding ($)

Recommended funding ($)

Auckland International Buskers Festival

Anniversary weekend

49,000

40,000

Farmers Santa Parade

Christmas, families and children

169,542

17,000

Auckland Regional Waka Ama Sprints

Māori, Pasifika, youth, sport, celebration of excellence

10,000

10,000

Coca-Cola Christmas In The Park

Christmas, families and children

50,000

45,000

Show Jumping Waitematā Festival

Sport, celebration of excellence

15,000

11,000

Auckland Pride Month

Diverse Communities

50,000

27,000

Puhinui International Horse Trials

Sport, celebration of excellence

30,000

15,000

Kelmarna Harvest Festival

Environment, sustainability

9,970

3,000

2024 Sir Graeme Douglas International

Sport, celebration of excellence

10,000

6,000

Auckland Anniversary Day Regatta

Anniversary weekend

40,000

17,000

InterACT 2024!

Youth, Diverse Communities

24,000

16,000

Big Gay Out 2024

Diverse Communities

20,000

17,000

ASB Polyfest

Māori, Pasifika, youth, families, celebration of excellence

200,000

75,000

Mahurangi Regatta

Anniversary weekend

6,000

6,000

Waiheke Jazz Festival 2024

Arts, City of Music

15,000

8,000

New Zealand Taiwan Day 2024

Cultural festival

20,000

11,000

The Easter Classic 2024

Sport, youth, celebration of excellence

40,000

10,000

The DUAL

Sport, distinctive event

25,000

8,000

Mana Moana | Songs of the Pacific

Pasifika, arts, City of Music

50,000

25,000

EcoFest

Environment, sustainability

100,000

25,000

New Zealand Eid Day_Eid al Fitr 2024

Cultural event

12,000

12,000

Total

 

$945,512

$404,000

28.     The allocation of grants totaling $404,000 from the regional event grants budget of $600,0000 for the year leaves a balance of $196,000 unallocated. 

29.     This unallocated balance will be applied to a second funding round, with decisions on applications in March 2024.

30.     For the applications proposed for funding in this round, the total amount recommended represents 43% of the total amount requested. This compares to proportions ranging from 44% to 66% for funding rounds over the preceding five years.

31.     The approach for determining funding levels for individual events has aimed to generally provide continuity of funding over a period of time. Despite not being a guarantee, this helps in providing a degree of certainty around future funding to event organisers.

32.     The budget allocated for regional events has been set at $600,000 annually since the 2015/2016 year, aside from a reduction to $400,000 in 2020/2021. This has limited the opportunity to increase funding to individual events without an associated reduction or cessation of funding to other events, despite requests being made for larger grants.

33.     While increases in costs and reduced availability of funding are factors impacting event organisers, there are often opportunities to adjust content and/or scale to work within these constraints. It is difficult to assess the risks to event continuity of budget issues as part of the grant allocation process.

34.     Where recommended funding is significantly different than the requested funding, this may be due to other sources of council funding being received, or due to the recommended funding being similar to the funding of prior years. 

35.     In the case of the Farmers Santa Parade, the $17,000 recommended funding amount is consistent with the grant allocated in 2022/2023. The event also receives additional council funding of $49,136 (outside of this contestable grant process), through a non-contestable grant approved through the annual budget.

36.     ASB Polyfest is recommended to receive $75,000, consistent with the amount granted in 2021-2022, which, at that time, was an increase on the $50-55,000 grant historically received. The 2022/2023 grant was $100,000, reflecting a one-off situation where the event was split into two due to a logistics clash with Te Matatini. That increase was enabled through a lower level of applications received in the post-Covid-19 environment.

37.     The balance of funding, to be allocated to events in the second round is expected to also support a number of events that have previously been provided funding.

Applications recommended for decline

38.     The most common reasons for declining applications are:

·     the activity is not within the scope of the grant programme

·     the activity is not considered to be of a regional scale

·     the activity does not align sufficiently with grant programme priorities

·     similar activities are already funded

39.     In some cases, an application may not meet the criteria, but may offer potential for a future successful application. Staff will offer to work with these applicants to assist in presenting a more fully developed event concept plan, that demonstrates alignment with funding priorities.

40.     Table 3 indicates the applications staff recommend be declined with the key reasons.

Table 3: Events recommended to be declined

Event

Reason for Decline

Dashain Dhamaka 2023

Small scale local event with limited regional and wider community reach.

Aramex Kiwi Walk and Run Series

Delivers on similar outcomes to other funded walk/run events.  Level of grants budget does not support additional funding in this area.

Skykiwi Happy Family Day

Primary focus is business promotion with ancillary family activities.
Outside key priority areas for regional event grants.

Aramex Kiwi Walk and Run Series - Walk N Wag Doggie Coastal Adventure

Delivers on similar outcomes to other funded walk/run events.  Level of grants budget does not support additional funding in this area.

Tomarata Fireworks 2023

Local event where revenue expected to cover costs. Grant would be supporting funds raised for school.

Netball New Zealand Centenary

Activity is an Auckland War Memorial Museum exhibition. Outside scope of regional event funding.

Play Festival 2024

Event was funded and developed in conjunction with Waitematā Local Board. With other local boards considering support for similar "play" events, these would be considered outside regional scope.

Commemoration Street March

Small scale local event. Limited alignment with regional priorities.

Winter Lights Festival

Smaller scale local event. Ticket revenue exceeds event costs. Significant portion of costs associated with event lighting purchases (capex).

New Korean Symphony Orchestra 3rd Annual Concert

Small scale local event.

2024 North Island Colgate Games

Budgeted income covers event costs.

PIPI Pathways

Series of surfing and water safety lessons spread over 31 days.
Out of scope for regional event grants.
Previously funded by Aktive and Counties Manukau Community Sport grants.

Rescued Cat and Kitten Adoption Days

Small scale local event. Limited alignment with regional priorities.

Still Lives: Auckland

Limited alignment with regional event priorities. Closer fit with arts and culture funding sources.

ABK Fight Night

Small scale event budgeting to achieve a financial surplus from ticket sales.

DEPOT Third Thursdays – an annual programme of free-access artist and community development workshops and events

Series of small scale local events.

Samesame But Different 2024

Multiple small scale events. Closer fit with arts and culture funding previously obtained.

Dashain Dhamaka 2023

Small scale local event with limited regional and wider community reach.

Event evaluation

41.     Staff evaluate the delivery of funded events through post event reports prepared by organisers. The information from the event facilitation/permitting team, attendance on the day, media and online coverage of the event, along with attendee feedback, including elected members are all taken into consideration.

42.     The evaluation assesses whether:

·    the event is delivered largely in the manner described in the funding application

·    the event is well supported and enjoyed by participants, audiences, and the wider community

·    the event aligns with council policy priorities.

43.     Staff attend some funded events to obtain insights on the event delivery and effectiveness. The observations inform feedback provided to organisers on what is working well, areas that may be improved and may inform future funding decisions.

44.     Event evaluation is a cost-effective approach to ensuring council achieves value for money while meeting community outcomes.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

45.     The main climate impacts of most regional events are with waste management and transportation to or from an event.

46.     The event permitting process and grant funding agreements promote and encourage a range of transport options and zero waste.

47.     The impact of climate change may progressively affect events through increased weather variability and severity. This may result in an increasing number of event cancellations, greater costs to mitigate weather impact, and impact on availability of certain sites for events.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48.     Some applications include events taking place in council venues, on council land or receive council funding for other aspects of their work. In these cases, staff consult relevant departments or Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) that may have an interest in the events. This information is taken into account when presenting recommendations for funding.

49.     The council regional event grants have a focus on events for Aucklanders with audiences drawn from across the region. Tātaki Auckland Unlimited in contrast have an interest in larger scale major events having clear visitor attraction and economic benefits, and have provided funding to a portfolio of events supporting these outcomes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

50.     Local boards provided formal feedback to inform the development of the Events Policy 2013.  The administrative process associated with the assessment and allocation of the regional event fund applies principles and criteria outlined within the policy.

51.     Regional event funding occurs in parallel with, and is complementary to, local event funding rounds operated by local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

52.     The Events Policy recognises a responsibility to engage and build relationships with Māori in designing, planning and delivering regional events of mutual interest.

53.     The Events Action Plan which forms part of the policy, places a particular focus on support for Māori events, in the context of a diverse, balanced region-wide programme. This priority is indicated in application information and guides to encourage applications for Māori events.

54.     Chart 2 shows comparative analysis of grants provided to events with a Māori focus, including having significant Māori content, participation and/or audience.


 

Chart 2: Regional funding provided to events with a Māori focus

(2023/2024 values include amounts proposed in this report)

55.     The two events recommended for funding, and considered to have a Māori focus in this 2023/2024 Round 1, are:

·    Auckland Regional Waka Ama Sprints

·    ASB Polyfest.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56.     Staff recommend confirming grants totalling $404,000 as the proposed allocation for the first round from the total 2023/2024 contestable regional event grants budget of $600,000.

57.     A second funding round is scheduled, with decisions on applications in March 2024.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58.     There is a risk that events will not be successfully delivered in accordance with event plans submitted in grant applications. Staff mitigate this risk through the assessment process, considering the experience of event organisers, prior experience of holding the event and by attendance at events.

59.     In many cases council is one of several funders making independent assessments for funding of an event. The ability of event organisers to raise funding from multiple sources increases confidence in the event proposal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

60.     Following approval from the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, funding agreements will be prepared, which will include conditions for payment of funding.

61.     A second funding round for the year will see grant recommendations put to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in March 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Application summaries

 

b

Prioritisation criteria

 

c

Summary schedule

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David McIntosh - Senior Advisor - Events

Authorisers

Angela Clarke - Head of Service Investment & Programming

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Approval of seasonal closures of vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach

File No.: CP2023/13763

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval of the seasonal closure of vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach over the Guy Fawkes and New Year periods for 2023 to 2026. 

2.       To inform the committee of the ongoing management of motorised vehicles accessing Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       In 2021 and 2022, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee approved the seasonal closure of vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach over the New Year period (resolutions PAC/2021/48 and PAC/2022/51).

4.       Increased numbers of locals and visitors driving motorised vehicles on Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach has resulted in ongoing concerns around beach user safety and driver behaviour, environmental protection, and fire risk.

5.       The council currently addresses concerns and negative impacts through signage and barriers, information and education, a permit system, seasonal closures and through the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw (2013). Approval of the Planning, Environment and Parks (PEP) Committee is required before any seasonal closure can be implemented.

6.       During seasonal closures, vehicle access to the beach is prevented through the use of physical barriers such as gates and concrete blocks.

7.       Many community members and stakeholders strongly support seasonal vehicle access closures, although not all are supportive of this measure. Following closures in previous years staff have received positive feedback that the beach felt safer for a range of activities when vehicle access was restricted, such as dog walking, picnicking, family use and horse riding.

8.       Staff recommend that Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach be closed to vehicles over the New Year season for the next three years. 

9.       In response to heightened risks resulting from fireworks on the beach, staff also recommend closure of vehicle access from the date fireworks go on sale to the Monday following Guy Fawkes Day, for the next three years, starting in 2023.

10.     The proposed seasonal closures over the New Year period are supported by the Community Advisory Group and the Joint Agency Muriwai Management Group. The Guy Fawkes closure period was recommended by the Joint Agency Muriwai Management Group.

 


 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve the implementation of seasonal restrictions to control motorised vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach, to address concerns around beach user safety and driver behaviour, environmental protection, and fire risk over the New Year period for the following dates:

·        29 December 2023 to 15 January 2024

·        31 December 2024 to 13 January 2025

·        31 December 2025 to 12 January 2026.

b)      whakaae / approve the implementation of the additional closure of vehicle access over the Guy Fawkes period for 2023-2025, from the date fireworks go on sale to the Monday following Guy Fawkes Day, to address heightened concerns around fire risk and environmental protection.

c)       tautoko / endorse the continued monitoring of vehicle numbers and driver behaviour on the beach, the focus on targeted education, improved signage and enforcement, and continued community engagement through the Community Advisory Group and the Joint Agency Muriwai Management Group. 

Horopaki

Context

11.     Driving motorised vehicles on beaches is generally prohibited. The only two exceptions within the Auckland region are Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach, and Karioitahi Beach. Both require a council issued permit.

12.     There are currently two vehicle access points to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach, from Coast Road and Wilson Road. The Coast Road access point sits within the decision-making authority of the PEP Committee. Wilson Road sits within the decision-making authority of Auckland Transport as it is an unformed legal road. Motorised vehicles on the beach have been of ongoing concern in terms of beach user safety and driver behaviour, environmental protection, and fire risk. These concerns have been heightened in the context of an increasing number of vehicles accessing the beach, ongoing illegal access to the dune system, camping and fires in the back dune area and reports of people not going to the beach due to concerns for their safety during high vehicle use periods.

13.     Outside the seasonal closures, drivers accessing the beach are required to have a driver’s license, a council issued permit to drive on the beach, and their vehicles are required to be registered and warranted.

14.     The concerns around vehicle management at Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach have been the subject of several workshops and reports to the PACE Committee throughout the previous political term.

15.     Staff have implemented seasonal closures of vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach for the past three years:

·    24 December 2020 to 11 January 2021

·    31 December 2021 to 17 January 2022 (extended to 24 January)

·    30 December 2022 to 16 January 2023.


 

16.     Due to the increase in visitors and heightened fire risks over the New Year period, staff recommend the continuation of annual seasonal closures between late-December and mid-January for the next three years. Indicative dates are listed below, although these may be varied:

·    29 December 2023 to 15 January 2024

·    31 December 2024 to 13 January 2025

·    31 December 2025 to 12 January 2026.

17.     Where there is extreme fire risk, Fire and Emergency New Zealand will request that vehicle access to the beach is closed.

18.     The seasonal closure from 30 December 2022 to 16 January 2023 drew some criticism from the public, given the wetter than average summer period. The fire risk to the fine-leafed vegetation in the dune system and adjacent pine forest remains higher through the holiday period and summer season, with risks increased by illegal camping in the back dune and forest margins. This has resulted in the extension of the New Year closure periods in the past and may do so again in future.

19.     At a meeting of the Joint Agency Muriwai Management Group on 6 September 2023 a proposal was put forward for additional seasonal closures over the Guy Fawkes period, given the increased fire risk over that time. The management group meeting was attended by members of NZ Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Auckland Transport, Ministry of Defence, Regional Parks, Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Ngahere Limited and ManuLife Forest Management.

20.     Staff recommend the closure of vehicle access from the date fireworks go on sale to the Monday following Guy Fawkes Day, for the next three years, starting in November 2023.

Current management of vehicle access to the beach

21.     The council currently addresses concerns and negative impacts of vehicle access on the beach through signage and barriers, information and education, a permit system, temporary closures and through the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw (2013).

22.     Staff have worked collaboratively with Auckland Four-Wheel Drive clubs who have provided trailer-mounted information signage showing areas of the beach that are currently vehicle accessible, and those where vehicles are prohibited.

23.     While signage has been installed and renewed when damaged or destroyed, observed behaviour suggests signage is largely ineffective in its current form. There has been no observable reduction in poor driver behaviour and unlawful vehicle access into the dune systems and adjoining private forest.

Impact of storm events

24.     The number of people driving vehicles on Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach remains high, although the impact of storm events on the west coast has significantly restricted access since 14 February 2023.

25.     Storm damage to Rimmer Road prior to 2023 has resulted in its closure as an access point to the beach. This has left Coast Road (within the Muriwai Regional Park) and Wilson Road (an unformed legal road off South Head Road) as the only two access points to the beach, increasing vehicle volumes at both locations. This has had a significant impact on the residents of Wilson Road, given that it is a gravel road in a remote area, with the access unformed and in poor condition.

26.     While all vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach was closed to restrict access in the Muriwai area following Cyclone Gabrielle, Wilson Road was re-opened in mid-March 2023 and was the only access point to the beach until the re-opening of Coast Road on 4 September 2023.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Options for ongoing management and enforcement of closures

27.     There remains a high proportion of unregistered vehicles without a current warrant of fitness accessing the beach, including off-road trail bikes, quad bikes, and other off-road vehicles, despite signage, periodic check points and more active NZ Police enforcement.

28.     Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are currently jointly reviewing their traffic-related bylaws. This includes the Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012, Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015 and Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (clause 16 only: Vehicle provisions to transition to traffic bylaw). The review will consider whether the regulation of vehicles on beaches could be transferred to any new traffic bylaw, as suggested during the 2019 review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 to enable the issue of infringement fines.

29.     Operationally, the council is still establishing what is required to enable charging for permits to drive on Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach and is investigating the provision and installation of a monitoring point and gate through which vehicle access could be controlled. Staff are expecting to install the monitoring point in around 18 months, or sooner if possible.

30.     The repeated flooding of the road leading to the 4WD access point, during the weather events in the first six months of 2023, have caused a re-evaluation of the most appropriate location to install an access gate / control point.

Community engagement and consultation

31.     Regional Parks staff work closely with both the Community Advisory Group and the Joint Agency Muriwai Management Group on the management of vehicles and driver behaviour on the beach.

32.     The Community Advisory Group consists of representatives of the residents of the Muriwai and Wilson Road communities, as well as representatives of Four-Wheel Drive clubs. The group was formed following feedback through a series of public meetings that formed part of the consultation on the future management of vehicles on Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach. The group meets twice a year, or more frequently if required, and was formed to provide feedback and advice to the council on opportunities to improve the management of vehicle access and positively influence driver behaviour.

33.     The Community Advisory Group indicated support for the proposed seasonal closures at a meeting on 30 August 2023. The advisory group requested a change in approach to more positive public messaging, given the current signage does not appear to be resulting in any change in behaviour. Staff will work with the advisory group to deliver this collaboratively in the lead up to the 2023/2024 summer period.

34.     The Joint Agency Muriwai Management Group consists of representatives from organisations that contribute to or are impacted by the management of vehicles on the beach and was formed to support collaboration and coordination of activities associated with the management of Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach, such as information, monitoring, and enforcement activity.

35.     The Joint Agency Muriwai Management Group highlighted the risks associated with the Guy Fawkes period and requested the council also restrict vehicle access to the beach for the period from the start of the sale of fireworks until the Monday after Guy Fawkes Day.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

37.     Coastal erosion due to a changing climate is an ongoing issue at Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach and along the west coast. Vehicles driving through this fragile beach and dune ecosystem will exaggerate the impacts of coastal erosion.

38.     Improved management and control of vehicle access will reduce the overall contribution of vehicles towards coastal erosion in these fragile areas.

39.     Many of the vehicles drive in the dune system and forest, which presents a serious fire risk and environmental protection concerns in the high use summer period.

40.     Minimisation of vehicles on the beach is anticipated to reduce carbon emissions and help change the behaviour of park users, encouraging low-impact modes of transport.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41.     Staff continue to work with other council departments and Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) including Auckland Transport in the management of vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach.

42.     The Coast Road access point is located within the regional park area and therefore sits within the decision-making authority of the PEP Committee. The decision-making authority to close the unformed section of Wilson Road, which also provides access to the beach, sits with Auckland Transport as it is an unformed legal road.

43.     Seasonal closures over the New Year period have previously been supported by Auckland Transport, which notifies the closure of Wilson Road over the same seasonal period. Council staff will work with Auckland Transport on the proposed closures over the Guy Fawkes period.

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

Local impacts and local board views

44.     The number and type of vehicles driving on the beach and around beach access points continue to generate concerns for the local community, particularly in relation to beach user safety and driver behaviour.

45.     Driver behaviour concerns are not isolated to the beach, but also on surrounding roads in the areas near access points.

46.     Some members of the local community are no longer visiting certain areas of the beach due to safety concerns.

47.     Although no formal communication has been received from groups opposing the seasonal closures, some who wish to access the beach for a range of activities including fishing and surfing over the holiday period are dissatisfied with the proposed closures.

48.     There is anecdotal evidence that the seasonal closure of Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach may result in an increase in vehicles accessing other coastal areas outside the Auckland Region. Council staff have been in contact with staff at Kaipara District Council to discuss the management of vehicles on beaches.

49.     On 20 September 2023, the Rodney Local Board resolved the following:

Resolution number RD/2023/146

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      tautoko / support the implementation of seasonal restrictions to control motorised vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach over the New Year period (late December to mid-January) for three years from 2023 to January 2026, to address concerns around beach user safety and driver behaviour, environmental protection and fire risk

b)      tautoko / support the implementation of the additional closure of vehicle access over the Guy Fawkes period from the date the fireworks go on sale to the Monday following Guy Fawkes day 2023 to 2025 to address heightened concerns around fire risk and environmental protection.

A division was called for, voting on which was as follows.

For

Chairperson B Bailey

Member M Dennis

Deputy Chairperson L Johnston

Member G Wishart

Against

Member T Holdgate

Member C Smith

Member G Upson

Member I Wagstaff

Abstained

 

The motion was declared EQUAL.

The chair exercised their casting vote for so the motion was Carried.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader obligations to Māori.

51.     Mana whenua have a long history and association with Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach, with Māori occupation dating back more than 800 years. They have an important and active kaitiaki role on the beach and in the adjoining ngahere, and work closely with the council on environmental and management issues.

52.     Staff continue to engage with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara through Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust, which has voiced support for the scope of works identified and more active management of the beach.

53.     At the time of this report Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust were unable to provide a formal position on the proposed seasonal closure of vehicle access to Te Oneone Rangatira / Muriwai Beach.

54.     Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Ngahere Limited are a member of the Joint Agency Muriwai Management Group who proposed the additional closures.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55.     The ongoing costs associated with managing vehicles on the beach are currently met by the Regional Parks operational budget and resource.

56.     The estimated cost per closure is $15,000 (therefore an annual cost of approximately $30,000), comprised of the installation and removal of concrete block barriers to Wilson Road, and signage, including LED variable message signs.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

57.     Although there may be some dissatisfaction with the ongoing seasonal closures from some users, these measures were supported in the public consultation undertaken in 2021. The seasonal closures are a continuation of the approved and known approach taken over the past three years.

58.     Emergency services will continue to have access to the beach as required.


 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

59.     Following the committee decision on 5 October 2023, staff will:

a)   inform key stakeholders of the decision

b)   work with the community steering group to develop revised messaging and signage

c)   continue to work with authorities managing other public access points

d)   continue to work with NZ Police, council compliance staff, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Ngahere Ltd, Ministry of Defence, Department of Conservation and other groups to plan for the implementation for targeted enforcement activity

e)   implement the seasonal restriction for the 2023 to 2026 Guy Fawkes and New Year periods.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Stephen Bell - Principal Specialist – Regional Parks

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Auckland Council submission on the Inquiry into Climate Adaptation

File No.: CP2023/13405

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Parliamentary Environment Committee’s Inquiry into Climate Adaptation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Parliament’s Environment Committee has opened an Inquiry into Climate Adaptation, with submissions due on 1 November 2023.

3.       This inquiry will consider what new powers, roles and responsibilities will be needed to support community-led retreat and how the costs of adaptation will be met.  The Ministry for the Environment has developed an Issues and Options paper to assist the Inquiry (refer Appendix A).

4.       The inquiry is expected to report back in 2024, and its findings are expected to inform development of a Climate Change Adaptation Bill. This bill would be the third piece of legislation in the resource management reforms, following the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environments Act.

5.       Auckland Council staff are preparing a submission for the inquiry, led by the Chief Sustainability Office.  However, the tight timeframe means that we are proposing a delegated sub-group will approve the submission after the draft submission has been circulated to elected members for comments.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      tautapa / delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Parliamentary Environment Committee’s Inquiry into Climate Adaptation by 1 November 2023.

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and the Independent Māori Statutory Board will have an opportunity to provide input on the draft submission prior to its approval.

Horopaki

Context

6.       On 25 August 2023, the Environment Committee opened its Inquiry into Climate Adaptation. The inquiry is open for public submissions until 1 November 2023.

7.       For the purposes of its inquiry, the Environment Committee is particularly interested in:

·    The current approach to community-led retreat and adaptation funding, its strengths, risks and costs

·    Lessons learned from severe weather events and natural disasters in Aotearoa New Zealand for community-led retreat and funding climate adaptation

·    Effective mechanisms for community-led decision making

·    The role of the private sector in managing climate risk

·    Potential institutional arrangements, including roles and responsibilities of central and local government agencies, iwi and hapū

·    Māori participation, Crown obligations, and how to best give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi, and integrate matauranga Māori and te ao Māori across the adaptation system

·    Alignment and integration with existing legislation and regulatory framework, including the reformed resource management system and any changes needed to regulatory powers and potential economic or other incentives needed to support adaptation actions (both before and after extreme events)

·    Funding sources, access to them and principles and criteria for cost sharing

·    Targets or indicators for assessing progress to more resilient communities and infrastructure.

8.       The inquiry is expected to report back in 2024, and its findings are expected to inform development of a Climate Change Adaptation Bill. This bill would be the third piece of legislation in the resource management reforms, following the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environments Act.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

9.       One of the goals of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan is “to adapt to the impacts of climate change by ensuring we plan for the changes we face under our current emissions pathway”.

10.     Under our current emissions pathway, Auckland will continue to experience ongoing sea-level rise, coastal inundation and erosion, and more frequent and severe weather events like those Aucklanders experienced in early 2023.

11.     Globally there needs to be urgent and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

12.     However, regardless of the global trajectory in emissions, Auckland and New Zealand need to adapt to the impacts of climate change that are already happening and are likely to continue.

13.     The Inquiry into Climate Adaptation will likely inform the development of national legislation which will have implications for how Auckland Council undertakes adaptation.

14.     This submission contributes to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan through action B1 (Ensure our approach to planning and growth aligns with low carbon, resilient outcomes), sub-action 8 (Collaborate to ensure climate change mitigation and adaptation is a priority in national planning legislation).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15.     The development of the proposed Climate Adaptation Bill is likely to be informed by the findings of the Inquiry into Climate Adaptation. This legislation will have significant impacts across the Auckland Council group.

16.     A technical team, made up of experts from across the council group, will prepare a first draft of the council’s submission.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17.     Local boards will be invited to provide input to the council’s submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18.     There are implications for Māori within a potential future climate adaptation system.

19.     Central government are engaging directly with Māori regarding climate adaptation.

20.     A communication on the Auckland Council submission on the Inquiry into Climate Adaptation has been sent to all iwi entities and their feedback sought. IMSB secretariat staff will work with the council’s technical team throughout the development of the submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21.     The submission will be developed within existing resources.

22.     The Inquiry into Climate Adaptation will be considering funding sources for climate adaptation, as well as the role of local government.

23.     There are potentially significant financial implications for local government within a future climate adaptation system. Council’s submission provides an opportunity to state our position on how funding of climate adaptation should operate in the future.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24.     Financial and legal expertise will be sought in the development of the submission to identify possible financial, legal and reputational risks to the council associated with climate change adaptation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25.     Council staff will prepare the draft submission.

26.     Members of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and the Independent Māori Statutory Board will have an opportunity to provide input into the draft submission.

27.     The delegated group will sign off council’s submission.

28.     The final submission will be provided to the members of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, Independent Māori Statutory Board and Local Board chairs for information.

29.     Once the findings of the Inquiry into Climate Adaptation are released in 2024, staff will provide the Committee with a memo summarising the conclusions.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Issues and Options Paper - Ministry for the Environment

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Petra Pearce - Lead Climate Resilience Advisor

Authorisers

Lauren Simpson - Principal Sustainability & Resilience Advisor

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Biodiversity Credit System – central government discussion document

File No.: CP2023/14032

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of central government’s discussion document entitled ‘Helping nature and people thrive – Exploring a biodiversity credit system for Aotearoa New Zealand’, its potential implications for Auckland Council, and to provide a draft Auckland Council submission prepared for the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee’s consideration.

2.       To seek approval for and delegation to approve the final version of an Auckland Council submission on the Biodiversity Credit System discussion document to the Ministry for the Environment.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       Central government (Ministry for the Environment, Department of Conservation) published a discussion document on 7 July 2023 (weblink: Biodiversity Credit System) which explores the potential for a ‘biodiversity credit system’ that could be developed for Aotearoa New Zealand. Central government is seeking feedback on the need for and possible design of a biodiversity credit system, and the potential roles of government and Māori in implementing it.

4.       A national biodiversity credit system is intended to be used as a way to increase funding opportunities from the private sector, helping to bridge the existing gap in funding indigenous biodiversity protection, enhancement and restoration efforts and halt the decline and extinction of threatened species and at risk ecosystems.

5.       The discussion document is exploratory in nature and does not set out a specific proposed system; rather it discusses a number of different approaches that could be taken to different aspects of designing and implementing such a system.

6.       Staff from Natural Environment Strategy (NES) developed the attached draft Auckland Council submission with input from relevant council departments and council controlled organisations, mana whenua and the Rural Advisory Panel. Feedback from local boards will be raised at committee as this feedback was due after the agenda closed.

7.       Given the exploratory nature of the discussion document, the draft submission is cautiously supportive of the concept and intent of a biodiversity credit system.

8.       A delegated authority to approve the council’s final submission is requested to enable staff to incorporate any amendments to the draft submission following the 5 October 2023 committee meeting, prior to the deadline for submissions of 3 November 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve Auckland Council’s draft submission on the Ministry of Environment’s discussion document ‘Helping nature and people thrive – Exploring a biodiversity credit system for Aotearoa New Zealand’ (Attachment A of this agenda report), subject to any amendments by delegated members of this Committee responsible for final approval.

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that final approval of council’s submission is delegated to the Chair, Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Horopaki

Context

9.       Aotearoa New Zealand has one of the highest proportions of threatened indigenous species in the world and almost two-thirds of our rare and ‘naturally uncommon’ ecosystems are also at risk. Many of these species and habitats are found on private land including Māori land, outside the 30 per cent of New Zealand managed by the Department of Conservation. Despite the efforts of public and private landholders, iwi, hapū, and the wider community, current public and private investment is falling short of what is needed to protect at risk habitats and threatened species.

10.     Central government intends that any development of a national biodiversity credit system would be used to help increase funding opportunities from the private sector towards indigenous biodiversity protection, enhancement and restoration efforts. It is seen as a potential way to bridge the large funding gap that currently exists for helping biodiversity thrive, and reducing risk of species decline or worse, extinction. However, biodiversity credit systems emerging internationally are not without risk or controversy. Any system needs to be carefully designed to ensure it has positive environmental impact and integrity to avoid potential gaming of the system and unintended consequences.

11.     The government’s discussion document is very much an initial engagement to start the national conversation about a potential biodiversity credit system that could be developed for Aotearoa New Zealand. Therefore, the discussion document is exploratory in nature and does not set out a specific proposed system with clear scope, roles, and implementation mechanisms to provide feedback on; rather it discusses a number of different approaches that could be taken to different aspects of designing and implementing such a system.

Main points covered in central government’s discussion document

12.     The discussion document explains:

a)   what biodiversity credits and a biodiversity credit system are with some international examples that are emerging

b)   what the benefits could be in the Aotearoa New Zealand context

c)   different approaches that could be taken to the scope and design of a system, and

d)   the distinct roles that government could play.

13.     The discussion document includes 23 consultation questions that seek views on the different approaches and roles for a biodiversity credit system.

14.     Biodiversity credits are a type of ‘green financing’ mechanism intended to recognise, in a transparent and consistent way, landholder projects or activities that protect, maintain and enhance indigenous biodiversity, or positive outcomes, e.g. a 1 per cent increase in the indigenous biodiversity of a hectare.

15.     By purchasing credits, people and organisations can finance and claim credit for their contribution to ‘nature-positive’ actions and outcomes. This is an emerging approach that is gaining considerable interest internationally. In Aotearoa New Zealand, credits could relate to protecting, restoring, and enhancing nature on public and private land, including whenua Māori (Māori land). Demand for credits is expected to increase over time as businesses look to understand and address their impacts on nature. Business drivers for this investment include: meeting stakeholder, customer and employee expectations, enhancing reputation and brand, addressing current and emerging industry and corporate reporting standards and building meaningful relationships with mana whenua and communities.

16.     A biodiversity credit system could recognise efforts to protect, enhance and restore indigenous biodiversity in any habitat (on land, in freshwater, estuarine and / or coastal and marine environments) or only in some. Biodiversity credits could represent work on whole ecosystems or catchments or focus on endangered or taonga species or remnant habitats.

17.     The discussion document suggests seven principles that could apply to the design of a government supported biodiversity credit system. The principles would let people know what they can expect when they participate in a biodiversity credit system and what is expected of them. For example, the system should be robust, transparent, verifiable, have clear rules for the claims investors can make to avoid ‘greenwashing,’ should reward nature-positive activities additional to business as usual, and the system should maximise positive impact on biodiversity (including uplifting mauri and mana of biodiversity).

18.     The discussion document also explains the components of a fully functioning system, including measurement, verification and reporting, legal recognition, potential ways credits can be traded and the roles of industry experts. It notes that regional and district councils could potentially play a role in providing expertise to landowners for biodiversity credit activities and / or projects.

19.     The Government is exploring the roles government (both central and local) could play to support the establishment of a biodiversity credit system that would operate with both integrity and impact. It suggests the following two roles but notes that a blend of these options may be appropriate, which could evolve over time, and does not specify which parts local government would contribute to:

a)   market enablement: where it provides policies and guidance for the development and uptake of voluntary schemes in Aotearoa New Zealand, and potentially funding for system development as the market is established. An enablement role seeks to influence the outcomes and operation of the market, using non-regulatory tools such as good practice guidance and optional standards.

b)   market administration: where it establishes and manages a voluntary biodiversity scheme and is active in the ongoing management and administration. A market administration role includes setting a regulatory framework, with tools to direct the outcomes and the operation of the market.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     Auckland Council’s draft submission on central government’s discussion document is attached (see Attachment A).

21.     Given the exploratory nature of the discussion document, the draft council submission is cautiously supportive of the concept and intent of a biodiversity credit system. It is difficult to be definitive in our feedback at this stage as no firm or preferred approach for system design and roles within it have been proposed. Consequently, the draft submission also highlights some areas where particular care will be needed in developing such a system, to avoid unintended consequences and ensure it achieves the integrity and impact required to positively contribute to protection, enhancement and restoration of our indigenous biodiversity. Some differing views across the council group are also noted in relation to some aspects of the scope and design of any such system.

Scope and design of a biodiversity credit system

22.     The draft submission notes the following areas where sufficient care and attention need to be paid, in considering the design and scope of the system, to ensure its integrity and to guard against unintended consequences and possible ‘gaming’ of the system.

a)   Biodiversity credits should only be used to recognise positive actions to support biodiversity, while actions that avoid damage or loss of biodiversity (i.e. biodiversity offsets) should be secured by the regulatory system. One view is that this would avoid confusing two opposing conceptual approaches which could result in a high risk of increasing financial incentives for biodiversity loss. However, another view is that enabling biodiversity credits to be used to offset development impacts would generate a greater demand for credits. Yet another view is that biodiversity credits could potentially be used to offset development impacts in certain circumstances, provided strict

conditions are met. Therefore, the draft submission suggests that a cautious approach be taken when considering whether biodiversity credits should be used to offset development impacts, taking note of the strict application parameters outlined in the draft submission.

b)   Biodiversity credits should be based primarily on ongoing, positive outcomes to avoid ineffective activities being undertaken through credit funding and then abandoned without necessarily achieving a positive outcome. However, it is noted that there may be a need to enable some project-based biodiversity credits as they may be very beneficial for small, local, community-led initiatives, which would likely require the funding provided by the biodiversity credit up-front, before any longer term biodiversity outcome could be measured and verified.

c)   Biodiversity credits extending across all environments are supported – terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine and coastal marine as it does not limit opportunities for biodiversity improvement, and reflects that all ecosystems are interrelated to some extent. For terrestrial environments, biodiversity credits should apply to both public and private land, including whenua Māori. In particular, land-based biodiversity credits covering land in Auckland Council ownership is also supported, such as regional parks and local reserves. However, it is unclear from the discussion document whether it is the intention that councils could use biodiversity credits as a funding source for nature-based projects. The submission cautions that any application of a biodiversity credit approach to public land must be within strict parameters, and must not displace public funding. The concept of additionality is key – money should go only to projects that would not have gone ahead with normal public sector funding.

d)   Of the seven suggested principles in the discussion document the following five are seen as most important: transparent, viable claims; robustness and measures to prevent abuse of the system; clear rules with ways to prevent ‘greenwashing’; permanent, long-term positive impact, and maximising positive impact on biodiversity (including uplifting mauri and mana of biodiversity). These five principles are key to building trust in the credit system and enabling its longevity and uptake. However, a principle to uphold government obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi and support te ao Māori and mātauranga Māori is recommended for inclusion.

Auckland Council role in biodiversity credit system

23.     Given the exploratory nature of the discussion document, it is difficult to be certain about the potential implications of a biodiversity credit system for Auckland Council as no clear proposals are made about its scope, design and implementation, or different roles central government and councils will have within the system.

24.     The discussion document mentions a possible role for local government, but does not elaborate on what that role might be under each component of a biodiversity credit system. In the submission Auckland Council signals that it would be keen to understand this further and be involved at subsequent stages of the biodiversity credit system development. Initial staff thinking is that there are different options for consideration:

a)   little or no involvement by councils?

b)   some partnership with central government to help identify focus areas for achieving best biodiversity outcomes (based on regional biodiversity strategies and locally identified significant natural areas etc.)?

c)   councils act as a translator / navigator, providing advice to landowners or community groups in the region about use of biodiversity credits and where to focus efforts?

d)   as landowners and asset managers, councils could be sellers of biodiversity credits?

e)   if nature-based financial disclosures are required in future, councils could be purchasers of biodiversity credits?

25.     However, there would clearly be different resourcing and financial implications for Auckland Council depending on the level of involvement, and any submission made at subsequent stages of the biodiversity credit system development will need to bear this in mind.

Interaction with carbon markets and nature-based financial disclosures

26.     In terms of managing risk and complexity, while supportive of pursuing the highest co-benefits of carbon and biodiversity credits, the draft submission suggests (at least in the short-term) that a biodiversity credit system should focus purely on biodiversity outcomes, and any carbon storage benefits that may be generated are a bonus. The maturity of the carbon credit scheme needs to grow, and the current Emissions Trading Scheme has some challenges (around free allocations and price) that need to be addressed before a new biodiversity credit system should be linked into it.

27.     The draft submission acknowledges that the international Taskforce for Nature-based Financial Disclosures framework is being finalised and launched this month, and the potential for nature-based financial disclosures to be required in the future. Staff question how this might interact with a biodiversity credit system to affect financial and biodiversity outcomes. Similarly, council will also need to consider how a biodiversity credit system will interact with our green bonds and sustainable finance commitments, once the details of the system are more developed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28.     It is not possible to predict specific climate impacts of a biodiversity credit system in Aotearoa New Zealand as central government is at an early stage in exploring such a system. However, the discussion document does note that a biodiversity credit system could facilitate investment in ecosystem restoration, which could also contribute carbon sequestration that could be counted towards New Zealand’s Nationally Determined Contribution of reducing carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement.

29.     There is also potential to link the biodiversity credit system with existing carbon credit systems, such that carbon credits could have an ‘attached’ biodiversity co-benefit. This assumes buyers will pay a premium for carbon credits with biodiversity benefits, such as reforestation using indigenous tree species, and that biodiversity benefits will be provided.

30.     Activities undertaken to enhance and restore indigenous biodiversity funded by a biodiversity credit system could also contribute to climate adaptation and resilience. For example, providing financial incentives for converting forestry in erosion-prone areas to native forest, or delivering nature-based solutions for resilient land use such as stream daylighting and restoration for stormwater conveyance.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31.     Staff views were sought from across the following council divisions:

a)   Chief Planning Office (Chief Sustainability Office, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research, Plans and Places)

b)   Infrastructure and Environmental Services (Environmental Services, Healthy Waters)

c)   Regulatory Services (Resource Consents, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance)

d)   Customer and Community Services (Property and Commercial Business, Parks and Community Facilities)

e)   Chief Finance Office (Sustainable Finance)

f)    Nga Matarae


 

32.     Staff also invited feedback from Auckland Transport, Watercare Services Limited and Eke Panuku.

33.     The council group’s feedback helped inform the draft submission, including concerns and suggested points central government should consider if it continues to design and develop a proposed biodiversity credit system.

34.     NES staff gave an overview presentation to the Rural Advisory Panel on 8 September 2023 summarising the key elements of the government’s discussion document, and highlighting potential consultation engagement questions they may be interested in feeding back on. Feedback from the Rural Advisory Panel was invited but none has been received.

35.     No significant impacts to council activities and responsibilities have been identified at this early stage. However, as noted in the Analysis section, there could be various implications depending on the role and level of involvement councils are required to take in any proposed system, and this will need to be considered during any submissions made on further engagements by central government.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36.     NES staff gave an overview presentation to local board members on 21 August 2023 summarising the key elements of the government’s discussion document, and highlighting potential engagement questions they may be interested in feeding back on.

37.     Local Board feedback will be considered for incorporation into the draft submission either generically as themes or specifically where appropriate to illustrate examples of how such a system could be applied.

38.     Staff will discuss the local board feedback received at committee, noting it was due by 29 September, a day after the agenda closed. Staff will raise any consequential amendments needed to the final submission, because of local board feedback, with the delegated authorisers.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39.     NES staff notified mana whenua about the MfE discussion document, and noted that mana whenua have the opportunity to respond directly to MfE and/or provide any input into the Auckland Council submission. No feedback was received.

40.     NES staff discussed their intended approach with a staff member of the IMSB Secretariat. Feedback from the Secretariat highlighted the importance for central government to establish a strong relationship with mana whenua and actively engage with them in the design of any biodiversity credit system for Aotearoa New Zealand. However, this will require adequate resourcing to enable mana whenua who wish to be involved to engage. This would help to ensure the design of the biodiversity credit system takes into account the needs of owners of whenua Māori, and does not negatively impact on Māori having tino rangatiratanga on their own land.

41.     The discussion document notes that a biodiversity credit system could be particularly beneficial for protecting and enhancing biodiversity on whenua Māori if that is the preference of the land holder. Nationally, many of the remaining at-risk species and habitats outside public conservation lands are on this land. An important benefit of credits would be as a mechanism for Māori to raise finance without the need to provide security against land. It could help to close the gap in economic returns between fast-growing exotic monocrop forests and slower-growing, but more biodiverse, indigenous forests.


 

42.     Depending on the design and principles applied to a biodiversity credit system, there could be many benefits for achieving Māori outcomes. For example:

a)   a biodiversity credit system could empower whānau, hapū and iwi kaitiaki to apply mātauranga Māori in keeping with their local tikanga and kawa

b)   biodiversity credits could support different types of activities, such as Māori-led initiatives to restore, maintain and/or improve indigenous biodiversity in accordance with local expressions of mātauranga Māori

c)   a biodiversity credit system could help to recognise hapū and iwi for their stewardship of nature and resource them to go further.

43.     However, to achieve these benefits, the discussion document states that a critical consideration in the design of a biodiversity credit system for Aotearoa New Zealand will be that it must give effect to te Tiriti, and should also recognise the unique rights, interest and obligations of Māori to taonga species and mātauranga Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

44.     There is a lack of detail in the discussion document on how the design and implementation of a biodiversity credit system will be funded. It is not possible to estimate financial implications for Auckland Council until the system is further developed and the role of regional and unitary councils and territorial authorities in helping to administer the system is clarified.

45.     There may be some cost efficiencies to be achieved if a central database or registry of biodiversity credits and verified biodiversity-related activities is established, which could be used by local government to track credits and monitor outcomes in their regions. This is a similar approach to that taken by regional chief executives for a shared model for Freshwater Farm Plan certifiers and auditors in order to provide a consistent, robust, and financially efficient solution for all 16 regional councils.

46.     In addition, there is potential for biodiversity credits to be purchased or sold by council, which could be used to fund additional biodiversity improvement activities on public land undertaken by council and/or local boards or community groups.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47.     While there are potentially many benefits associated with a biodiversity credit system, the draft submission also highlights some risks associated with an unregulated biodiversity credit market, such as the potential for unverified claims of biodiversity benefits, buyers losing trust and reducing uptake of credits, and at worst resulting in detrimental impacts on biodiversity rather than protecting it.

48.     The draft submission also notes a potential disadvantage of a biodiversity credit system is the risk that funding generated from biodiversity credits is allowed to soften the requirements on government budgets allocated to protecting and restoring indigenous biodiversity and does not end up being additional.

49.     There is also a risk that regulatory processes and licensing regimes can have a stifling effect on the diversity of offerings and models that might be provided in a voluntary or unregulated market. Regulatory regimes can force a significant degree of conformity and uniformity. They can limit the ways in which actors in a system can genuinely innovate. One mitigation could be for the certain use of credits to have various thresholds or safeguards, such that system constraints are tailored to where risks and opportunities are best managed.


 

50.     The use of biodiversity credits to avoid damage or loss of biodiversity (i.e. biodiversity offsets) could result in a high risk of increasing financial incentives for biodiversity loss. To reduce this risk, the submission suggests that a cautious approach be taken to consideration of whether biodiversity credits should be used to offset development impacts, taking note of the strict parameters outlined in our submission.

51.     Providing a council submission that is supportive in principle, while identifying matters such as the risks above where further consideration will be required, should aid central government in subsequent stages of developing a robust and credible biodiversity credit system for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52.     Consultation on the biodiversity credit system discussion document closes on 3 November 2023. Delegated members of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee will be provided a completed submission for their approval on 20 October 2023. Staff will dispatch to MfE once approval has been received.

53.     MfE staff have indicated that, depending on the new government’s priorities, there is likely to be a further opportunity to engage on a proposed biodiversity credit system within about 6-9 months. Therefore, Auckland Council will have the opportunity to better understand its potential role and the likely implications of the proposed system and provide a more detailed view on whether to support it at that time.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Biodiversity Credit System - Draft Submission for Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Taran Livingston - Lead Analyst Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2022-2023: Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report 2022-2023

File No.: CP2023/13844

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the annual Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2022-2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2022-2023 shows how the council group is contributing to the 10 mana outcomes of Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau and the 10-year Budget priorities.

3.       Highlights for the 2022-2023 year include:

·    The commissioned review of Auckland Council’s engagement with Māori and the resulting ‘Beyond Obligations’ report - As a direct result of this report, Auckland Council has increased the capacity funding for mana whenua, and up to six mataawaka, commencing in the upcoming financial year 2023/2024, to resource their engagement in core Auckland Council processes, including the 10-year and annual budget, and bi-lateral engagements with Auckland Council.

·    Use of the Manaaki Fund to support the Flood and Cyclone Response - Fifteen Māori-led active responders representing mana whenua entities, marae and Māori community providers in Tāmaki Makaurau received grants to support whānau Māori with flood and cyclone relief services during both the Auckland Anniversary Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle to a total of $266,444.

·    Working in partnership for the taiao – Māori and the Auckland Council group have worked together on many large-scale projects that aim to enhance the mauri (life force) of te taiao (the environment). Auckland Council and mana whenua can be proud of the partnerships that have been formed during these projects. Some, such as Te Auaunga (Oakley Creek) and Awakeri Wetlands have developed over many years, and they proved invaluable during the January floods, in addition to their many other benefits. Auckland Council has been able to learn valuable lessons that it can take forward into new projects as the region tackles the challenge of climate change and adaptation. 

·    Te Matatini Herenga Waka Herenga Tangata – Auckland Council invested $1.3m of the Māori Outcomes Fund to the festival, with Tātaki Auckland Unlimited taking the lead to coordinate across council support and involvement. The festival is estimated to have made a direct economic contribution of almost $22 million to Tamaki Makaurau /Auckland and provided an incredible boost in cultural pride and wellbeing for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau and across Aotearoa.

·    Māori Outcomes Fund (MOF) - Projects and longer-term programmes funded using the MOF progressed, although significant underspend was incurred in the Marae Infrastructure Programme due to staffing and supply issues. Delays to the development and roll out of the Capacity Uplift project was also a contributor. Of the 24 initiatives funded during the year, nine have been closed; one the Western Kiosk – will be completed early in 2023, one is on hold and 13 are scheduled to continue. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the annual Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2022-2023.

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       The council group published its first Māori Outcomes Report in 2019. This fifth edition flows on from earlier reports and provides information on our performance and showcases what has been achieved. Each report aims to provide a comprehensive picture of annual progress to Māori partners, elected members, leaders in governance, decision-makers across the council group and whānau Māori.

5.       Māori identity and wellbeing is one of six key outcomes outlined in the Auckland Plan 2050. To advance this outcome, 10 strategic priorities are set in the council’s 10-year Budget with $150 million allocated specifically for supporting delivery of Māori outcome initiatives in addition to baseline budgets.

6.       The Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, aligns these 10 strategic priorities with 10 mana outcomes – areas identified by Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau that matter most to them. 

Figure 1. Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Outcomes



7.       Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau (KOTM) provides clear direction for the council group by identifying focus areas to best influence and channel resources. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Governance and Structure

8.       Following recommendations from the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s ‘Māori outcomes expenditure review’, work was undertaken in 2022 to improve the governance structure of the Māori outcomes portfolio. This includes the replacement of the Māori Outcomes Steering Group with two new governance groups: An Enablement Board and a Programme Delivery Board.

9.       The Programme Delivery Board (replacing the former Māori Outcomes Steering Group) now administers KOTM. It is made up of Māori Outcome Leads from council and council-controlled organisations, and members of the Secretariat for the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The Programme Delivery Board’s purpose is broader than the administration of the Māori Outcomes Fund. It is accountable for the collective leadership, planning, delivery and implementation of programmes that deliver the KOTM outcome.

10.     The Enablement Board supports the Programme Delivery Board. It is made up of senior staff that deliver, monitor and report on KOTM, and is pivotal to the realisation of outcome areas Kia Ora te Hononga (Effective Māori participation) and Kia Hāngai te Kaunihera (An empowered organisation.) This Enablement Board is responsible for the implementation of Treaty Audit recommendations. Both boards are overseen by the Chief Executives’ Forum, comprising Auckland Council, the council-controlled organisations and the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

11.     The Ngā Mātārae (Māori Outcomes) directorate at Auckland Council has had an acting Tumuaki Huanga Māori/ Director of Ngā Mātārae Māori Outcomes in the role since May 2023. A permanent appointment is expected to be made in FY24.

Māori Outcomes Fund and delivery

12.     The 10-year Budget allocates $150 million over 10 years towards the achievement of Māori outcomes.

13.     For the financial year 2022/2023, the direct spend on activities specific to Māori identity and wellbeing was $10.7 million (61 per cent) of the $17.6 million budget.

14.     The primary reasons for the underspend of are project capacity constraints leading to delays in the Marae Infrastructure Programme, and constraints delaying the scoping and roll-out of a new programme to support iwi and mataawaka participatory capacity.

15.     The remaining unspent funds have been reallocated to future years of the LTP.

Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau: Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework

16.     Auckland Council Group uses the mana outcomes and strategic priorities set out in Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau to guide our progress. See Attachment A for the full report with case studies, highlights and performance measures across all 10 Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau outcomes.

17.     A snapshot of activity in three outcome areas are noted below.

Kia Ora te Hononga – Effective Māori participation 

18.     The Annual Budget 2023/2024 consultation included specific engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka. The council received a record-breaking 41,146 pieces of feedback, including 13 written submissions from mana whenua entities. Of individual submitters who identified their ethnicity eight per cent of these identified as Māori. Eleven mana whenua entities also took the opportunity to present their feedback on the proposed Annual Budget 2023/2024, and raise other matters of significance to their iwi, ā-kānohi (in person), through a ‘Have Your Say Event’ with the council’s Governing Body.


 

Kia Ora te Umanga – Māori business, tourism and employment 

19.     Amotai works across the Auckland Council Group to progress procurement opportunities for Māori businesses in Tāmaki, with funding for its work in Tāmaki Makaurau via the Māori Outcomes Fund. This financial year Amotai worked with 505 Māori suppliers and supported those suppliers to access circa $55m of procurement opportunities across Council Group. This represents a 34 per cent increase of the suppliers compared to 2021-2023, reflecting the ongoing mahi of Amotai to connect buyers with Māori businesses, contributing to the outcome of a thriving Māori economy.

Kia Ora te Marae – Marae development 

20.     The Marae Infrastructure Programme (MIP) is in its fifth year and is dedicated to improving the conditions of 32 identified marae across Tāmaki Makaurau for mana whenua and mataawaka over a 10-year period.

21.     The $60 million MIP helps marae meet Building Warrant of Fitness standards and increase their Code of Compliance where possible, supporting the creation and maintenance of safe and healthy marae for whānau in Tāmaki Makaurau.

22.     This year 24 marae received support, exceeding the target of 22. Seventeen marae received infrastructure support via MIP, the Cultural Initiatives Fund, Auckland Transport and local board funding. A further seven marae received support via the Manaaki Fund and local board grants to manaaki (support) their communities.

Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau Implementation Plan 

23.     The Māori Outcomes Expenditure Review, commissioned by the Independent Māori Statutory Board in 2021 recommended development of a strategy to support the implementation of Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau.

24.     In response to this recommendation, in 2022 the KOTM Implementation Strategy was developed and work began to direct council resources and efforts to achieve the greatest impact for Māori.

25.     The Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau measures are currently output-focused but with the implementation strategy work and ongoing review of KOTM, Ngā Mātārae will be further improving the measures to become more focused on measurable impact for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau. This work supports the broader cross-council effort to improve measurement and better demonstrate impact of activity undertaken.

Manaaki Fund 2023

26.     In 2020, one of the most important initiatives to come from the ‘by Māori, for Māori’ response was the Manaaki Fund, a one-off recovery and resilience grant that supported Auckland Council’s Māori partners as they responded to, aided recovery from, and built resilience from the impacts of COVID-19.

27.     The Manaaki Fund was reactivated during the local State of Emergency declared in response to the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Its purpose was to support Māori-led active responders in Tāmaki Makaurau who were predominantly supporting whānau Māori with flood and cyclone relief services during both the severe weather events.

28.     Fifteen Māori-led active responders representing mana whenua entities, marae and Māori community providers in Tāmaki Makaurau received grants to support whānau Māori with flood and cyclone relief services during both the Auckland Anniversary Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle to a total of $266,444.

29.     Recipients shared stories of the support they were able to provide to affected whānau across Tāmaki Makaurau including the provision of kai parcels, clean and dry bedding, and hygiene items to support whānau wellbeing, and to provide safe places for whānau.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30.     Climate change has a significant impact across several of the Māori Outcome Strategic Priorities including Kia Ora te Taiao and Kia Ora te Marae. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri- Auckland’s Climate Plan, and its priority area of Te Puāwaitanga ō te Tātai, provide direction on active kaitiakitanga to involve Māori in decisions about the council’s climate change responses in Tāmaki Makaurau. These priorities will incorporated into the KOTM Implementation Strategy as part of its ongoing development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31.     Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau provides direction to the council group on the delivery of Māori outcomes and enables the monitoring and measurement of the council group’s contribution towards these outcomes.

32.     Monitoring and reporting of outcomes delivery sits across the council group, and discussions with the respective CCO Māori outcome leads will continue as the framework, work programmes and performance measures are reviewed.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33.     Local boards will receive the Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2022-2023.

34.     Local board three-year plans now include a section on Māori outcomes to ensure boards document their commitment to te Tiriti o Waitangi through Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau and demonstrate how they will meet their obligations to the Māori community in their region.

35.     Local boards have been provided with cultural and strategic planning advice to support the development of the plans and to enable boards to advocate for and achieve positive outcomes for Māori through the three-year plan life cycle.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36.     The foundation for Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau is to ensure the Auckland Council Group is focused on and delivering positive outcomes for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau. The Annual Māori outcomes report is a key tool and resource to ensure the impact of council group activity is having the intended impact for Māori. This approach will continue to be improved and developed as Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau is further embedded across the organisation and business as usual.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37.     The 10-year budget includes a Māori Outcomes Fund of $150m over a 10-year period and is a key enabler for the council group to deliver on Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau. In addition to the fund, the Māori outcomes portfolio includes council and CCO baseline budgets used towards programmes and projects specifically targeted at delivering outcomes for Māori.

38.     The Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau Implementation Strategy will drive Long-term Plan bids for funding to deliver outcomes and identify opportunities for existing budgets to be reviewed and aligned to outcome work programmes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39.     There is a risk the council group may be unable to meet its responsibilities to Māori, resulting in a range of significant impacts and consequences including social inequality, breach of statutory obligations and a loss of trust and confidence in council by Māori.

40.     As part of the mitigation approach, Māori outcomes is included in council’s risk register and is monitored regularly by Ngā Mātārāe.

41.     Ngā Mātārae adopts a continuous improvement approach to all aspects of the governance and delivery of Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau to mitigate risks and issues.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42.     The Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2022-2023 will be published and distributed to mana whenua iwi, mataawaka entities, elected members, senior leadership across the council group, and key partners. Note that this year digital copies will be distributed to help manage cost and reduce council’s carbon footprint.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council Group Māori Outcomes Report: Te Pūrongo a Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ngā Huanga Māori 2022-2023

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Mary-Louise Stocker - Advisor - Maori Outcomes

Authorisers

Richard Court - Acting Head of Māori Strategic Outcomes/ Ngā Mātārae

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - Acting Tumuaki Huanga Māori | Director Māori Outcomes/ Ngā Mātārae

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

I Am Auckland three year review

File No.: CP2023/13854

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To whakaae / present the findings of the I Am Auckland review and seek approval that the strategic priorities for children and young people are nested under the Ngā Hapori Momoho/ Thriving Communities strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       As requested, staff undertook a three-year review of I Am Auckland (PAC/2021/42) and based on the findings considered the following options for council’s future commitment to children and young people:

·    Option one: No dedicated child and youth strategy

·    Option two: Enhance the current strategy

·    Option three: New strategy and approach

·    Option four: Strategic priorities for children and young people nested under the Ngā Hapori Momoho/Thriving Communities strategy.

3.       Staff recommend option four because it will respond to the changing context for children and young people, improve on the weaknesses of the current strategy, progress partnerships, and deliver on the consolidation of council strategies without diluting council’s commitment to improving child and youth wellbeing.  

4.       Staff engaged with children and young people who shared that although there are many positive things in their lives, there are significant challenges that council can help to improve.

5.       The review found some children and young people are facing persistent disadvantage and council could better target its support to help address this.   

6.       There are low to medium reputational, strategic, and delivery risks to this recommendation. It is a new approach for council, and it will take time to support staff across council group to adjust their practice. These risks can be mitigated through a detailed project and engagement plan. 

7.       If the recommended option is approved, staff will report back to the committee in 2024 on the project scope. The full review can be found in Attachment A. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve that the strategic priorities for children and young people are nested under the Ngā Hapori Momoho/Thriving Communities strategy.

b)      whakaae / approve the associated next steps to develop council’s strategic commitment to tamariki and rangatahi as set on in paragraph 109 of this report.

 

Horopaki

Context

I Am Auckland was adopted in 2013 as a critical strategic action plan 

8.       I Am Auckland is Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland Council’s strategic action plan to support the wellbeing of children and young people in Tāmaki Makaurau. It was adopted in 2013 and has seven goals aligned to the Auckland Plan outcomes. It was developed based on feedback from tamariki and rangatahi.  

9.       The adoption of I Am Auckland came soon after the establishment of the unitary authority and was a demonstration of Auckland Council’s region-wide commitment to children and young people. 

Since the adoption of I Am Auckland, the context has changed significantly 

10.     Emerging trends, such as climate change and the future of work and education have become more relevant factors for tamariki and rangatahi.

11.     Deteriorating mental health, high rates of child poverty, and access to safe, warm, and dry housing are considerable issues facing children and young people today.  

12.     The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic have also been significant for children and young people.  

13.     There has been a change in the strategy landscape since 2013. National strategies focusing on improving child and youth wellbeing have been developed, as well as the adoption of relevant strategies within council such as the Ngā Hapori Momoho/Thriving Communities strategy.  

Committee requested a three-year review of I Am Auckland  

14.     The objective of the review was to evaluate the past three years of delivery and implementation (from 2021), review the monitoring and evaluation of the strategy, and determine whether the strategy is fit for purpose. 

15.     To inform the review, staff undertook a comprehensive methodology including desktop and futures scenario research, engagement with children and young people, the sector and council staff, and an evaluation of selected council programmes. 

16.     Several supporting documents presented findings from the research and engagement, including A Profile of Children and Young People in Auckland: 2022 Update, which was distributed to elected members in 2022, and Voices of children and young people from Tāmaki Makaurau, provided to councillors by information memorandum on 12 June 2023. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Key Findings: Engagement  

17.     Staff used a range of methods to engage with 400 tamariki and rangatahi1 and over 100 people working in the child and youth sector. Below summarises the engagement, further information can be found on page 24 the review (Attachment A).

18.     The purpose of the engagement was to hear what was going well for tamariki and rangatahi, and areas that needed addressing.

Tamariki and rangatahi love many things about Auckland 

“Everything is awesome in Tāmaki Makaurau! Everything at your fingertips <3”
- 16-year-old, Pākehā, Māori, Manurewa Local Board.
 

 

 


19.     Most children and young people spoke positively about growing up in Tāmaki Makaurau. Many mentioned the beaches, the Zoo, cultural festivals, parks, playgrounds, and the natural environment as their favourite thing about Auckland. 

20.     Children and young people feel connected to their places and communities. Some young people shared that Auckland’s diversity provides opportunities to connect with their own culture and meet people from other cultures.  

Children and young people would like to see some improvements to Auckland

“I’m very reliant on public transport but it’s not very reliable”
- 18-year-old, non-binary, Pākehā, Devonport-Takapuna Local Board.
 

 

 


21.     Children and young people shared that they want to see safer, more reliable, and more frequent public transport and better walkways and cycleways. 

22.     Housing concerns were frequently raised. Some young people told us that more houses should be built for extended families and intergenerational living.

23.     Auckland can feel unsafe for some children and young people. Crime, excessive use of smoking, drugs, and alcohol were concerns raised. Rainbow young people often told us they didn’t feel safe in public spaces. 

Some children and young people are facing persistent disadvantage 

“It almost feels like I am guaranteed a spot in a cell”
- workshop participant.
 

 

 


24.     Tamariki and rangatahi Māori, Pacific children and young people, rainbow children and young people, and disabled children are more likely to experience inequity across a range of measures compared with their peers. 

25.     Children and young people are concerned about the cost of living. Some lacked access to necessities like clothes and toothpaste.

26.     Some young people are growing up in environments where crime is hard to avoid. They talked about lives with gang affiliation and intergenerational trauma.

27.     Poor mental health and discrimination is a concern for many children and young people. They often struggle to find support and professional help.

The sector shared what is helping children and young people and gaps in support 

28.     The child and youth sector reflected that many children and young people have supportive networks and relationships and have access to recreation spaces and community activities. 

29.     Many organisations had seen an increase in disclosures of poor mental health, and called for more targeted support, and better early intervention and prevention methods.  

The child and youth sector want to work differently with council to address issues 

30.     Common suggestions for how council could improve its support included longer-term funding models, a partnership approach to contracting, and leveraging its facilities and programmes to better serve smaller organisations and disconnected children and young people.

Key Findings: Implementation and evaluation of I Am Auckland  

The review highlighted the disconnect between strategy and activity 

31.     I Am Auckland was designed to operationalise the Auckland Plan through informing programming decisions for child and youth services. The three-year review has shown that this is not happening as anticipated. 

32.     Many teams that work with tamariki and rangatahi do not use I Am Auckland to guide activity. Instead, teams often align with more culturally relevant or programme-specific strategic outcomes. 

33.     This is despite efforts to socialise the strategy and the development of an implementation plan and evaluation framework. 

34.     Similar findings in other strategy reviews (Toi Whītiki, for example) suggest there is a wider issue of detachment between regional strategies and operational delivery across council. 

35.     This disconnect needs to be addressed for council to make strategic investments and remain transparent about its programming decisions.

Data, insights, and evaluation are not regularly used for learning and improvement 

36.     The review found that very few teams were aware the I Am Auckland evaluation plan existed. Consequently, it was not driving changes or improvements to services and programmes.

37.     Programme evaluation and cross-council learning is not prioritised for I Am Auckland, and there is no shared approach to gathering and sharing data and insights.

38.     Staff felt the evaluation process could be strengthened by including qualitative data, capturing the stories of the outcomes for children and young people, alongside quantitative data.

I Am Auckland’s stocktake process is not driving accountability

39.     Council has monitored delivery against I Am Auckland since 2019 through a process that tracks which goals council activity aligns with, and which population group the activity is serving. 

40.     This monitoring and reporting is a critical accountability mechanism between council and Aucklanders.

41.     Staff shared that they find the stocktake process cumbersome, that reporting against the seven goals does not reflect the interconnected nature of activity, and that it is too focused on internal monitoring rather than improving child and youth wellbeing.

42.     The stocktake requires operational staff to input their individual activities. Due to low awareness and/or buy-in and other factors such as structural and staff changes and competing priorities there are often multiple challenges in accurate and timely reporting.

Some council activity is improving outcomes for children and young people 

43.     The Centre for Social Impact evaluated six selected council programmes to understand their impact on child and youth outcomes, alignment to I Am Auckland, and opportunities for improvement. 

44.     The evaluation found that these council programmes are achieving positive outcomes for children and young people. In some cases, additional positive outcomes beyond what had originally been identified have been achieved. 

45.     It also found that while the activity was consistent with I Am Auckland goals, the strategy was rarely used to guide the programmes. Without alignment to strategy, council’s interventions can be ad hoc, and it makes it challenging to promote, evaluate and remain accountable for outcomes.

Key Findings: ways council could improve its support 

46.     While there are many positive things in the lives of tamariki and rangatahi, the review findings show there are also significant challenges. 

47.     Many of the challenges relate to complex societal issues that council does not have control over. However, there are opportunities for council to use our levers better and differently to improve our support for children and young people.  

48.     Below are some examples of ways to improve that respond to the insights of this review. 

Council could better target its support for tamariki and rangatahi 

49.     Some children and young people are being left behind and council could better target our support and investment to those facing the greatest disadvantage across several indicators.

50.     Children and young people emphasised the importance of participation, connection, and access. Council could support this through continued investment in accessible transport, community facilities, and open spaces.

51.     Culturally relevant and suitable mechanisms for children and young people to have a voice in big decisions about the region should be a priority for council. 

Council should review the design and implementation of its strategic commitment 

52.     Support for children and young people could be better informed by te ao Māori. Embedding concepts such as manaakitanga, kaitiakitanga and whanaungatanga could strengthen council’s strategic and operational approach. 

53.     Council could focus on systems change rather than discrete programmes. A supporting theory of change could help staff understand their contribution to broader outcomes, build partnerships, and prioritise evaluation and learning. This shift to appreciating the interconnectedness of outcomes could improve the link between strategic direction and activity. 

54.     Council could review its partnership and funding arrangements, including how we could increase collaboration and coordination within the sector and with other strategies.

Key Findings – the problem with I Am Auckland 

55.     The review found that although council is providing some quality programmes for children and young people, there is not a consistent approach across the council group and I Am Auckland is not effectively driving council activity or responding to the current context.

56.     The table below presents the key problems with I Am Auckland and the impact of the shortfalls. 

Problem description 

Description

I Am Auckland’s strategic direction is not being implemented. It is not informing investment and programme decisions, driving accountability, and delivering to the Auckland Plan as effectively as it should. 

Cause

I Am Auckland’s is no longer fit for the future. The strategy does not adequately reflect persistent challenges and the current and future context for tamariki and rangatahi.  

Scope

As a regional strategy, I Am Auckland should be contributing to the improvement of outcomes and ensuring accountability between council and Aucklanders.  

Impact

There are implications on meeting the Auckland Plan outcomes of Belonging and Participation, and Māori Identify and Wellbeing.  

I Am Auckland does not focus its outcomes, or target investment, to those facing the greatest barriers to participation and/or persistent disadvantage (tamariki and rangatahi Māori, Pacific children and young people, rainbow children and young people, and disabled children). 

The strategy could better support Tāmaki Makaurau’s general children and young people population.  

 

57.     Further analysis of I Am Auckland can be found in Part Three of the review (Attachment A).

Key Findings – four options for council to consider

58.     Staff considered four options for how council could respond to the findings. The full description and analysis of each option can be found in Part 4 of Attachment A. 

·    Option one: No dedicated child and youth strategy

·    Option two: Enhance the current strategy

·    Option three: New strategy and approach

·    Option four: Strategic priorities for children and young people nested under the Ngā Hapori Momoho/Thriving Communities strategy.

Staff identified advantages and disadvantages of each option 

Option one: No dedicated child and youth strategy.  

59.     This would remove a standalone strategy for children and young people, with activity required to align to existing council strategies. Only limited evaluation and monitoring would be necessary. 

60.     Option one could support the request for a consolidation of strategies and responds to staff feedback that the evaluation and monitoring process is cumbersome. 

61.     This option would deprioritise the specific needs of children and young people and would not respond to the findings of the review.

62.     It would not drive more targeted, evidence-based investment and activity. Nor would it enable partnerships on shared outcomes or improve accountability to Aucklanders. 

Option two: Enhance the current strategy.  

63.     The standalone strategy would remain, largely in its current form (I Am Auckland, seven goals). The enhancement would be through addressing the shortfalls of the monitoring and evaluation processes. 

64.     Option two would retain council’s commitment to children and young people, and an improved monitoring process would be beneficial for many stakeholders. 

65.     Its lack of responsiveness to the findings of the review could mean that the strategy struggles to remain relevant and effective. 

Option three: New strategy and approach.  

66.     A new strategy would be developed to replace I Am Auckland. It would consider the totality of the findings from this review. 

67.     Option three could result in a future-focussed strategy, which responds to the changing needs of children and young people. Drawing on the findings of the review would mean more targeted, ‘best practice’ support is prioritised. 

68.     It would be a time and resource intensive option to both develop and implement and would not respond to the request for strategy consolidation.

Option four: Strategic priorities nested under Ngā Hapori Momoho.  

69.     A standalone strategy would be replaced by a nesting approach which would include a mandate to prioritise outcomes for children and young people (targeting those facing the greatest disadvantage), supported by policy positions and actions directly linked to Ngā Hapori Momoho outcomes.

70.     Option four supports the request for a consolidation of strategies while maintaining a focus on children and young people. 

71.     Maintaining this focus while also applying the Ngā Hapori Momoho key shifts, would enable council to identify partnership and co-investment opportunities with the sector and central government.

72.     This emphasis on partnership aligns with the mayor’s vision, and direction from elected members, for council to unlock co-investment opportunities and clarify what is our role versus that of central government and other stakeholders.

73.     Ngā Hapori Momoho already prioritises many of the findings from this review, including a focus on equity, targeted investment principles, and appreciating the interconnectedness of complex challenges. 

74.     As it is a new approach, option four could take time to socialise and embed. 

The options were assessed against an assessment criteria  

75.     Staff developed an assessment criteria to enable comparison of the four options. Each criterion is drawn from the review findings. 

Assessment criteria  

The extent to which each option responds to: 

1.   Context: does it consider the current and predicted future context for children and young people.  

 

2.   Effectiveness:  

a.   will it help council respond to the challenges and opportunities facing children and young people to improve their wellbeing  

b.   is it likely to contribute to addressing inequities for children and young people  

c.   does it support council staff to respond to the directive for a consolidation of strategies. 

 

3.   Accountability: will it improve accountability between:

a.   council and residents and young people

b.   council and key partners

c.   council and CCOs, and council teams. 

 

4.   Resourcing:  

a.   can it be designed, implemented, and maintained within the existing resourcing context 

b.   will it strengthen/clarify council’s investment decisions. 

 

76.     A classification system of ticks, three being the most, was marked against each criterion. Fewer ticks correspond to weaker achievement. The criteria are unweighted and allow for objective assessment. 

Options assessment summary  

Option

Context

Effectiveness

Accountability

Resourcing

Outcomes (a&b)

Process (c)

Option 1: no dedicated youth strategy. 

 

 

✓✓ 

 

✓✓ 

Option 2: enhance the current strategy. 

 

 

 

 

✓✓ 

Option 3: new strategy and approach. 

✓✓✓ 

✓✓✓ 

 

✓✓ 

 

Option 4: strategic priorities nested under Ngā Hapori Momoho. 

✓✓✓ 

✓✓✓ 

✓✓✓ 

✓✓✓ 

✓✓ 

77.     Option one: no dedicated child and youth strategy, did not score favourably on many of the criteria. This is largely because the removal of a focus on children and young people would not enable council to respond to the findings of this review. 

78.     Option two: enhance the current strategy, also scored comparatively low on the contextualised, effectiveness, and accountability criteria. Again, this reflects the shortfalls of the current strategic action plan. 

79.     The resourcing score of both option one and two reflects the fact that although major changes to the strategy are outside of the scope for these options, neither option is likely to result in more targeted investment. 

80.     Through the options assessment council staff concluded there is a weak strategic case to invest in options one or two.

81.     Option three: new strategy and approach, scored well on how it would respond to the current and future context, improve outcomes for children and young people, and scored relatively well on accountability. However, it scored the lowest on the resourcing criterion. It would be resource intensive to develop and implement, even if it eventually led to more targeted investment.

82.     Through the options assessment council staff concluded there is a weak implementation case to invest in option three.  

83.     Option four scored the highest overall against the criteria. The connections between the findings of this report and direction of Ngā Hapori Momoho present the opportunity for a deliberate linking of the two programmes of work. 

84.     Option four was found to best respond to the shortfalls of I Am Auckland, enable greater strategic investment and partnership working, and address the request for a consolidation of council strategies, while maintaining council’s commitment to improving child and youth wellbeing.  

85.     Staff recommend committee approve option four: strategic priorities nested under the Ngā Hapori Momoho/Thriving Communities strategy. 

86.     The significant trade-off between option three: new strategy and approach and option four: strategic priorities nested under Ngā Hapori Momoho, is that option four is a new approach for council, so it could take some time to embed. This trade-off is also a risk for option four (see paragraph 108). 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

87.     Throughout the engagement process, children and young people shared their love for the natural environment and desire for it to be protected. 

88.     Engagement with council kaimahi and the child and youth sector revealed that climate anxiety is a significant issue for the young people they work with. 

89.     The future scenarios research identified that the changing climate is likely to have a significant impact on child and youth wellbeing in the future. 

90.     It was concluded that I Am Auckland does not adequately respond to the significance of climate issues for child and youth wellbeing.  

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

91.     I Am Auckland is a regional strategic action plan designed to guide the delivery of programmes and services for children and young people across all the council group.

92.     Engagement for the review included interviews with staff from across the council group that deliver services and programmes to tamariki and rangatahi. Staff we spoke with shared similar views to that of children and young people and the sector (see paragraphs 17 to 30). 

93.     Many of the issues and opportunities shared by children and young people through the engagement will require the involvement of various CCOs. For example, Auckland Transport has a direct influence on the reliability and accessibility of public transport.

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

Local impacts and local board views

94.     As it was a review of a regional strategy, there was no targeted engagement with local boards. 

95.     Engagement with children and young people in place was informed by local board strategic brokers and engagement advisors. 

96.     Local board members received the Voices of children and young people from Tāmaki Makaurau report by information memorandum on 24 July 2023. 

97.     Staff will engage local boards in the redevelopment of the strategy in accordance with the Governance Framework Review guidance on regional policy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

98.     Tamariki and rangatahi are taonga, treasured members of Māori communities and whānau. 

99.     Over half of the Māori population (50.1 per cent) in Auckland is 24 years old or younger.

Tamariki and rangatahi Māori wellbeing is a priority for Auckland Council  

100.   I Am Auckland, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board Māori Plan all emphasise tamariki and rangatahi development as an issue of significance. 

101.   ​These strategies work to operationalise the Auckland Plan’s goals of Belonging and Participation, Māori Identity and Wellbeing and Opportunity and Prosperity for tamariki and rangatahi Māori.

Engaging with Māori youth was critical to the review of I Am Auckland 

102.   Māori children and young people made up 12 per cent of total engagement responses for the review of I Am Auckland. Meaning they were slightly underrepresented, as Māori make up 17 per cent of Auckland’s total population. 

103.   Māori youth made up 25 per cent of participants in targeted engagement methods such as empathy interviews and spoken word poetry. Through relationships between young people and community partners, Māori young people were supported to share their voice through methods that encouraged storytelling and connection to culture.

Input into the review was sought from mana whenua and mataawaka organisations  

104.   Staff contacted 19 mana whenua iwi, and multiple mataawaka organisations to inform them of the work and invite participation in the review. Three iwi responded and met with staff to discuss priorities and build relationships. 

105.   Due to conflicting timelines the engagement did not go further than the initial hui. 

106.   Mana whenua will have the opportunity to participate, and input based on their engagement preference following the committee’s decision. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

107.   The recommended option (option four) can be delivered within existing budgets and staff resources.  

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

108.   The table below presents two key risks to the recommended option and how they could be mitigated.  

If 

Then  

Possible mitigations 

The option is not effectively implemented   

Council will struggle to improve child and youth wellbeing or make strategic investment decisions.  

There will be a lack of clarity about how council should best support tamariki and rangatahi. 

Council’s accountability with Aucklanders will weaken.  

A medium strategic and delivery risk.

A detailed project management plan, and close working relationship with the Ngā Hapori Momoho policy lead.  

Clear guidance about how the ‘nesting approach’ will be implemented and supported by monitoring mechanisms.  

An engagement and communication plan, including opportunities for testing the approach with a range of stakeholders.   

Internal working groups to address identified issues and to report on progress.  

The approach results in a loss of focus on the needs of children and young people.  

Trust and relationships between council and stakeholders (children and young people and the sector, for example) could weaken.  

Council’s reputation is challenged because it is not seen to be prioritising a critical population group.  

Strategic investment decisions directed at child and youth wellbeing do not eventuate.  

A low reputational, strategic, and delivery risk. 

A detailed scope which clarifies council’s role and commitment to the process. 

Channels prioritising hearing from children and young people are developed.  

An explicit mandate and policy positions clarifying council’s commitment to children and young people is shared across council.  

Examples of what the option could look like in practice is circulated to staff following committee’s decision.  

The investment principles are tested with staff and the trade-offs clearly communicated.  

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

109.   The next phase includes a detailed programme for the approved option: planning, design, and delivery. 

110.   Staff will present this to committee in 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

I Am Auckland three year review

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Hannah Anderson - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Liz Civil - Manager Community Policy

Kataraina Maki - General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Age Friendly Auckland annual report

File No.: CP2023/13142

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the annual progress report on the Tāmaki Makaurau Tauawhi Kaumātua Age Friendly Auckland Action Plan and seek approval of the next steps.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Tāmaki Makaurau Tauawhi Kaumātua Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan (the action plan) is a region-wide cross sector plan to improve the wellbeing of older Aucklanders.

3.       Staff undertook research and engagement to assess progress since the plan’s adoption. Key findings of the annal report (see Attachment A) are:

·     70% of 106 actions are underway or completed

·     the most progress has been in areas related to Respect and Social Inclusion and Communication and Information

·     COVID, extreme weather events, and funding issues impacted on progress with Housing and Te Taiao (the Natural and Built Environments)

·     in-person hui are critical in connecting the aged-sector and supporting progress

·     a dedicated coordination resource would support greater connection and collaboration in the sector, drive implementation of the action plan and deliver more impact

·     improved communication between council, government and the aged sector will progress outcomes faster

·     information in different languages and mediums, and utilising existing community networks is a more effective way to ensure the safety of older Aucklanders in future emergencies

·     more specific and measurable actions would make monitoring easier and effective.

4.       Staff recommend that next steps include:

·     sharing the annual report findings and insights with all relevant parties

·     investigating best practice regarding flood preparedness for older people

·    investigating opportunities to secure more resources to support sector collaboration.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      ohia / endorse the information contained in this report

b)      tono / request that staff, as delegated through the chief executive, undertake an annual report in 2024

c)       tono / request that staff:

i)       share the learnings from the impact of extreme weather events in January and February 2023 on older Aucklanders with the Auckland Emergency Management and the Flood Recovery Office

ii)       investigate best practice regarding flood preparedness for older people

iii)      liaise with central government about jointly resourcing a community-based aged sector coordinator to drive implementation of the action plan and improve impacts.

Horopaki

Context

5.       An aged friendly action plan was developed after engagement with over 5000 Aucklanders of all ages and backgrounds.

6.       The action plan reflects council’s commitment to create a region that supports the wellbeing of older people.

7.       It was adopted by the Governing Body in November 2021 [PAC/2021/52 refers].

8.       In February 2022, Auckland Council became a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) Age-Friendly Network of Cities and Communities.

9.       The action plan is based on a WHO age-friendly framework, but it is also supported by Te Whare Tapa Whā – a Māori wellbeing model (see Figure 1 in Attachment A).

10.     The action plan includes 10 domain areas that provide direction for council, council-controlled organisations and aged-sector organisations to deliver improved wellbeing outcomes for older Aucklanders.

11.     A cross-agency implementation group, Te Rōpū Whakamana ki te Ao (Te Rōpū), was established in 2022 to provide leadership and oversight of implementation of the action plan. The group’s purpose is to facilitate information sharing and learning as well as enable collaboration and collective action.

12.     Te Rōpū comprises representatives from across the council whānau and diverse representatives of the aged sector (see page 10 of Attachment A for current members).

13.     Working with the Chair and members of Te Rōpū, staff undertook research and engagement with delivery partners to assess progress on implementation of the action plan.

14.     This report presents the findings from that review. This is the first annual progress report since the action plan was adopted.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     Findings from research and stakeholder engagement are provided in the annual progress report in Attachment A.

16.     Table 1 below gives an overview of the issues currently for the aged sector in Tāmaki Makaurau, how the plan is delivering impact for older people, and how recommended actions could improve outcomes.

Table 1: Analysis of age-friendly issues, impacts and options to improve outcomes

CURRENT STATE

RECOMMENDED ACTION

FUTURE STATE

Currently…

If the sector…

It will lead to…

Council, government, and sector connections are weak:

·    building and maintaining sector connections is resource intensive

·    some good work is happening on the action plan but sporadically and in pockets - there is potential for more collective action and impact

·    communication and relationships between council, government and sector could be improved.

Had dedicated resource to coordinate the aged sector.

A more connected sector driving progress and more collective impact.

 

Improved outcomes for older Aucklanders.

 

CURRENT STATE

RECOMMENDED ACTION

FUTURE STATE

Currently…

If the sector…

It will lead to…

There are too many “hard to measure” actions:

·    some actions in the plan are hard to measure or are business as usual for organisations.

 

Developed more specific, measurable actions.

Developed more streamlined monitoring and evaluation of action plan progress.

Better understanding of the impact we are making.

 

Emergency response to support older peoples’ wellbeing could be improved:

·    council, aged sector and government acting separately in emergency response

·    what is being done nationally and internationally regarding disaster response for older people are unknown.

Shared the learnings about supporting older people during recent extreme weather events.

Investigates best practice nationally and internationally regarding disaster preparedness for older people.

Older Aucklanders being better supported during the next emergency event.

17.     The following section provides a summary of the findings of the annual progress report.

70% of actions are underway or have been completed

18.     The action plan contains 106 actions across the 10 wellbeing domains attributed to council, central government and NGO’s.

19.     Of those actions, seventy per cent (70%) are either underway or completed (see Figure 1 below).

 

20.     The most progress has been made in the domains of Respect and Social Inclusion and Communication and Information.

21.     This may be because council and key partners who make up Te Rōpū are responsible for their implementation.

22.     Less progress has been made in Housing and Te Taiao (the Natural and Built Environments).

In-person hui are important to connect the sector and drive progress

23.     A key learning for Te Rōpū has been the importance of bringing the aged sector together regularly (especially face to face) to build connections, share information and raise awareness of the action plan.

24.     The value that is created from these relationships was evident in the way Te Rōpū members worked together to support older Aucklanders during recent extreme weather events.

25.     Continuing to build connections in and across the sector will be an ongoing role for Te Rōpū to ensure continued progress and to create opportunities for collective action.

Te Rōpū recommend a dedicated community resource to support implementation

26.     A critical success factor has been building and maintaining relationships with all the organisation’s responsible for delivering actions and the wider age-sector.

27.     Keeping these connections going is also important to creating opportunities for sector partnerships and collective action.

28.     Doing this well is time and resource intensive.

29.     The council’s Community and Social Policy Team currently provide secretariat support to Te Rōpū, coordinate sector hui and undertake monitoring (including compiling this annual progress report), but it has limited capacity to do more.

30.     To have more impact Te Rōpū propose investigating how sector coordination could be better resourced operationally, either from within council or through a partnership between government, council and the sector.

31.     This could include, for instance, co-investing in an age-friendly coordinator whose role is to facilitate greater connection and collective action.

Improving communication would increase the pace of progress

32.     Improving communication and relationships between central government agencies, council and the aged sector will lead to better progress under the action plan, and better outcomes for older Aucklanders.

33.     This key finding was also noted regarding the response to recent extreme weather events.

34.     A dedicated resource to coordinate the sector, as proposed above, would support relationship building between key organisations, and in turn support improved outcomes for older Aucklanders.

COVID, extreme weather events and funding issues have impacted delivery in some areas

35.     The most common reasons given for the lack of progress across Housing and Te Taiao (the Natural and Built Environments) domains were COVID-related disruptions to social events, recent extreme weather events as well as funding cuts.

36.     This seems to be reflective of wider issues in Tāmaki Makaurau around the supply of affordable housing.

37.     Greater communication between Council and Kainga Ora in the future will be beneficial to better understand the progress of provision of housing for older people.

Specific, measurable actions would make monitoring progress easier and more effective

38.     Actions in the plan were developed by council teams and age-sector organisations and include a mix of ongoing ‘business as usual activity’ as well as some specific new initiatives.


 

39.     As the first age-friendly action plan for Auckland there was considerable enthusiasm among stakeholders for an inclusive approach whereby as many actions as possible were included. This was in a large part to demonstrate the level of commitment to making Auckland an age-friendly region.

40.     However, with over 100 actions, monitoring and obtaining data on progress has proven challenging and time consuming. Some of the actions are also not easily measurable.

41.     In future some actions will need to either be removed (if completed or no longer being delivered) or refined so that they can be better measured and reported against.

42.     In the future there may be merit in the action plan having fewer but more specific, strategic and measurable actions.

43.     As part of the three-year review of the action plan, currently programmed for 2024/25, staff will work with partners to look at making these kinds of improvements.

Most older Aucklanders doing well but quality of life varies across the region

44.     The 2022 Quality of Life of Older Aucklanders report showed that most older Aucklanders are doing well but there are some variances in quality of life depending on where they live.

45.     Aucklanders in North Auckland and Central Auckland were more likely to say they experienced a good quality life, than people living in South, East or West Auckland.

46.     Resources and support for older Aucklanders in these areas should be considered as part of the three-year review of the action plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47.     Transport is one of the 10 domains in the Age Friendly Auckland action plan. Public transport use is key to reducing Tāmaki Makaurau’s emissions that contribute towards climate change.

48.     In April 2023, Te Rōpū hosted a transport hui where Auckland Transport advised community partners in the aged sector about accessible public transport options for seniors. This includes discounted and free travel with the SuperGold concession on trains, buses and ferry services, Plus One Bus allowing free travel on buses for a support person and the Total Mobility scheme which discounts travel for people who can’t use public transport.

49.     Te Rōpū is scoping a project around collaborating with aged sector partners to encourage an increase in use of public transport by older Aucklanders, which in turn will reduce car use and emissions.

50.     An Aged Friendly Symposium planned for November 2023 will encourage attendees to use public transport options or ride share.

51.     Healthy, energy efficient housing is another way to contribute to a reduction in emissions.

52.     One of the case studies in the annual report is a collaboration between the University of Auckland and Haumaru Housing that looked at the optimal temperature in homes for older people, based on research at Haumaru’s Wilsher Village.

53.     The findings of this research encouraged heat pump installation within Wilsher Village and will serve as a model for other aged care residential facilities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

54.     Council staff from both policy and operations are part of the Te Rōpū implementation group and contribute to the oversight and monitoring of the action plan. A staff member from Auckland Transport is also a member.

55.     Council operational staff, local boards, Eke Panuku and Auckland Transport have actions under the plan. They completed surveys and follow up interviews on the progress of their actions. Their insights are reflected in the annual progress report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

56.     There are 27 actions in the action plan that are attributed to local boards. Of these 19 are reported to be underway or completed.

57.     Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board has developed their own age friendly action plan (2020). The purpose of their plan is to ensure older people are enabled and empowered to thrive and prosper. The plan closely aligns to the objectives and outcomes in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Plan 2020.

58.     Manurewa Local Board has developed an age-friendly services directory.

59.     The following Local Boards have outcomes or initiatives in their Local Board Plans that specifically support older people:

·      Albert-Eden

·      Aotea/Great Barrier

·      Devonport/Takapuna

·      Franklin

·      Hibiscus & Bays

·      Manurewa

·      Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

·      Ōrākei

·      Ōtara-Papatoetoe

·      Papakura

·      Puketāpapa

·      Upper Harbour

·      Waiheke

·      Waitematā

·      Whau.

 

60.     There are some notable successes in the annual progress report attributed to local boards include:

·     support of Seniors Net by Papakura Local Board through the community lease team

·     funding of the SAMOM Trust by Papakura Local Board to deliver activation programmes

·     completion of Kaumatua housing at Papakura Marae in partnership with Papakura Local Board (see page 15 of Attachment A)

·     Manurewa Local Board’s support of the Lifelong Learning Fund and Manurewa Seniors Network

·     establishment of the iMATUA digital literacy programme for seniors initiated by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

·     Digital Seniors pilot established on the North Shore by staff from the Connected Communities team with support from the Rodney, Takapuna-Devonport, and Kaipatiki Local Boards. (see page 31 of Attachment A).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

61.     The action plan is based on the Te Whare Tapa Whā model. All the domains in the action plan are aligned with one of the five dimensions of this model.

62.     There is a specific Kaumatua domain, which has actions assigned to local boards, Te Oranga Kaumatua Kuia Disability Support Services Trust, and Te Kotāhi a Tāmaki.

63.     Te Oranga Kaumatua Kuia Disability Support Services Trust and Te Kotāhi a Tāmaki are also part of the Te Rōpū implementation group.

64.     Most actions under the plan for Kaumatua are progressing, with one action completed. Those that have stalled have been due to the impacts of COVID-19 and the extreme weather events in 2023.

65.     The action which has been completed is the building of three additional Kaumatua units at Papakura Marae. This was a successful collaboration between Papakura Local Board and Papakura Marae (see page 15 of Attachment A).

66.     In 2022, council commissioned specific research on the wellbeing of older Māori. This was led by Māori researcher, Dr Fiona Cram with support from the Te Atatū Branch of the Māori Women’s Welfare League.

67.     The research report entitled Quality of Life for Older Māori in Auckland is available on Knowledge Auckland. Key findings of the report included:

·     Older Māori participants who were Mataawaka (not from Tāmaki Makaurau) acknowledged Mana Whenua and had not forgotten where they were from.

·     They continued to live by the values that they had learned from their tūpuna and worried about being able to pass these and their knowledge on to younger generations of their whānau.

·     Although maintaining connections with their whānau took a variety of forms, participants expressed their love for their whānau and those they considered to be like whānau.

·     Younger generations of their whānau supported older Māori to become technologically savvy, with COVID-19 restrictions being the push needed for some older Māori to get on social media.

·     Community groups supported the social connectedness of older Māori, something participants had missed during COVID-19 restrictions, even though they still felt well cared for.

·     Participants stressed the heterogeneity of older Māori and their desire to be involved in social groups and organisations that respected them as individuals and as Māori.

·     Involvement in social, cultural and religious groups provided older Māori with camaraderie and supported their emotional wellbeing. They encouraged older Māori who were whakamā to join in these groups in the knowledge that they would be welcomed.

·     Challenges experienced by older Māori included isolation brought on by them not    feeling valued or listened to, financial insecurity, mistreatment and abuse, and everyday racism.

68.     Dr Cram will present the research at the next Age Friendly Auckland Symposium on 1 November 2023.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

69.     There are no immediate financial implications arising from recommendations in this report.

70.     The recommended next step for staff to liaise with central government to scope resourcing a coordinator for the aged sector could have resourcing implications in the future. This would be subject to future decision-making processes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

72.     There are no immediate risks arising from this report.

73.     There is a risk that investigating a resource to coordinate the aged sector may raise an expectation of ongoing council funding. This will be mitigated by clear communication about financial constraints and decision-making processes at the council.


 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

74.     If the committee accepts the recommendations in this report, staff will:

·     circulate the annual progress report to all interested parties including publishing it on the council website and WHO Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities website

·     share the learnings from the impact of extreme weather events in January and February 2023 on older Aucklanders with the Auckland Emergency Management and the Flood Recovery Office

·     investigate best practice nationally (including other council’s) and internationally regarding flood preparedness for older people

·     investigate how to achieve more impact for older people from existing resources within the council

·     liaise with central government to scope the opportunity to jointly resource a coordinator for the aged sector based in the community to drive progress and impact for the action plan.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Age Friendly Auckland Annual report

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Joanna Maskell - Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Liz Civil - Manager Community Policy

Kataraina Maki - General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

Summary of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 5 October 2023

File No.: CP2023/13283

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

2.       To whiwhi / receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda, workshop and briefing papers that may have been held or been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memoranda/workshops and briefings or other means, where no decisions are required.

4.       As noted previously decisions on the Annual Budget may well affect the forward work programme.  The work programme underpinning the long-term scope of work as a result of the flooding events will also mean that this work programme will need to be reprioritised and updated.  Items raised at committee where work continues, as well as items from departmental work programmes, are being worked through and in coming iterations will be highlighted on the forward work programme as appropriate.

5.       The following memoranda/information have been sent:

Date

Subject

5/9/2023

Update on the Waste Assessment 2023 and review of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

14/9/2023

Update on exotic Caulerpa and gold clam incursions

20/9/2023

Process for Auckland Council’s submission to the Environment Committee’s Inquiry into Climate Adaptation

6.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place for the committee:

Date

Subject

4/9/2023

National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Working Group – Agenda, Minutes and Minutes attachments

7.       These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top left of the page, select meeting/te hui “Governing Body” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

8.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Governing Body members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report

b)      whiwhi / receive the Summary of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings – 5 October 2023.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee - Forward Work Programme

 

b

Memorandum - Update on the Waste Assessment 2023 and review of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018, 5 September 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Memorandum - Update on exotic Caulerpa and gold clam incursions, 14 September 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Memorandum - Process for Auckland Council’s submission to the Environment Committee’s Inquiry into Climate Adaptation, 20 September 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Working Group – Agenda, Minutes and Minutes attachments, 4 September 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

05 October 2023

 

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

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

a)      whakaae / agree to exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       CONFIDENTIAL: Auckland Unitary Plan – Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification – Submissions on city centre zone and precincts

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains advice in relation to the council's case before the independent hearings panel established to hear and make recommendations on submissions relating to Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 



[1] Business Desk. Powered by the sun: NZ's top 10 projects. 22 July 2023. (sourced https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/environment/powered-by-the-sun-nzs-top-10-projects)

[2] Beehive.govt.nz. Government refers solar energy project for fast-track consenting. 14 April 2023. (sourced    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-refers-solar-energy-projects-fast-track-consenting)

[3] For example, the government is developing regulations to enable offshore renewable energy development which could produce a significant proportion of the country’s electricity. This source would also be more consistent and reliable than solar energy. A current proposal for an offshore wind farm in Taranaki could generate over 11 per cent of New Zealand’s current electricity demand capacity (New Zealand Herald). Offshore energy generation potential for Waikato blowing in wind. 25 September 2023 (sourced from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/danish-renewables-developer-shifts-offshore-focus-to-waikato/WUIV5FPDAREIFI7WFBANTKQ3OM/