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, 30 November 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

27 November 2023

Contact Telephone: +64 9 890 8150

Email: Sandra.Gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

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

4.1     Petition:  350 Auckland - Community renewable energy projects                         5  

5          Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input                 6

5.1     Public Input: Avondale Business Association relating to the future of Avondale and the Ockham Development 6

5.2     Public Input: Alex Witten-Hannah on behalf of the owners of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna                                                      6

5.3     Public Input: Takapuna Residents Association relating to Takapuna to Milford Coastal Walkway - the section known as the Paul Firth Walkway forming part of the Te Araroa Trail                          7

5.4     Public Input: Devonport Heritage and Grey Power relating to the acquisition of the Firth property associated with the Milford-Takapuna walkway                        8

5.5     Public Input: Milford Residents Association relating to Takapuna to Milford Coastal Walkway                            8

6          Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input                                                            9

6.1     Local Board Input:  Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna                                                      9

7          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business     9

8          Takapuna to Milford informal coastal walkway public access                                                      11

9          Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 - Draft Plan for public consultation         27

10        City Centre action plan - implementing the City Centre masterplan                                              47

11        Customer and Community Services update   55

12        Implementing Auckland's Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy - Progress Update November 2023                                                                      57

13        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Proposed Plan Change Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024)                                    67

14        Spatial Land Use Strategy Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zone                           73

15        Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Request – Pukekohe East Precinct 2 - 50 Pukekohe East Road and 47 Golding Road, Pukekohe (Covering report)                              85

16        Auckland Unitary Plan – Making operative Private Plan Change 74 - Golding Meadows and Auckland Trotting Club                              87

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

17        Auckland Unitary Plan - Making Operative Plan Change 83 - Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule              93

18        Auckland Unitary Plan - Making operative Private Plan Change 85 - 48 Esmonde Road, Takapuna.                                                            97

19        Auckland Climate Grant 2023/2024 strategic allocation                                                           103

20        Investment into the sport sector in Tāmaki Makaurau                                                           111

21        Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2023/2024 allocation                                         123

22        Summary of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 30 November 2023                                                                    133

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

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

24        Te Mōtini ā-Tukanga hei Kaupare i te Marea | Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                             137

C1       CONFIDENTIAL: Allocation of Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund 2023/2024                                                                            137

 

 

 


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:

whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 2 November 2023, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

4.1       Petition:  350 Auckland - Community renewable energy projects

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Alva Feldmeier from 350 Auckland will present a petition to the committee relating to community renewable energy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Representatives from 350 Auckland will address the committee on behalf of 350 Auckland and present a petition relating to 350 Auckland.

The petition prayer is as follows:

“Our communities deserve 100% clean, renewable energy that is generated locally and empowers our community. Together we are asking Auckland Council to meet these demands by mid 2024:

1.      Promote and support local renewable energy projects by creating an accessible and comprehensive online community power hub. This hub would enable access to essential skills and expertise, as well as support communities in setting up or looking to connect with existing projects.

2.      Remove procedural barriers and streamline the process to setting up local renewable energy projects. Currently most of these projects fail due to long and complicated consenting requirements.

3.      Be open and transparent about the use of renewable energy in Auckland. For example, what exactly is Auckland Council doing to provide support for community energy projects? How many have been set up?

3.       The online petition can be accessed at the following link:  https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/auckland-homegrown-energy-campaign/

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / accept the petition in relation to community renewable energy projects

b)      whakamihi / thank representatives from 350 Auckland for attending the meeting

c)       tuku ki tangata kē / forward the petition to the Chief of Strategy for consideration.

 

 

5          Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input

 

5.1       Public Input: Avondale Business Association relating to the future of Avondale and the Ockham Development

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Marcus Amosa, Chairperson and Cynthia Gross, Manager of the Avondale Business Association will address the committee relating to the future of Avondale and the Ockham Development.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Marcus Amosa, Chairperson and Cynthia Gross, Manager of the Avondale Business Association will address the committee relating to the future of Avondale and the Ockham Development.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the public input from the Avondale Business Association relating to the future of Avondale and the Ockham Development and whakamihi / thank them for their attendance

 

 

5.2       Public Input: Alex Witten-Hannah on behalf of the owners of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Alex Witten-Hannah, on behalf of the owners of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna will address the committee relating to historical events of the walkway adjacent to 9 Kitchener Road and other matters.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Alex Witten-Hannah wishes to explain the owner’s position. 

3.       A memorandum for the meeting has been provided and is attached as Attachment A.

4.       A heads of agreement dated 17 September 2018 between Auckland Council and Paul Clifton Firth; Paul Clifton Firth and Pamela Lim as executors; and Barbara Harre and David Harre is attached as Attachment B.

5.       The report considered by the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, 17 October 2023 is attached as Attachment C.

6.       An officer’s report appears on this agenda as Item 8.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the public input from Alex Witten-Hannah on behalf of the owners of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna and whakamihi / thank them for their attendance.

 

 

 

 

5.3       Public Input: Takapuna Residents Association relating to Takapuna to Milford Coastal Walkway - the section known as the Paul Firth Walkway forming part of the Te Araroa Trail

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Sandra Allen of the Takapuna Residents Association will address the committee relating to the Takapuna to Milford Coastal Walkway - the section known as the Paul Firth Walkway forming part of the Te Araroa Trail.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The association presented a petition at the Governing Body meeting held on 28 September 2023.

The petition prayer was as follows:

“We the undersigned request the Mayor and Councillors of Auckland Council achieve an urgent resolution for continued public access to the section of the Coastal Walkway from Takapuna to Milford that crosses private property past the Firth Cottage and forms part of the national Te Araroa Trail.”

3.       The online petition can be accessed at the following link:  https://www.change.org/p/the-takapuna-to-milford-coastal-walkway-is-at-risk-of-closing

4.       The Governing Body accepted the petition GB/2023/168 and an officer’s report appears on this agenda as Item 8.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the public input from the Takapuna Residents Association relating to the Takapuna to Milford Coastal Walkway - the section known as the Paul Firth Walkway forming part of the Te Araroa Trail and whakamihi / thank them for their attendance.

 


 

 

 

5.4       Public Input: Devonport Heritage and Grey Power relating to the acquisition of the Firth property associated with the Milford-Takapuna walkway

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Trish Deans, Co-chair of Devonport Heritage will address the committee relating to the heritage status of the Firth house and the impact on the Te Araroa project.

2.       Bill Rayner, President – Grey Power will address the committee relating to the acquisition of the Firth property associated with the Milford-Takapuna walkway issue related to the Devonport Takapuna Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       Grey Power wishes to speak to the proposal made to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board at its meeting held on 17 October 2023.  The local board resolved to receive a presentation (DT/2023/182) and the presentation appears here.

4.       An officer’s report appears on this agenda as Item 8.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the public input from Devonport Heritage and Grey Power relating to the acquisition of the Firth property associated with the Milford-Takapuna and whakamihi / thank them for their attendance.

 

 

5.5       Public Input: Milford Residents Association relating to Takapuna to Milford Coastal Walkway

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Chris Handford and Richard Burton of the Milford Residents Association will address the committee relating to the Takapuna to Milford Coastal Walkway.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       An officer’s report appears on this agenda as Item 8.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the public input from the Milford Residents Association relating to Takapuna to Milford Coastal Walkway and whakamihi / thank them for their attendance.

 


 

 

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

 

6.1       Local Board Input:  Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Devonport-Takapuna Local Board chair, Toni Van Tonder will address the committee regarding 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Devonport-Takapuna Local Board chair, Toni Van Tonder will speak to the committee regarding 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna.

3.       An officer’s report appears on this agenda as Item 8.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board input regarding 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna

b)      whakamihi / thank Devonport-Takapuna Local Board chair Toni Van Tonder for attending.

 

 

 

 

7          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Takapuna to Milford informal coastal walkway public access

File No.: CP2023/17147

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the background and history of council investigations into securing public access along the route of the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway, including the property at 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna and to seek direction from the committee regarding the council’s future approach to the informal walkway.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway is a 2.5-kilometre informal route that crosses up to 72 private properties and land administered by the Crown and Auckland Council. The walkway is not maintained nor managed by council, and exists largely due to the goodwill of private residents who allow walkers to cross their property. The walkway also forms part of the national Te Araroa trail.

3.       Public and council interest in formalising the walkway has existed since at least 2009, and variations of projects to explore this have proven unsuccessful, predominantly due to the financial, climate, legal and safety challenges, coupled with the significant number of independent stakeholders.

4.       In 2011, a storm event destroyed a wooden boardwalk that provided access around a particularly impassable part of the route. Most of this walkway was within the boundary of 9 Kitchener Road. Since that time, the owners of 9 Kitchener Road have freely provided public access across their land to connect walkers.

5.       In 2012, Auckland Council’s Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) directed staff to negotiate with several property owners to formalise the public use across their land, including over the ‘toe’ of the property at 9 Kitchener Road. 9 Kitchener Road is a private residence and a Category A heritage historic place under the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).

6.       Negotiations included a 2018 Heads of Agreement that proposed a sale to council at fifty percent of the property’s market value, for council to restore the property and a future use as an ‘artists-in-residence’. In 2021, the resident owner passed away and negotiations stalled in 2023 due to the inability to agree on the property’s market value. Various conditions and agreements are provided in Attachment A.

7.       In August 2023, a representative of the property owners proposed a revised set of conditions to the 2018 agreement, including a requirement for the council to remove the heritage protection of the property and write off rates arrears. As those full conditions were not met by 29 September, the owners closed public access across the property.

8.       The council is not able to guarantee the outcome of a heritage statutory process for which it does not have discretion and has advised the owners’ representative accordingly. Similarly, as rates is a statutory function, council has assessed the write-off of arrears against the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy 2022 and the situation described would not meet the criteria in the policy. On 29 September 2023, the owners closed public access to the property. Council implemented signage recommending an alternate route using local public footpaths.

9.       On 2 November, revised conditions were received from the owners’ representative, requiring the council only to initiate a plan change to remove the heritage protection in exchange for returned public access, followed by future negotiations for formalised access.

10.     Consideration of whether the council should secure public access along the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route, via acquisition of property interests or public access agreements, or licenses etc. sits within the terms of reference and delegated responsibilities of the Planning, Environment and Parks (PEP) Committee.

11.     Three options have been identified for the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee’s consideration (Attachment B).

·    Option 1 (recommended): The council confirms that it will not initiate a plan change and enhances the current route with signage detailing the safety and access risks across the route, and the generosity of private landowners in enabling access. The alternate route along local footpaths will remain in place.

·    Option 2: The council initiates a plan change to remove the heritage status, and then re-enters negotiations to formalise access across 9 Kitchener Road.

·    Option 3: The council confirms it will not initiate a plan change, and investigates alternate options for the route and access.

12.     Each option has been considered against the financial, time, community, service and legal implications and risks. Based on this assessment, staff recommend that the committee approve Option 1.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route is vulnerable to future coastal inundation and storm surge events and that a goal in Auckland Council’s Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan is to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that Auckland Council has historically been unable to come to an arrangement with the owners for public access across 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna, as the council cannot guarantee the outcomes of statutory change requests pertaining to the property’s heritage status and the value of the property.

c)       tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolutions, including:

i)           concerns that a replacement walkway for the section destroyed in 2011 has not progressed

ii)          request for involvement in discussions for options to secure public access along the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway

iii)         request for budget to be allocated to develop any preferred final option; support for involving the Te Araroa Trust and the Outdoor Access Commission in discussions

iv)         maintaining ongoing negotiations in good faith with the owners of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna.

d)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that to remove the Auckland Unitary Plan Category A historic heritage place protection for the property at 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna would require a plan change, public consultation and the final decision made by independent hearing commissioners based on the plan change, any submissions received in support/opposition, and any evidence presented on whether the property should be protected.

e)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that if the Planning Environment and Parks and Committee chooses not to initiate a plan change, the owners of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna are able to initiate a private plan change at their own cost.

f)       ohia / confirm that the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee will not initiate a plan change to remove the Auckland Unitary Plan Category A historic heritage place protection for 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna.

g)      whakakore / revoke resolution RDO/2012/4 from the 24 July 2012 Regional Development and Operations Committee meeting and confirm that Auckland Council cease negotiations with private landowners to secure public access along the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route, including ceasing negotiations to acquire 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna in accordance with conditions of sale in the 2018 Heads of Agreement.

h)      whakaae / agree to direct staff to notify the owners of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna, that the council will not proceed to acquire the property on the terms set out in the 2018 Heads of Agreement.

i)        tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that should public access through 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna remain closed:

i)       an alternate signposted route on formed legal road is available to the public via footpaths on Audrey Lane, Kitchener Road, Hurstmere Road and Minnehaha Avenue in order to by-pass 9 Kitchener Road and return to the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway; and

ii)       the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route will be enhanced with additional Auckland Council signage detailing the safety and access risks along the route, and to acknowledge the generosity of private landowners in enabling access.

Horopaki

Context

Background

13.     The Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway is a popular, informal route comprising of formed paved promenade, beach, lava rocks in the coastal marine area, legal road, and paths atop underground Watercare Services Ltd (Watercare) infrastructure. The route forms part of the Te Araroa trail, which travels from Cape Reinga to Bluff.

14.     The walkway crosses up to 72 private properties, with no formal legal rights for public access. Only some parts are owned or managed by the council.

Figure 1: The Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route

A map of a city

Description automatically generated

15.     The route has existed due to informal public access allowed by approximately 33 private properties, which are in the direct path for the public using the route. The remainder are only indirectly used by the public to a varying extent when tide or sea conditions require a detour.

16.     The coastal walkway was identified by the former North Shore City Council (NSCC) as a heritage trail as it passes through areas of local historic architecture, coastal flora and unique geological features. A summary of the involvement of the NSCC is included in Attachment C.

17.     Over many years, multiple unsuccessful attempts have been made to enhance or legalise the coastal walkway without compulsory acquisition of land.

Table 1: Summary of historic formalisation attempts, 2009 - 2012

Date

Actions

2009

NSCC initiated a capital works programme for a physical upgrade of the coastal walkway and promoted it as a significant asset to the public. The ‘Black Rock’ section of the route previously featured a raised wooden walkway built around a particularly impassable section. The NSCC appears to have built this wooden walkway section on the privately-owned 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna around 1983.

2010

NSCC resolved to attempt to secure formal access rights over the length of the informal route. Project cost estimates at the time, including land purchases, were approximately $8.8 million.

2011

Following January 2011 storm damage, council sought to secure formal access over approximately 30 private properties with a view to legalising and replacing the destroyed timber section of the coastal walkway.

The significant costs, acquisition complexities, sea level and storm risks, resulted in staff not actively progressing the project. Negotiations with landowners to secure legal access have only been undertaken on a case-by-case basis.

2012

RDOC resolved (confidential RDO/2012/28) that council pursue legalising the coastal walkway where it crossed approximately 30 private properties, including 9 Kitchener Road, before the capital works programme could proceed.

Due to slow progress in securing agreements, the RDOC resolved (confidential RDO/2012/4) to revoke the earlier resolutions so that council could progress and settle with the owners of three specific properties, including 9 Kitchener Road, prior to conditional agreements being in place with other affected landowners.

As of November 2023, any draft agreements with the other two private landowners for access have lapsed.

18.     As an informal route not within the council’s ownership, the walkway is not maintained by the council and therefore, in recent years has not had the benefit of investment into accessibility and safety precautions found in council-managed walkways. 

Decision-making framework

19.     Since 2022 decisions relating to the Governance Framework Review (GFR), local boards have been allocated decision-making responsibility in relation to “the number of new local community facilities and their specific location, design, build and fit out within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body”, and “the number of new local parks and their specific location within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body” (emphasis added).

20.     Expenditure related to the costs of acquiring 9 Kitchener Road (or an easement over part of it) and undertaking of repairs, or the designing, consenting and constructing a replacement raised walkway or dividing wall for this section of the Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route are currently not within the budget parameters for the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, as set out in its Local Board Agreement. Therefore, these decisions do not come within the local board’s allocated decision-making responsibilities.

21.     Consideration of whether the council should secure public access along the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route, via acquisition of property interests or public access agreements, licenses etc. sits within the terms of reference and delegated responsibilities of the Planning, Environment and Parks (PEP) Committee.

22.     No budget is available to design, consent and construct a replacement raised walkway adjacent to 9 Kitchener Road, or for the acquisition of property and repairs, or for the acquisition of an easement by negotiation. A Governing Body decision would be required to commit to such unbudgeted expenditure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Property information for 9 Kitchener Road

23.     9 Kitchener Road is a privately owned residential property on a 1,072m² coastal foreshore site. It is adjacent to the council-owned reserve at R 21 Tiri Road (Thornes Bay).

Figure 2: 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna

Aerial view of a city with a rocky shore

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

24.     Under the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) the property is zoned Residential - Single House. 9 Kitchener Road, ‘Clifton Firth residence’ (ID 2683) is a Category A historic heritage place under the AUP (see Attachment D).

25.     In February 2022 a registered valuation assessed the property, with its heritage protection in place, as having a market value of approximately $4.25 million.

History of negotiations with owners

26.     Negotiations for public access have been longstanding and stalled in 2023. Options evaluated have included full and partial property sale, rates remissions, establishment of an ‘artists in residence’, removal of heritage protection and vehicle access agreements across the adjacent Watercare property. Detail of conditions and agreements are at Attachment A.  

27.     On 9 August 2023, representatives of the property owners proposed the transfer to council of public pedestrian easement rights over a 1.5 metre-wide strip along the foreshore, and the  cottage building, conditional upon council: 

a)      removing the AUP historic heritage protection from the property, 

b)      creating a dividing wall between the easement area and the rest of the property, 

c)      formalising currently informal vehicle access to the property from Audrey Lane, and 

d)      paying the owners an amount equal to the amount for the council rates arrears on the property. 

28.     Representatives of the property owners advised council that public access to the property would be closed on 29 September 2023 unless these conditions of sale were met.

29.     As council cannot guarantee outcomes relating to statutory processes (being a proposed plan change to remove the heritage protection, and write off of arrear rates) it is therefore not able to agree to the conditions. As a result, the owners closed public access across their private property.

30.     The council respects the right of private property owners to restrict public access to their land. To assist public users of the walkway, the council subsequently placed signage along the route recommending an alternate route using footpaths on Audrey Lane, Kitchener Road, Hurstmere Road and Minnehaha Avenue to return to the coastal walkway. 

31.     On 2 November 2023, representatives of the property provided the council with an alternative proposal (see Attachment A): 

·    Public access will be reopened if the council initiates a plan change process to remove the heritage protection of the property.  

·    Should the heritage protection be removed, the owners will gift to the council a public access easement for a walkway up to 2 metres in width, with the precise location to be agreed upon, and an agreement that no rates are payable until after the heritage protection has been removed. 

Heritage protection of 9 Kitchener Road

Process to attain heritage protection

32.     The owners of 9 Kitchener Road maintain that no consultation occurred before the heritage status was attributed to the property, that this was done against their knowledge and wishes, and that the heritage status has a detrimental impact on their property value[1][2][3][4][5].

33.     Council records show that the treatment of the property in acquiring heritage protection was lawful, consistent with the required Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process. Heritage protection was supported by the Independent Hearing Panel during the 2012 Plan Change 38 and Auckland Unitary Plan processes.

Process to consider removal of heritage protection

34.     Decision-making on plan changes sits with independent hearing commissioners appointed by the council. As such, the outcome of such a process cannot be guaranteed.


 

35.     In response to the owners' request, the PEP Committee could resolve to investigate a plan change to consider a change to the AUP heritage protection of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna. In investigating a possible plan change, the council’s Heritage team, or an external heritage consultant, would need to consider whether (or not) the place meets the criteria and thresholds for its heritage protection in the AUP. The council’s Heritage team’s preliminary advice is that the Clifton Firth residence is likely to continue to meet the threshold for heritage protection under the AUP. As such, they would be unlikely to support a plan change to remove the heritage protection from this place.

36.     If a heritage expert considered that amendments to the plan were justified for 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna, a plan change could be prepared, together with a supporting section 32 report. Such amendments could include its identification under a different category of historic heritage place or its potential removal from heritage protection. The PEP Committee would then consider the proposed plan change and section 32 report and make a decision on notifying the proposed plan change.

37.     Following notification of a proposed plan change there is a 20-working day public submission period. The council then summarises the submissions and notifies a summary of decisions requested and calls for further submissions (which can support/oppose the decisions sought in submissions).

38.     Independent hearing commissioners are then appointed to consider the plan change, any submissions received in support/opposition, and any evidence and legal submissions presented at the hearing. After the independent hearing commissioners’ decision is publicly notified, there is an Environment Court appeal period. Any appeal must be resolved before the plan change can become operative.

39.     The approximate minimum cost of a council-initiated plan change is $60,000-$100,000, excluding costs for any appeals. No budget is currently allocated for a council-initiated plan change process, and doing so may create a unique precedent for the council’s involvement in such plan changes (not specific to this walkway). The council notes that it remains open to property owners to initiate a private plan change that proposes to remove the heritage protection status.  

40.     The property owners have made it clear that if the plan change is initiated, they will restore informal public access across 9 Kitchener Road. However, even if successful, this would not achieve the 2012 RDOC resolution of formalising access across the site and further negotiations would be required.  

Options identified

41.     Staff have identified three options (Attachment B) to progress the matter and have assessed these against the financial, time, climate, service, and safety implications.  

Option 1 (recommended): The council confirms no plan change, status quo remains

42.     Staff cease any negotiations with property representatives involving a council-initiated plan change. Status quo remains, with signage enhancements to encourage public awareness of the alternate route bypassing 9 Kitchener Road on public footpaths.

43.     This signage on the walkway could inform users that the walkway is not formalised and exists largely at the goodwill of individual property owners. Users are requested to take care, and to respect the rights and generosity of private landowners.  

44.     This option would require the committee to revoke the 2012 RDOC resolution directing staff to negotiate with the property owners to formalise the public use, including an option for public access over the ‘toe’ of the property at 9 Kitchener Road, and confirms that the council will not proceed with an acquisition of 9 Kitchener Road as per the 2018 Heads of Agreement.


 

Table 2: Assessment of Option 1

Factor 

Implications 

Status 

Cost 

No ongoing cost to the council/ratepayers

Green

Time 

Current alternative access is available now

Green

Climate 

Exposure to coastal process and effects on climate change are minimised

Green

Service 

There are negative effects on the experience provided by the walkway, but the alternative route provides connectivity

Amber

Safety 

The informal route will not benefit from council management and maintenance and will remain at the current standard. Providing people adhere to signage, the alternate route will provide safe access around the most challenging section of the walkway.

Amber

Option 2: Council-initiated plan change and further negotiation

45.     The council initiates a plan change to remove the protection of 9 Kitchener Road as a Category A historic heritage place under the AUP on the basis that the outcome cannot be guaranteed. Staff then continue to negotiate with property owners for easement or other formalised access.  

Table 3: Assessment of Option 2

Factor  

Implications 

Status  

Cost 

Estimated costs for the plan change component only are between $60,000 and $100,000, excluding costs for any appeals.[6]

Red

Time 

A plan change, whether council-initiated or private, takes time, including for preparation, as well as the required notification, hearing and potential appeal periods.

Amber

Climate 

With previous access restated, there is no new infrastructure requirement that would be at risk from erosion or inundation. Further options to formalise risk may increase the council’s exposure and liability to climate change risk.

Amber

Service 

Service to the community would be improved, as access to the original walkway would be reinstated once the plan change was initiated, rather than the current alternate route on footpaths. Continued access over other private properties would rely on the generosity of private landowners and access may be temporary pending outcome of decision around heritage status.

Amber

Safety 

Public access across 9 Kitchener Road would resolve issues of people ignoring signage and traversing across the rocky outcrop below. However, the alternate route in place and signposted does not have these safety risks.

Amber

Option 3: Council confirms no plan change, staff continue to explore options for alternate access

46.     Staff cease any negotiations with property representatives involving a council-initiated plan change and continue to investigate alternative ways to formalise access across the property. This may include options that impact all of the walkway.

47.     To enable this direction, staff have assessed that the following potential alternate options currently exist or can be explored further.  


 

Table 4: Potential alternate options

Option  

Detail 

3A 

The council works with Herenga ā Nuku Aotearoa, the Outdoor Access Commission to develop walkway access agreements for a land-based walkway route. 

3B 

Negotiate a preferred 2-metre-wide registered easement over part of 9 Kitchener Road in accordance with 2 November 2023 offer from owners of 9 Kitchener Road.

3C 

Secure council interests for applicable private properties along entire route of coastal walkway  

3D 

Acquisition of entire 9 Kitchener Road property in accordance with 2018 Heads of Agreement 

3E 

Secure 1.5m coastal edge easement over part of property in accordance with 9 August 2023 offer from owners of 9 Kitchener Road. 

3F 

Revisit replacement raised coastal walkway structure around 9 Kitchener Road. 

48.     Detail of these alternative options including a high-level assessment of their implications, is at Attachment E.

49.     Some of the potential alternate options are predicated on a willingness of the owners of 9 Kitchener Road to continue negotiations without a plan change being initiated by council. Noting the current plan change request from owners, it is possible that some options identified may not progress. 

50.     In all instances, no open space acquisition budget, or budget allocated in the current Long-term Plan (Recovery Budget) 2021-2031 is available for the required acquisition of property interests, developing long-term walkway access agreements, or for the design and construction of walkway structures.  

51.     A full desktop assessment of advantages, risk, estimated costs (where known) and staff recommendations for these possible options is included in Attachment B to this report. 

Table 5: Assessment of Option 3

Implications 

Status 

Cost 

The potential alternate options have a range of associated, unbudgeted costs, ranging from minor (associated with single-property easement) to significant (property rights across the entire walkway).

Red

Time 

The majority of potential alternate options have timeframes that will span one-five years.

Amber

Climate 

The majority of potential alternate options involve council taking responsibility or ownership of land prone to inundation, increasing the council’s exposure and liability to climate change risk.

Red

Service 

The potential alternate options seek to make the route permanent and protected, and provide opportunity for future development of the walkway.

Green

Safety 

Land based access options present less of a health and safety risk. The council would be responsible for the safety and access to the land within its responsibility. The likelihood is there will remain a high level of responsibility for public safety as the council would become a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

Amber

 


 

Table 6: Comparison of options

Option 1: No plan change, status quo remains

Option 2: Council initiated plan change, and further negotiation 

Option 3: No plan change and staff continue to explore other options 

Cost 

Green

Red

Red

Time 

Green

Amber

Amber

Climate 

Green

Amber

Red

Service 

Amber

Amber

Green

Safety 

Amber

Amber

Amber

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

52.     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.

53.     As shown by the 2011 storm event, the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route is vulnerable to future coastal inundation and storm surge events, and legalising the walkway or acquiring any properties along the route will increase council’s exposure and liability to climate change risk, including associated maintenance or repair costs.

54.     Land-based access options and provisions are preferrable to any structures or boardwalks located in the coastal marine area. The council’s Resilient Land and Coasts team’s assessment of coastal processes confirms it would be difficult to design an appropriate structure resilient to severe coastal storms. Any proposal for a boardwalk structure built in this environment would need to demonstrate extremely high consequential operational expenditure requirements and advise on potential health and safety risks.

55.     9 Kitchener Road is not in a flood-prone area. A known 100-year rainfall event overland flow-path that may impact the northern part of the property is identified on the council’s geospatial maps.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

56.     All relevant council departments and council-controlled organisations (CCOs) have been engaged on an ongoing basis since 2010 regarding legalising the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway, including securing public access across privately owned properties along the route.

57.     The Resilient Land and Coasts, Heritage, Risk and Assurance, and Legal departments have each reviewed this report and expressed support for the recommendations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

58.     Staff have consulted with the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board regarding the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway since 2010. As a long-standing local issue, the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has been involved in a number of attempts to resolve access issues on the walkway, including design of a replacement walkway and investigations into whether sales proceeds from the endowment property at 2 The Strand, Takapuna could be used to purchase 9 Kitchener Road.  

59.     On 6 March 2012 the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolved (confidential resolution number DT/2012/75) that it supported progressing the legalisation of the coastal walkway.

60.     On 1 December 2020 the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolved (resolution numbers DT/2020/187, DT/2020/188, DT/2020/189, DT/2020/190, DT/2020/191 and DT/2020/192) requesting a number of actions and information responses regarding progress in securing public access through acquiring 9 Kitchener Road.

61.     On 17 August 2021 the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board further resolved (resolution number DT/2021/122) that its preferred option for the use of any sales proceeds from the sale of the endowment property at 2 The Strand, Takapuna was towards renewals of the Takapuna Library and Mary Thomas Centre. This was confirmed under delegated authority by the council’s Chief Financial Officer in September 2022. As such, no funding from the sale of 2 The Strand is available to contribute towards the acquisition of 9 Kitchener Road.

62.     On 1 August 2023 Parks and Community Facilities staff provided the local board with an update regarding the property, history of negotiations and responded to the December 2020 and August 2021 resolutions.

63.     On 17 October 2023 the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board made a number of resolutions, (resolution number DT/2023/183) including:

·    concerns that a replacement walkway for the section destroyed in 2011 has not progressed

·    request for involvement in discussions for options to secure public access along the informal Takapuna-Milford coastal walkway route

·    acknowledgement that no budget is available in the current Long-term Plan (LTP) and request for budget to be allocated in the upcoming LTP to develop a preferred final option

·    that if any acquisition is made, it will become a local board asset and requirement local board capital and operating budgets

·    support for involving the Te Araroa Trust and the Outdoor Access Commission in discussions

·    maintaining ongoing negotiations in good faith with the owners of 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna. 

64.     All local board resolutions on this matter are contained in Attachment F.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

65.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework.

66.     9 Kitchener Road is likely to be within the boundaries of the 9,500 hectares of land originally acquired by the Crown from Māori from 1841 to 1844 through a series of historical land purchases.

67.     Ngāti Paoa has previously advised Auckland Council that the Ngāti Paoa Treaty deed of settlement for historical claims includes an acknowledgement from the Crown for the Crown’s historic failings regarding the assessment and acquisition of Ngāti Paoa held land, including land in the 1840’s era Takapuna block that was acquired by European settlers prior to the Treaty signing, and for land subsequently acquired by the Crown.

68.     Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki has previously advised Auckland Council that the wider Takapuna area holds cultural significance. Takapuna is named after a spring near Maunga-a-Uika (North Head) and a place where many Ngāi Tai ancestors were also named the same, none more so than Takapuna Hetaraka.

69.     The provision of quality parks and open spaces has broad benefits for Māori, including:

·      facilitating Māori participation in outdoor recreational activity

·      helping make Auckland a green, resilient, and healthy environment consistent with the Māori world view of the natural world and their role as kaitiaki of the natural environment.

70.     Mana whenua have been consulted regarding the provision of open space in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area as part of the development of the following plans:

·      Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Plan 2011

·      Devonport-Takapuna Greenways plan 2015

·      Devonport-Takapuna Open Space Network Plan 2019

·      ‘Unlock’ Takapuna High Level Project Plan.

71.     Te Ākitai Waiohua has previously advised Auckland Council it has an interest in the wider Waiwharariki (Takapuna) and lake Pupukemoana (Lake Pupuke) area. A statutory acknowledgement for the adjacent Thornes Bay Recreation Reserve is in the Te Ākitai Waiohua Treaty deed of settlement.

72.     Should the council progress the securing of public access across 9 Kitchener Road or other private properties along the route of the Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway, mana whenua will be consulted as part of any subsequent legalisation and improvements to council-owned land.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

73.     The current open space provision guidelines indicate that the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area as having sufficient open space for both current and future projections of growth. No existing open space acquisition budget is available to fund the purchase of 9 Kitchener Road or other properties along the informal Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route.

74.     Budget to design, consent and construct a replacement raised walkway adjacent to 9 Kitchener Road, or for the acquisition of property and repairs, or the acquisition of an easement by negotiation is currently not contemplated in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board agreement 2023/2024 and the council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (Recovery Budget).

75.     Budget to acquire land for public access for all affected private properties along the Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route is also not contemplated in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (Recovery Budget).

76.     Unbudgeted expenditure will require either reprioritisation, rates increase or increase in council debt.

77.     Advice from the council’s Heritage team is that the cost of a council-initiated plan change to potentially remove the heritage protection from the property is approximately $60,000-$100,000, excluding costs for any appeals. This work is unbudgeted and would need either additional funding or reprioritisation of existing work. The cost of a privately initiated plan change (by the applicant) would be similar.

78.     Signage on the walkway can be funded through existing Parks and Community Facilities reactive maintenance budgets which allow operational teams to respond to health and safety and public notices as required.


 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

79.     Each of the three identified options is assessed for financial, safety, legal, climate, service levels, community impact and other risks. Where practicable, mitigations are proposed.

Table 7: Option risks and mitigations

Risk 

Option 1: Council confirms no plan change, status quo remains

Option 2: Council initiated plan change, and further negotiation

Option 3: Council confirms no plan change, staff continue to explore options for alternate access

Financial 

Significant investment is avoided. 

Costs associated with a plan change are unbudgeted and are expected to be between $60,000-$100,000, excluding costs for any appeals.

Mitigation: Recommended Option 1 addresses this risk. 

Investigation and investment to deliver the potential alternative options is an unbudgeted activity. Some of these options require significant investment, and the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has identified the lack of funding for these activities as a risk. 

Legal 

The council does not acquire any new legal interests in the informal walkway. The council is exposed to risk of its decision being challenged by those who believe the council should be formally securing public access along the walkway. 

Mitigation: Following good decision-making processes. 

Further, as rates are a statutory function, council has assessed the write-off of arrears against the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy 2022 and the situation described would not meet the criteria in the policy.

Mitigation: Any recommendation to proceed under this option should be conditional on the council Heritage team conducting further analysis and confirming they would support a plan change for this property.   

Individual legal agreements will need to be reached with other private landowners along the walkway and potentially between the council and Te Araroa Trust and/or Herenga ā Nuku Aotearoa - Outdoor Access Commission. This raises contract law risks of default, and as described below, health and safety risks if the council then manages and controls the walkway and is a PCBU. It also raises risks under easements or other property interests relating to the requirement to maintain the easement, and the difficulties of doing so in a coastal environment.

Mitigation: There may be opportunities to partner with community organisations with the capability to negotiate on behalf of the wider community to secure public access.

Safety 

Not formalising the walkway limits landowner liability for the public legitimately accessing land (publicly or privately held) for recreation, as long as the landholder or agent is not acting as a PCBU (Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking)

Mitigation: Council communicates with walkway users about the safety and access risks of the route.

The Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway is not a formed and owned council pathway. Parts of the route pose significant health and safety risks and hazards, including during storm events combined with higher-than-average tides (king or spring tides).  

Mitigation: Signage on the Watercare pumpstation on the council owned reserve at R 21 Tiri Road (Thornes Bay) warns the public that the route requires a reasonable level of fitness and is not suitable for prams or unsupervised children. Further information signage warning users of the risks of the route can be installed. 

Noting that WorkSafe’s guidance limits landowner liability for the public legitimately accessing land (publicly or privately held) for recreation, as long as the landholder or agent is not acting as a PCBU. 

Operational risks of agreeing to a 1.5m to 2m wide easement/pathway adjacent to the foreshore/coastline of 9 Kitchener Road. Due to the topography, any public access easement in this location is likely to require a raised walkway similar in principle to the one previously destroyed in 2011.  

An appropriate structure will be difficult to design to be resilient to severe coastal storms. Any boardwalk structure built in this environment would need to accept extremely high consequential OPEX requirements and potential health and safety risks. 

Mitigation: Options 1 and 3 address this risk. 

Service provision 

The valued experience provided by the walkway will be negatively affected. 

Mitigation: A significant portion of the walkway will still be accessible, and the alternative route will still provide the linkage. 

The Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway is not identified as a strategic priority in the Devonport-Takapuna Greenways Plan 2015. Further action by council in this area would be contrary to the plan.

Mitigation: Development of alternative route options with clear signage.

The owners of 9 Kitchener Road continue to restrict public access across their property. 

Mitigation: Council information signage has been placed advising walkway users that an alternate route on formed legal road is available via footpaths on Audrey Lane, Kitchener Road, Hurstmere Road and Minnehaha Avenue to return to the coastal walkway. 

An article was posted on Our Auckland on 30 September 2023 advising the public of the closure. The information signage along the walkway route includes a QR code linking to the website page. 

Climate 

No change to the council’s exposure and liability to climate change risk such as future coastal inundation and storm surge events.

Legalising access or acquiring any privately owned properties along the route, including 9 Kitchener Road, will increase the council’s exposure and liability to climate change risk such as future coastal inundation and storm surge events. This risk comes with associated holding and operational costs, repair and replacement costs.

Mitigation: Options 1 and 3 explore formalising access further landward or not seeking to formalise the walkway. 

Several of the potential options will increase the council’s exposure and liability to climate change risk such as future coastal inundation and storm surge events. This risk comes with associated holding and operational costs, damage, repair, and replacement costs in an area where the physical options for walkway construction and management are already constrained. Option 3 does not expose the council to accepting any landowner risks.

Mitigation: Prioritising land-based access options and provisions are preferrable to any structures or boardwalks located in the coastal marine area.

Other 

Reputational risk to the council as being seen as responsible for stopping or blocking public access through 9 Kitchener Road.  

Mitigation: The article on Our Auckland provides the history of the complex issue that has led to the current closure of public access over the privately owned property.  

Precedent setting and reputational risk of agreeing to a formal access arrangement with one landowner for public access and not with the other affected private landowners along the route of the informal walkway. 

The council’s Heritage team’s advice is that the Clifton Firth residence continues to meet the threshold for heritage protection under the AUP, so they are unlikely to be able to provide the critical expert support required to recommend the council initiate a plan change to remove or change the heritage protection.  

Mitigation: Recommended Option 1 avoids setting a precedent and does not involve a council-initiated plan change.

Residents of the affected streets along the alternate route may notice increased foot traffic along on the footpaths.

This route is not a priority in the Devonport Takapuna Greenways Plan 2015.

Reliant on the willingness of the owners to consider options that do not include a council-initiated plan change. 

Mitigation: Options 1 and 2 address this risk. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

80.     Subject to the decision of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on the resolutions presented in this agenda report, staff will formally advise the owners of 9 Kitchener Road that that the council is no longer seeking to secure public access to 9 Kitchener Road, Takapuna, to support the Takapuna to Milford coastal walkway route.

81.     Staff will initiate work to communicate with walkway users about the safety and access risks of the route, and a reminder to respect the generosity and goodwill of private residents who enable access across their property.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Negotiation, condition and agreement history

 

b

Detail of proposed options

 

c

Summary of the legacy North Shore City Council involvement

 

d

Detail of the process for Category A historic heritage place under the AUP

 

e

High-level impact assessment of Option 3

 

f

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolutions

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anthony Lewis - Specialist Technical Statutory Advisor

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 - Draft Plan for public consultation

File No.: CP2023/18447

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.      The Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau / Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 (waste plan 2018) is due for review by June 2024. The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires a decision on whether the plan should be amended or revoked and a new plan substituted.

3.      Auckland Council’s first waste plan in 2012 set an aspirational vision of achieving a zero waste Auckland by 2040. This vision was reconfirmed in the waste plan 2018.

4.      The recently released Te rautaki para Aotearoa / New Zealand Waste Strategy is our 2050 roadmap for a low-emissions, low-waste society built upon a circular economy.

5.      The council is required to review its waste plan every six years having regard to the New Zealand Waste Strategy and the council’s most recent waste assessment and decide whether it should be amended or revoked and a new plan substituted.

6.      A new Auckland's Waste Assessment (Attachment A) was prepared in 2023 to inform the development of the next Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (draft waste plan 2024) (Attachment B). The Auckland's Waste Assessment 2023 reflects the requirements of the New Zealand Waste Strategy.

7.      Based on the findings of the Auckland's Waste Assessment 2023, two options for the future direction of Auckland’s waste plan have been evaluated:

·        Option one: continue to deliver the waste plan 2018 (status quo)

·        Option two: (recommended option): continue to deliver the waste plan 2018 and extend activities into new priority waste areas such as the commercial waste streams and areas of advocacy.

8.      Both options are similar in cost and can be funded by council’s existing and planned for waste management budgets which are funded by the waste levy, waste targeted rates and general rates.

9.      Option 1 would continue to meet the council’s responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in the Auckland region but lacks a number of the building blocks required by the national waste strategy, specifically for a low-waste, low emissions society built on a circular economy.

10.    Option 2 is recommended, because it more closely aligns to the roadmap set by the national waste strategy by expanding the 2018 plan’s actions to address those waste streams that contribute significantly to landfill waste; specifically commercially managed waste (including construction and demolition waste). It also focuses further on waste-related climate emissions, as also required by both Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and the National Emissions Reduction Plan.


 

11.    Option 2 does not require additional capital or operational investment beyond the capital investment proposed for Long-term Plan 2024-2034 budgets, specifically for the expansion of the Resource Recovery Network, as endorsed through the Resource Recovery Network Strategy in February 2021. The actions rely on council capability and existing resourcing, including collaboration with external partners and stakeholders to deliver on the outcomes outlined in the draft plan. 

12.    Should specific council-led research or advocacy actions identify a need to implement or fund new initiatives, separate business cases will be required. Where appropriate, finance would be sought through either central government funding or private sector investment.

13.    The council received early feedback from mana whenua, community partners, local boards, Governing Body and Auckland Council Group to develop a vision, guiding principles based on te ao Māori (Māori world view), and goals and objectives to pave the way for the future of waste. Building on the Zero Waste aspiration adopted in 2012, the draft waste plan 2024 further details what action the region can take to reach our targets based on the recommended option, Option 2.

14.    Governing Body and local boards were generally supportive of the proposed approach. A report of all local board feedback is provided as Attachment D. Feedback was also sought from select local boards providing early input into the Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan – an appendix to the draft waste plan 2024 (Attachment C) that recognises the unique nature of waste management on the islands.

15.    Staff have worked with mana whenua to strengthen Māori values and world view in the draft waste plan 2024. This included hui with Te Ākitai Waiohua, Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, and hui with other Māori community partners. A substantive pānui from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei centred around their desire to work together to develop the way the plan responds to te ao Māori, captures Māori priorities as policies, and to plan a pathway to phase out landfills. Further detail of mana whenua feedback is outlined in Attachment A, Appendix 1 and the Māori Impact Statement section of this report.

16.    Pending adoption of the draft waste plan 2024 for consultation, the draft plan will be consulted on alongside the council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process in 2024. A hearings panel will be established via the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee to hear views and receive feedback on the draft waste plan 2024.

17.    Consultation on the draft plan will occur over the 2024 calendar year with the final amended draft waste plan to come back to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in late 2024 for consideration and adoption.

18.     Once the final version is adopted, the draft waste plan 2024 will be the guiding document for achieving effective and efficient waste management in the Auckland region for the next six years (2024-2030).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whai / adopt the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024, including the draft Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan 2024, as the statement of proposal, pursuant to section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002, for the purpose of undertaking formal consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure.

b)      tuku mana / delegate to the committee chair and deputy chair the power to approve minor amendments to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024, prior to public notification.


 

c)       tuku mana / delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the power to adopt a summary for consultation in accordance with ss 83(1)(a)(ii) and 83AA of the Local Government Act 2002.

d)      whakaae / approve the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 for consultation in February and March 2024 (the “consultation period”).

e)      whakaae / approve that the Auckland's Waste Assessment 2023 be made publicly available with the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024, pursuant to section 50 (3)(a) and 44(e) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

f)       tuhi-ā-taipitopito / note that public consultation will occur concurrently with the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

g)      tono / request that the Governing Body delegate authority for spoken interaction about the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 at public engagement events during the consultation period in line with any such delegation made in respect of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034

Horopaki

Context

Legislation and purpose

19.    The recently released Te rautaki para Aotearoa / New Zealand Waste Strategy is our roadmap for a low-emissions, low-waste society built upon a circular economy.

20.    As well as doing our part to deliver the vision of Aotearoa, Auckland Council is required under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to produce a waste management and minimisation plan (waste plan). This plan is our guiding document for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in Auckland.

21.    The council is required to review its waste plan every six years having regard to the New Zealand Waste Strategy and the council’s most recent waste assessment and decide whether it should be amended or revoked and a new plan substituted.

22.    A new Auckland's Waste Assessment (Attachment A) was prepared in 2023 to inform the development of the next Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (draft waste plan 2024), which, in accordance with the Waste Minimisation Act:

·    reviews progress against the waste plan 2018

·    reassesses future demands for collection, recycling, recovery, treatment, and disposal services across the Auckland region

·    reassesses goals, objectives and targets to support Auckland Council’s aspirational vision of zero waste to landfill by 2040

·    develops and assesses options to meet future demand and achieve desired outcomes for waste minimisation

·    reviews options for waste management and minimisation against Auckland Council’s objectives to determine a preferred option

·    reviews options against the direction and requirements of the New Zealand Waste Strategy.

23.    Based on this assessment, a new draft waste plan 2024 entitled Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 (Attachment B) has been prepared for public consultation. A separate draft Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan 2024 (Attachment C) has been prepared for public consultation to reflect the unique nature of managing waste on Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf Islands.

24.    The plan outlines what the national strategy means for Tāmaki Makaurau and proposes the region’s approach to delivering a local circular economy.

Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 has made some good progress

25.    Auckland’s second Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau / Waste Management and Minimisation Plan was adopted in 2018. It reconfirmed the aspirational vision of achieving zero waste to landfill by 2040 that was set in Auckland’s first waste plan in 2012.

26.    The waste plan 2012 prioritised waste services that are more directly managed by the council, which account for approximately 20 per cent of all waste to landfill in Auckland, with the challenge of modernising and harmonising waste services from the seven legacy councils. The waste plan 2018 continued this approach but expanded it to include activities that address the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially managed.

27.    The achievements of the waste plan 2018 included:

·    A 12 per cent reduction in household waste from 160kg per person in 2010 to 141kg per person in 2022.

·    A 44 per cent reduction in waste from the council’s own administrative offices.

·    The continued delivery of standardised domestic waste and recycling services region-wide to help Aucklanders minimise their waste and reduce their waste disposal costs. Changes include:

introduction of a food scraps collection service for mainland urban Auckland

commitment to shift to a regionwide rates-funded refuse service, starting from July 2024

harmonisation of waste charges.

·    The delivery of a Resource Recovery Strategy, and expansion of the Resource Recovery Network from 5 to 13 community recycling centres across the region, including on Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier, as well as the first Māori / Pacific-led partnership in Onehunga. These centres are diverting useful materials from landfills, creating jobs, offering training, connecting people with their communities, and play a critical role in building community resilience in times of disaster.

·    The successful development of community-led, council-supported initiatives generating local waste minimisation efforts, and associated benefits in community development, training and employment.

·    Securing central government funding for significant investment into council-owned waste assets and infrastructure. There continues to be progress, working with the construction and demolition industry, including:

widespread uptake of innovative and research-driven processes by the construction industry to reduce construction and demolition waste, such as the rapidly growing implementation of house relocation, deconstruction and soft-strip methods (the reuse of parts of buildings) in the site clearances associated with social housing and infrastructure projects such as the Eastern Busway

the development of support for the industry to reduce waste, ranging from-www.buildingoutwaste.co.nz to new take-back schemes for products like PVC pipe and growing capability of community-based organisations diverting waste.

28.     With these initiatives coming into effect, waste minimisation targets for council-managed waste services are on track to being achieved, and impact on commercial and residential waste to landfill is expected to follow.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Drivers for a different approach - findings of the Waste Assessment 2023

29.    Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023 (Attachment A) establishes the planning foundations of the draft waste plan 2024 by describing the waste situation, setting the vision, goals, objectives and targets for the region, and developing options for meeting future demand. The Waste Assessment 2023 is shown in Attachment A and will be included in the consultation process.

30.    Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023 reports that:

·    In 2022, Auckland sent 1.480 million tonnes of domestic and commercial waste to municipal landfill, 873kg for every Aucklander. The forecast for waste by 2040 has improved significantly from our forecast in the waste plan 2018, with waste volumes showing signs of stabilising in recent years despite growth in population and economic activity (Figure 1). There is some caution in interpreting this result as we do not have complete data for the whole region that is owned by the private sector.

Figure 1. Estimated and projected annual waste from the Auckland region going to municipal landfill

·    Kerbside refuse makes up 16 per cent of the waste that goes to landfill and much of this waste could potentially be diverted to other uses. Domestic waste to landfill per capita has been steady since around 2017, however this is anticipated to fall by around 20kgs per person with the roll out of the kerbside rukenga kai / food scraps service during 2023, and by a further 10kgs per person with the shift to fortnightly refuse collections. 

·    The most prevalent types of waste to landfill (current and forecasted) are construction and demolition, rubble waste, plastics, timber and organics. 

·    Organic waste remains a significant component of commercial and domestic waste to landfill, in terms of both tonnage and emissions.

·    The total annual emissions from landfills are generated by 45 per cent of the total reported tonnes to Class 1 (municipal) landfills, particularly paper, food and garden waste, timber and textiles (Figure 2). 

A graph of the amount of waste in the area

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

*Special waste is a category of waste that includes potentially hazardous soils and sludges and other materials that need special treatment at a landfill facility.

 

Figure 2. Auckland’s estimated municipal landfill composition in 2022 by tonnage and emissions (CO2-e)*

31.    A significant portion (84 per cent) of the total reported waste going to landfill is managed by the private sector and not by the council. Information about these waste streams is based on limited data available to council.

32.    Based on the quantities and composition of waste and existing resource recovery facilities and services presented in this assessment, the waste assessment has identified the following eight priority wastes and waste sources to target within the options assessment: 

·    construction and demolition, including soils 

·    food production, manufacture, service and consumption 

·    packaging (household consumables, kerbside recycling, commercial wastes and the Container Return Scheme) 

·    waste streams identified as national priority products (plastic packaging, tyres, electrical and electronic products, agrichemicals and their containers)

·    nappies and sanitary products 

·    textiles (fashion, uniforms, homewares including carpets) 

·    disaster response and recovery 

·    in-house office and operational waste (council and council-controlled organisations), and a focus on future solutions for biosolids.

33.    The main reasons these areas have been prioritised are because they represent a high proportion of waste sent to landfill and/or greenhouse gas emissions from waste, their volume is increasing, and current resource recovery options are limited. For some of these materials resource recovery options exist but the systems are lacking resilience, others are difficult to recycle or have the potential to cause harm to people or the environment.

34.    Although there have been reductions in council office waste, there is a need for the Auckland Council Group to show leadership with the management of its operational waste; a much more significant waste stream. 


 

Options Assessment

35.    Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023 identifies and evaluates two options for the future, to guide the direction of the draft waste plan 2024 (see Section 8 of Attachment A). Both options propose actions that can be delivered directly by the council and actions that reflect the council’s advocacy role, to influence the demand-side of waste services by advocating, facilitating and supporting solutions that reduce waste by taking action higher up in the waste hierarchy. The options are:

·    Option 1: full implementation of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste, 2018 (status quo)

·    Option 2: the implementation of Option 1, plus additional actions that extend activities into new priority waste areas and areas of advocacy, at no extra cost to council.

36.    Staff have assessed the two options for their effectiveness against the statutory requirement to meet the phase one targets of the New Zealand Waste Strategy (building blocks are in place to enable change, more activity is circular and we produce less waste, and emissions and other environmental indicators are improving) and five further main and equally rated criteria of waste minimisation, addressing Auckland’s waste-related climate commitments, Māori outcomes, equity and fairness and cost and affordability as per Table 1 below.

Table 1. Options assessment summary

Consideration

Option 1:
Deliver WMMP 2018

Option 2:
Expand on WMMP 2018

Meets phase 1 targets of the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2022

ü

üüü

Maximises waste minimisation

ü

üüü

Addresses Auckland’s waste related climate commitments

ü

üüü

Delivers Māori outcomes

ü

üüü

Equity and fairness

ü

üüü

Cost and affordability

üü

üü

 

ûûû

ûû

û

ü

üü

üüü

most negative

moderately negative

slightly negative

slightly positive

moderately positive

most positive

37.    Option One would meet the council’s responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in the Auckland region but would not adequately address the phase 1 targets of the Aotearoa New Zealand Waste Strategy, nor significantly address waste-related climate emissions, as required by both Te-Tāruke-Ā-Tāwhiri and the National Emissions Reduction Plan.

38.    Option Two develops our current foundation to move up the waste hierarchy. Over the next six years it focuses on putting the building blocks in place to enable the transition to a low-waste, low-emissions, circular economy, in line with the national waste strategy.


 

39.    The new priority waste areas and areas of advocacy, include:

·    increasing action to maximise diversion from our kerbside waste

·    accelerate our contribution to Auckland’s climate goals by expanding our priorities to include more waste streams that have high carbon emissions

·    empower and equip Auckland businesses to minimise waste from their operations, with a focus on priority waste streams

·    significantly expand and accelerate support for the construction industry to minimise waste to landfill

·    support Auckland’s waste infrastructure to remain resilient in the face of climate challenges

·    an increased focus on Auckland Council Group operational wastes

·    broaden our advocacy to central government for timely delivery of the statutory and policy framework that will enable the shift to a circular economy, paving the way for beyond 2030.

40.    Option 2 does not require capital or operational investment beyond existing business-as-usual budgets, and the capital investment proposed within the long-term plan budget for the expansion of the Resource Recovery Network.

41.    The success of Option 2 does rely, however, on continued payment of the waste levy to local government and the proposed legislative changes and initiatives identified in the Aotearoa New Zealand Waste Strategy being enacted by government.

42.    The actions within Option 2 also rely on council capability and existing resourcing, including collaboration with external partners and stakeholders to deliver on the outcomes outlined in the draft plan as reflected in priority 12 of the draft waste plan 2024.

43.    Should specific council-led research or advocacy actions identify the need to implement new initiatives, separate business cases will be developed and, where appropriate, finance sought through central government funding for infrastructure and enabling private sector investment.

44.    Reflecting the findings of the Waste Assessment 2023 and the early feedback outlined below, the draft waste plan 2024 has been developed to deliver Option 2.

The detail of the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 for consultation

An enduring zero waste vision

45.    It is proposed that zero waste is maintained as an aspirational vision noting it is a simple and an ambitious horizon to drive activities. It is about valuing and caring for te taiao as a whole – land, air and water – as well as the things we make and use.

46.    This was tested and supported in our early engagement with this committee, the Waste Political Advisory Group, mana whenua, local boards, mataawaka and community groups, and council and Council Controlled Organisation departments. Therefore, the proposed vision of the draft waste plan 2024 is:


 

47.    It is proposed to add wording ‘working towards a circular economy’ to align the draft waste plan 2024 with the New Zealand Waste Strategy and other council plans that signal a shift away from the take-make-waste approach to using resources. Feedback from mana whenua suggested a more explicit aim to reduce the resources we extract from the environment with a proposed change to the line ‘turning waste into resources’ to ‘using resources to their best and highest value for a long as possible’.

48.    In recognising the unique nature of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, the council created the Tikapa-Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan in 2018. This specific waste plan reflects the aspirations of the island communities and mana whenua. The plan has been reviewed with early input and feedback from the relevant local boards and communities. The revised plan updates the current plan to reflect waste service changes and the presence of the community recycling centres on Aotea and Waiheke, and the impact of the New Zealand Waste Strategy requirements on the islands. The plan continues to reflect the island communities’ drive for ambitious waste goals and is included as an appendix to the draft waste plan 2024, see Attachment C.

49.    Staff seek approval of the draft Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan 2024 from this committee for consultation alongside the regional plan.

Considerations that underpin our decision-making

50.    The draft waste plan 2024 includes a new set of principles that function as assessment criteria for making decisions on waste issues and opportunities, see Table 2. These are important to guide how we will carry out our actions so that we are not focusing solely on waste minimisation and resource recovery at all costs.

Table 2. Draft waste plan 2024 principles

   Principles that underpin decisions and actions

1.   Advancing up the waste hierarchy.

2.   Working together and changing hearts and minds.

3.   Strengthening Māori outcomes.

4.   Taking an inter-generational and holistic approach.

5.   Acting fairly and being responsive to need.

6.   Making the best use of every dollar spent, and being affordable.

7.   Checking progress and being transparent and adaptable.

51.    The principles have been strengthened from the waste plan 2018 based on feedback received during early consultation to include new elements focused on strengthening Māori outcomes, being more holistic in recognising wider environmental impacts of products beyond waste and being transparent in our reporting against targets and outcomes linked to waste and recycling.

What we want to achieve and how will do it

52.    The goals and objectives summarise what we want to achieve, so that they are specific to waste. We have kept this simple with two goals:

·    to maximise circularity of resources and products in accordance with the waste hierarchy and

·    to minimise harm - address the impacts of waste on the environment and communities including reducing harmful waste, litter and illegal dumping.

53.    Each goal has four objectives which flesh out the scope of outcomes linked to the goals, set out in Table 3 below.

54.    The draft waste plan 2024 also outlines the wide range of methods that the council will use to deliver on the goals and objectives, for example through the provision of services and infrastructure through the Resource Recovery Network, working closely with Māori on projects, policies, programmes and monitoring outcomes, supporting local community groups, advocacy and partnership with business and central government, strategic planning, research and data collection and the provision of grants, guidance, tools and information.

Table 3. Draft waste plan 2024 goals and objectives

 

Goal 1: Maximise circularity of resources and products in accordance with the waste hierarchy

OBJECTIVES

1.   Organisations and individuals take responsibility for avoiding waste being generated and keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible.

2.   Organic waste is diverted from landfill.

3.   We have a well-supported, accessible network of infrastructure across the region to support resource recovery and deliver community and Māori outcomes.

4.   We have robust data and information to target our efforts to minimise waste while protecting the environment, and safeguarding health and wellbeing.

Goal 2: Minimise harm - address the impacts of waste on the environment and communities including reducing harmful waste, litter and illegal dumping

OJECTIVES

1.   Our total waste volumes are reduced sufficiently so that the need for final disposal is minimised.

2.   People treasure and respect the environment with less litter and dumping including into waterways and the sea.

3.   In times of disaster, all sectors work together to keep communities safe from contaminated waste while supporting needs for replacement goods and diverting waste where possible.

4.   Harmful waste is avoided, and residual waste is managed and treated to prevent harm to health and wellbeing and to the environment.

What are our priorities?

55.    Part four of the draft waste plan 2024 proposes a series of actions we will take into 2024-2030 to achieve our goals and objectives, using the methods outlined. The priority areas in Table 4 below represent where we propose to focus our action on for maximum impact.

56.    An action plan which describes the actions that we propose to deliver on the 12 priorities is included in part 4, section 14 of the attached draft waste plan 2024 (Attachment B).

Table 4. Twelve new priorities

1.  

2.   Continue expanding and strengthening the Resource Recovery Network and its services.

 

 

 

1.  

4.   Focus on five other priority waste streams:

·       organics (food scraps, green waste, timber and cardboard/paper)

·       plastics

·       packaging

·       textiles

·       biosolids.

5.   Strengthen our focus on disaster preparedness and climate change mitigation, adaptation and resilience.

1.  

7.   Advocate for actions to implement a container return scheme and other mandatory product stewardship schemes.

1.  

9.   Transition to a fortnightly kerbside refuse collection once the kerbside rukenga kai / food scraps collection service is well established.

10. Accelerate efforts to minimise operational wastes from the Auckland Council Group.

11. Address litter and illegal dumping to protect public health and the environment.

1.  

Handshake outline

Empowering iwi and community partnerships

1.   Strengthen ways of working with mana whenua and deliver on Māori outcomes through waste initiatives.

Bullseye outline

Targeting specific activities and materials

3.   Target construction and demolition waste.

Megaphone1 outline

Advocacy for further action

6.   Advocate for actions to move up the hierarchy including source reduction, re-use and right-to-repair.

Clapper board outline

Direct action

8.   Supporting Aucklanders to use their kerbside recycling and food scraps bins effectively, and to shift to rates-funded collection services.

Children outline

Across all priorities

12. Partner with others to achieve a zero waste Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland built on a circular economy.

Targets

57.    Three targets are proposed, slightly updated from the three current targets of the waste plan 2018:

Table 5. Proposed targets for draft waste plan 2024

CATEGORY

DESCRIPTION 

In-house

Building outline

 

Labor outline

Office waste

•  Reduce office waste by 50% from 0.14kg per visit to 0.07kg by 2030 (from 2022 baseline data). 

 

Operational waste

•    Collate data for significant waste streams by 2025.

•    Establish a comparative baseline by 2026 to measure performance.

•    Set targets for the following years to 2030.

Domestic kerbside refuse

Garbage outline

·       Reduce domestic kerbside refuse from a 2022 baseline of 141 kg to 120 kg per capita per year by 2028 (a 15% reduction).

·       Further reduce domestic kerbside refuse from 120 kg to 100 kg per capita per year (a 17% reduction) by 2030.

Overall reported waste to municipal (Class 1) landfill

Dump truck outline

·       Reduce total council and private-sector-influenced reported waste to municipal (Class 1) landfill by 30% from a 2022 baseline of 873kg per capita per year, by 2030.

·       Reduce the tonnage of organics (paper, garden, food) by 100% for food and garden waste, and 50% for paper by 2030, to achieve emissions reductions targets (biogenic methane) from landfill as outlined in the New Zealand Emissions Reduction Plan. 

Fortnightly refuse collections

58.    A move to fortnightly refuse collections is a policy direction signalled in both our 2012 and 2018 waste plans and is included again for consultation feedback in this draft waste plan. The reduction targets for domestic waste set in the waste plan 2018 were based on the introduction of food scraps and then moving to a fortnightly refuse collection. Although delayed due to Covid, the roll out of our rukenga kai / food scraps service is now complete, with reductions in per capita kerbside waste already evident.

59.    Kerbside audits have consistently shown that, on average, food waste makes up 41 per cent of kerbside waste. Of the remainder, we know that almost three quarters of both paper and plastics could also be diverted through recycling and soft plastics collection points. Recycling is also expected to increase under a fortnightly scenario, because reduced collection frequency has been shown to encourage better use of available bin volume.

60.    Cost modelling indicates that the diversion of food scraps is 12,000 tonnes higher under a fortnightly option because a fortnightly refuse collection encourages further uptake of the weekly food scraps service. A conservative estimate of greenhouse gas emissions saving is approximately 25,000 tonnes CO2-e per year, which is the equivalent annual emission of around 15,000 average size cars. The estimate could rise to as much as 50,000 tonnes CO2-e per year (equivalent of 30,000 average size cars) depending on refinement of the assumptions used.

61.    Reducing collection frequency raises concerns that some households, particularly larger households, may not be able to cope with less frequent collections. To address these concerns, in 2022 we conducted an in-depth trial with large households from Manurewa and Pukekohe that demonstrated by using all three bins, and with appropriate initial support mechanisms, all families were able to cope with a fortnightly collection.

62.    Our data also tells us that the move to fortnightly collections will suit the capacity requirements of most households. Currently, only 7.5 per cent of households in Auckland central and Manukau have a 240L refuse bin.

63.    By providing a service that suits the majority, Auckland ratepayers will not be paying for services that they do not need, and rubbish truck movements on Auckland’s roads will be reduced, with consequent cost and greenhouse gas emissions savings. We can proactively support larger households through policies that have been used successfully elsewhere, for example, providing greater bin capacity for households with more than six people, and targeted assistance through our community wastewise advisors.

The draft waste plan has been shaped by early stakeholder engagement

64.    This draft waste plan 2024 has been shaped by many voices. Auckland Council has developed collaborative relationships with stakeholders in implementing the first two waste management and minimisation plans. In developing this plan, early engagement was sought with mana whenua, mataawaka and community partners, local boards (Attachment D), staff across the Auckland Council Group, and the commercial sector. A more detailed summary of views and feedback is provided in Appendix 1 of the draft waste plan 2023.


 

65.    From our mataawaka and community partners who are working in the waste sector we heard many synergies with the draft waste plan 2024, with iwi feedback on taking a more holistic view of waste and sustainability. We also heard about:

·        the importance of education, and how we need to tackle consumerism and instead grow a reuse and repair economy

·        frustration that government regulation and a container return scheme has not eventuated

·        the importance of transparency on where kerbside waste and recycling goes to dispel myths around all recycling going to landfill.

66.    From the commercial sector we have heard that:

·        the resource recovery sector wants more certainty of markets for their products, and that they will have access to clean, uncontaminated materials so they can reliably fill orders

·        creating product stewardship schemes is very complex, including ensuring there are markets for products they might make

·        regulatory frameworks can be a challenge, for example in limiting what the construction industry can do with potentially contaminated soils or reprocessed construction materials.

67.    The Medical Officer of Health was provided with a copy of the draft Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023 for review in accordance with Section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act. Their feedback was that the Waste Assessment describes the complexities and inter-related aspects of production, use, reuse and waste very well, and will be a useful resource for progressing waste minimisation and improving waste management in the region. They also stated that they are supportive overall of the proposed approach and adopting Option 2.

68.    They have raised some concerns including the impacts of waste and resource recovery infrastructure on human health, and ensuring health justice for communities that live close to such facilities, for example, through the planning system. They also support Auckland Council’s advocacy for improving the national policy, regulation and resourcing to address the fragmented framework for managing hazardous wastes. The increasing problem of disposable (non-degradable) nappies and related products is a further concern and they agreed this should be a priority once the kerbside food scraps collection service is implemented, as noted in Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023.

69.    Going forward, they would like to see greater links between Auckland Council and Te Whatu Ora services in the Auckland region on health service waste minimisation and management, and seek opportunities for greater environmental health gain from shifting responsibilities and costs towards those who generate waste rather than emphasizing consumer responsibility. 

70.    This feedback did not require specific changes to the draft waste assessment, but has been reflected in the principles (1, 4 and 5), objectives (Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 4, and Goal 2, Objectives 3 and 4) and methods (appropriate planning of waste infrastructure) of the draft waste plan 2024, with actions included in Part 4 of the plan (Actions 38, 40, 88, 89, 103, 104, and 112) to address specific issues.

71.    The full feedback is available as Appendix L to Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023 (Attachment A).

Our communities will have a say over 2024

72.    The public can choose to have the opportunity to share their views online or at one of the public engagement events that will be held across Auckland in February and March 2024 as part of a joint engagement process for the draft Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and the draft waste plan 2024.

73.    Staff will attend the events to record the views of the public on the draft waste plan 2024, and these will be reported to a hearings panel to enable it to consider these during its deliberation.

74.    In addition to the public events referred to above, it is recommended that a hearings panel be appointed to hear from submitters who indicate that they would like to present their views more formally to the council. 

75.     The Regulatory and Community Safety Committee will select and appoint hearings commissioners in early 2024 and then that panel will hear and consider views to provide input into the finalisation of the plan over 2024 before the plan is presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee for approval in late 2024.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

76.    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, released in August 2021, has reported global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless significant reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades. The IPPC Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report identified reducing food waste, reducing methane from waste/waste water, material efficiency and construction materials substitution as potential mitigation options in the near term.

Auckland’s climate emissions and waste

77.    Responding to the challenge of climate change is a key priority for Auckland Council. This involves actions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through reduced consumption-emissions and emissions generated by disposal, dealing with climate-related risks and looking at the opportunities that may arise.

78.    Emissions from landfilled wastes account for approximately 2.4 per cent of Auckland’s total emissions profile. According to the Climate Commission’s advice to the government in June 2021, waste accounts for nine per cent of biogenic methane emissions in Aotearoa. These come from organic materials disposed of in landfills with some materials, such as paper and cardboard, having high emissions factors that make their footprint far larger than would be expected.

79.    As a member of C40 cities, Auckland committed to adopting a climate action plan that will deliver action consistent with the objectives of the Paris Agreement – an integrated and inclusive plan that addresses the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to the impacts of climate change, and deliver wider social, environmental and economic benefits.

80.    Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, was adopted in July 2020. The plan commits to halving greenhouse gas emissions (against a 2016 baseline) by 2030 and reaching net zero emissions by 2050. Specific priorities in the plan related to waste minimisation are:

·       built environment: ensuring the management of existing infrastructure increases climate resilience and reduces emissions

·       economy: accelerating the uptake of innovation that supports the delivery of a resilient, climate-proof and regenerative economy; manage our resources to deliver a zero waste, circular economy

·       food: prevent and reduce waste and maximise the value of surplus food.

81.    To address the urgency to move to a low waste and low emissions economy, Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023 placed a greater emphasis on identifying the emissions factors of all waste streams. This resulted in the expansion of the list of priority wastes for the draft waste plan 2024 to also include textiles and biosolids. Focusing efforts to reduce disposal of materials with high emissions factors to landfill will further support meeting our climate change obligations.

82.    Over the lifetime of the draft waste plan 2024, the impact of greater diversion both from food scraps collection and general recycling will be significant in terms of emissions reduction. Fortnightly refuse collection maximises this opportunity as previously outlined.

83.    Methane generation from food scraps processing can be directly accounted for in terms of avoided methane generated in landfill and carbon sequestered (through the anaerobic digestion of diverted food scraps).

84.    In addition to climate-related disasters, other natural and human-made emergencies require urgent responses. These can result in significant amounts of waste from damaged properties, assets and possessions, along with waste streams such as ash, sediment, vegetation or hazardous wastes.

85.    Emissions can also be avoided by applying the waste hierarchy to reduce our need to extract new materials in the first place, in turn reducing emissions related to production, transportation and consumption. A well-used Resource Recovery Network and circular economy should also ultimately result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

86.     From a council perspective, information on embodied carbon of materials (where available) and emissions from transport and energy associated with collecting and processing waste are other common greenhouse gas factors to consider when making decisions on important waste issues, and this has helped to shape the draft waste plan 2024 considerations.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

87.    The Auckland Council Group is a large buyer of goods, services and works – with an annual spend of over $1 billion. Each year, the council carries out a wide range of activities and projects that generate a variety of waste streams.

88.    In developing this plan, staff sought the views of the departments and Council Controlled Organisations within the Auckland Council Group that are likely to create or manage waste in their operations through a series of workshops and regular direct communication and incorporated their views and actions within the draft waste plan 2024. This included Parks and Community Facilities, Infrastructure and Environmental Services, Regulatory Services, Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku and Watercare. For the first time, this draft waste plan 2024 also covers biosolids, management of closed landfills, and contaminated land owned and managed by the council group.

89.    Initial data collection indicates that construction and demolition together with soils and biosolids are among the largest waste streams from our activities. Planning for the future of biosolids – the sewage sludge remaining after wastewater treatment – is a key priority for Watercare. We have signalled within the plan that Watercare will start working with mana whenua, communities and stakeholders to identify options to reduce and reuse biosolids and agree a plan for their future.

90.    Demonstrating best practice in waste minimisation within the council is a clear opportunity to change the way our staff and suppliers approach waste minimisation. Recent changes in the council’s procurement processes will facilitate the council achieving its waste minimisation targets, for example requiring a site-specific waste management plan for large projects and establishing a deconstruction supplier panel to facilitate flexible and efficient procurement processes for low to medium construction projects.

91.     Acknowledging the complexity of establishing meaningful baselines for operational waste across the Auckland Council Group, the target for in-house operational waste is staged to set specific deadlines for data collation and establishing baselines, before setting targets in 2025 for the years 2026 to 2030.

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

Local impacts and local board views

92.    Local boards are integral to the success of the draft waste plan 2024, particularly in working with local communities to promote waste minimisation.

93.    A local board briefing was held on 7 August 2023, with an update on the Waste Assessment 2023 and the review of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. This was followed by a report to all local boards August 2023 business meeting agendas providing an opportunity to give feedback on proposed priority actions to be included in the revised waste plan.

94.    Staff also sought feedback from the local boards of Aotea Great Barrier, Waiheke (including Rakino) and Kawau (Rodney Local Board) seeking early input and then testing content for the draft Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan 2024, which is included as Appendix 2 of the draft waste plan 2024 (Attachment C).

95.    All 21 local boards provided feedback in August 2023 (Attachment D). The local boards were generally supportive of the proposed approach, with 15 local board expressing direct support. No local boards stated that they did not support the general direction of the plan. Some of the key themes that emerged included the following points.

·    The importance of engaging and involving community in waste management decisions, and empowering partnerships with mana whenua and community groups to achieve waste reduction goals more effectively.

·    The importance of addressing commercial waste streams, including construction and demolition waste, plastics and organic materials, and support for product stewardship, where manufacturers take responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products.

·    Widespread support for expanding and establishing resource recovery and recycling centres, considered as essential for diverting waste from landfills; minimising landfill waste was a shared objective.

·    Education and communication programs are deemed as crucial for informing residents about all facets of waste management.

·    Efficiency and cost-effectiveness in waste management operations; balancing environmental goals with economic considerations. 

·    Removing barriers for residents to access recycling and waste disposal facilities. 

·    Building and maintaining trust in waste services through transparency and responsible recycling practices. Trust is seen as essential for community participation. 

96.     These points have been addressed within the draft waste plan 2024 and will be taken into account when developing work programmes. Staff will continue to liaise with local boards to ensure their concerns are addressed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

97.    The zero waste vision is aligned with the broader holistic framework and values of te ao Māori. Working with mana whenua to embed te ao Māori into our way of working to operationalise waste management and minimisation not only responds to council’s legislative requirements including recognition of te Tiriti o Waitangi, but it also strengthens environmental, social and cultural outcomes that benefit the whole community.

98.    Good working relationships were developed with mana whenua and mataawaka in implementing the first and second waste management and minimisation plans. With support from Auckland Council, Para Kore ki Tāmaki, a programme that integrates mātauranga Māori principles and practice, has worked alongside marae to identify the most effective way of diverting para (waste) from Papatūānuku.

99.    Auckland Council is committed to ensuring Māori values and world views are also represented in this draft waste plan 2024. To this end, staff have sought to work closely with mana whenua through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Forum as summarised in Table 6.

Table 6. Summary of working with mana whenua

Time period

Actions

August and November 2022

Introduction to review and invitation through Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum regional hui and projects workshop. Agreed mana whenua working group approach.

February and March 2023

·   Written invitations sent to all 19 iwi across the region, and to Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Forum members.

·   Small working group formed with representative from two iwi: Te Ahiwaru and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.

·   Initial hui with working group and input from individual iwi.

May – Sept 2023

·   Māori Specialist employed with support of working group.

·   Iwi reps, Māori specialist, Waste Solutions staff working together to create and test draft direction and content.

June 2023

·   A further Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum regional hui presentation to provide update on progress and extend invitation to take part in working group.

100.  Input was also received from Te Ākitai Waiohua and after initial korero with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, staff received substantive pānui in September 2023 centred around their desire to work together to develop the way the plan responds to te ao Māori, captures Māori priorities as policies, and to plan a pathway to phase our landfills. This has been reflected in the draft waste plan 2024 and signalled in future actions.

101.  Recognising the significant number of mataawaka in Tāmaki Makaurau a special hui was held in July 2023 at Papatūānuku Kōkiri marae with representatives from that marae, Para Kore ki Tāmaki, and Te Awa Ora Trust. Community engagement in July included Māori community partners, Ka Taea e Koe.

102.  What we heard from mana whenua is outlined in Attachment B, Appendix 1 of the draft waste plan 2024, and has informed the principles, goals, objectives, methods and actions within the plan. Key themes include:

·        the importance of telling the story of preserving resources flipped from dealing with waste so people think about re-using or repairing items rather than extracting more

·        opportunities to work more closely with the council, including how the council might share skills around auditing for waste or business cases for waste minimisation initiatives; or working together in our advocacy

·        mana whenua interest in activities with direct impact on land including community recycling centres, landfilling, and not sending waste to another rohe for landfilling, and concern about impacts on land with important values

·        a recommendation to plan future infrastructure together so we do not have to dispose of so much waste.

103.  Strengthening ways of working with mana whenua and delivering on Māori outcomes through waste initiatives is identified as the first of twelve key priorities within the draft waste plan 2024.


 

104.  Specific actions proposed in the draft waste plan 2024 include the following points.

·    Continue strengthening relationships with mana whenua and seek opportunities to work closely, for example through procurement, developing submissions and policy, projects and programmes. 

·    Work with Māori to explore opportunities for participation in waste minimisation and resource recovery initiatives and other contracts.  

·    Work with mana whenua to develop the approach to waste based on te ao Māori, mātauranga Māori and tikanga.    

·    Support Māori organisations such as mana whenua entities and Para Kore ki Tāmaki, to deliver waste minimisation programmes in a way that supports Māori outcomes.  

·    Continue the development and delivery of the Para Kore ki Tāmaki programme to support marae, kura and Māori organisations on their para kore journey through te ao Māori. 

·    Work with mana whenua and community groups to develop messaging that helps residents understand the links between waste and climate change and wider environmental and cultural impacts of extracting resources. 

105.   Working together with mana whenua throughout the consultation and hearings process will be essential to lay the foundations and framework to ensure the future success of delivering the draft waste plan 2024 together once it is adopted.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

106.  Funding for council’s waste services comes from a mixture of:

·    commercial revenue 

·    targeted and general rates

·    revenue from the waste levy (this is a $50 per tonne waste levy, rising to $60 per tonne from 1 July 2024, administered by the Ministry for the Environment, 50 per cent of which is distributed to territorial authorities, amounting to $14.9 million for Auckland Council in 2023/24).

107.  Both options considered in Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023 are achievable within the proposed Long-term Plan budgets. These budgets are funded by a mixture of funding sources as described above specifically the waste levy from central government.

108.  Specifically $76 million capital expenditure over ten years is requested in the draft Long-term Plan to deliver the expansion of the Resource Recovery Network as per the committee resolution in 2021.

109.  Option 2 does not require any capital or operational investment beyond existing business-as-usual budgets, and the capital investment referenced above.

110.   The actions rely on council capability and resourcing, alongside collaborative efforts with external partners and stakeholders. Should specific council-led research or advocacy actions identify the need to implement new initiatives, separate business cases will be developed and, where appropriate, external funding sought through central government funding for infrastructure and enabling private sector investment.


 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

111.  An assessment of the risks and mitigations on whether to consult on the draft waste plan 2024 options are outlined below:

Risk

Mitigation

Delay in approving the draft waste plan 2024 for consultation, causing statutory timelines to be missed, which will threaten the ability of Auckland Council to access Waste Levy funding.

Early engagement with elected members through workshops with the local boards, Waste Political Advisory Group and Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

Minor concerns can be addressed by the proposed delegation to the Chair and Deputy Chair of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board prior to release.

Delays or changes in central government legislation or funding and or changes to the direction of the New Zealand Waste Strategy as a result of the change in government.

Continue to work closely with central government on anticipated direction and any changes to government policy.

Lack of council funding to implement recommended option.

Both options are able to be delivered within available and expected budgets, including waste levy and the waste targeted rate.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

112.  Subject to endorsement from the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, next steps will be:

·    preparation of summary for consultation

·    approval of final changes to the draft waste plan 2024 and summary for consultation under delegated authority

·    notification of the draft waste plan 2024, consultation summary and Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023 for consultation

·    Regulatory and Community Safety Committee selection and appointment of hearings commissioners at its meeting on 13 February 2024

·    draft waste plan 2024 made publicly available for consultation concurrently with the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process. Public able to provide feedback (and request to be heard by the hearings panel) at one of the public engagement events in February/March 2024.

·    collation and analysis of submissions in April/May 2024

·    local boards’ feedback on submissions and input in May /June 2024

·    hearings and deliberations from late July/August

·    hearings panel report including recommended changes August/September 2024

·    final draft waste plan 2024 presented to this committee for approval in October/November 2024.

113.   Once approved, the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 will form the basis of Auckland Council’s work on waste for the next six years. Monitoring and reporting frameworks will ensure transparency.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland’s Waste Assessment 2023.

 

b

Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024

 

c

Draft Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan 2024

 

d

Local Board Feedback - Draft Waste Management and  Minimisation Plan 2024

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Le Claire, Waste Planning Manager, Waste Solutions

Parul Sood, General Manager Waste Solutions

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

City Centre action plan - implementing the City Centre masterplan

File No.: CP2023/15863

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To report back on the development of an integrated implementation plan for the City Centre Masterplan, and to endorse in principle the resulting “Auckland City Centre Action Plan: our priorities for a thriving city centre" (Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The City Centre action plan is a new integrated implementation plan for the city centre. The need for the action plan was identified in the Planning Committee decision (PLA/2021/136) to develop one integrated strategy and plan for the city centre to guide council group activity and investment, led by Eke Panuku as lead agency for the city centre. 

3.       The City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) remains the guiding document for the city centre. The action plan implements the CCMP through integrated, cross-agency work programmes. It reinforces the strategic direction of the masterplan and provides for its implementation pathway.

4.       A workshop with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee was held on 11 October 2023. Feedback from the workshop reinforced the action plan focus areas including safety and people experience, transport and movement, accessibility and inclusion, smart/digital city, and business and retail offering. Engagement with neighbourhoods outside the city centre, together with council’s advisory panels now that they are fully operational, will also be explored as regular updates to the action plan are made. Understanding key metrics for the city centre will continue to inform this work, including how these insights can help build support from Aucklanders.

5.       Targeted stakeholder engagement with city centre partners was held over March-May 2023 to help gather insights and develop the action plan. These conversations have directly shaped the content of the plan. This engagement confirms that the action plan identifies the necessary elements from a range of different sector interests. In addition, the engagement approach creates a strong platform for ongoing conversations with city centre partners and stakeholders as the plan is implemented.  The Auckland City Centre Advisory Panel, since its inaugural meeting in July 2023, will help to drive and shape the delivery of the action plan priorities and the integrated work programmes.

6.       While the output of the action plan is important, the process of working together as a cross-agency team is equally key to success. The way of working together and processes underpinning this have been further developed through the action plan.

7.       The action plan considers the changing context since the masterplan was refreshed over 2018-2020. This includes the impacts on the city centre resulting from COVID-19, recent social and economic pressures and the impact of climate change. Four characteristics for the city centre are identified that will help drive its desirability over the next decade. These are evidence-based drivers, that have been informed by the masterplan, research and time spent listening to and working with city centre stakeholders, business leaders and community groups:

·        a city centre that offers a diverse range of experiences​

·        a city centre that is a leader in sustainability​

·        a city centre that celebrates our unique identity​ – includes advancing mana whenua and Māori outcomes

·        a city centre that is an attractive place to live.

8.       The action plan assists the council group to prioritise its work in the city centre and ensure a sharper focus on those projects and initiatives that have the greatest impact from limited funds to deliver on priorities over the short and medium term. The priorities identified for the next four years are:

Maintain momentum and get the basics right:

·        improve the experience in the city centre and attract business, investment, visitors and residents

·        maximise the full benefits of the City Rail Link

·        support residential growth in the city centre

·        advance other city-shaping projects

·        increase climate resilience.

Collaboration and partnership

Collaboration and partnership underpin the action plan and its approach. Strengthening effective partnerships and meaningful collaboration with mana whenua, private sector, universities, community groups and central government remains an important priority over the next four years.

Set ourselves up for future success

The next four years will also provide the platform for future investment and activity in the city centre. The action plan identifies areas of priority for investment over the medium term, helping to prioritise our planning work over the short term. This platform will support a thriving city centre that contributes to the success of Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau, and beyond.

9.       The action plan is a way to organise and communicate council group activity in the city centre within a single, coherent implementation framework. This is done through a series of integrated city-wide and place-based programmes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      ohia / endorse “Auckland City Centre Action Plan: our priorities for a thriving city centre" (Attachment A of the agenda report) in principle, noting commencement of partly funded and unfunded activities are subject to the confirmation of funding through current Long-term Plan and Regional Land Transport Plan processes, to provide for integrated implementation of the City Centre Masterplan.

Horopaki

Context

10.     The Planning Committee decision (PLA/2021/136) establishes Eke Panuku as the lead agency for implementation of the City Centre Masterplan 2020 effective from 1 July 2022. As part of its decision the committee noted that all council group entities and projects will follow one integrated strategy and plan for the city centre led by Eke Panuku and approved by its Board. This is the city centre action plan. In addition, the Eke Panuku Statement of Intent 2023-2026 identifies the city centre action plan to guide council group investment and activity in the city centre.

11.     The action plan builds on and is aligned with the council’s strategic direction. The CCMP remains the guiding document, with the action plan providing an implementation pathway to achieve the masterplan vision, outcomes and transformational moves. The action plan also contributes to outcomes included in the Auckland Plan, Waitematā Local Board Plan, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and Regional Land Transport Strategy within the city centre location.

Previous Council engagement and decisions

Date and meeting

Document

Decision / Outcome

11 October 2023, Planning, Environment and Parks Committee workshop

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee workshop

Opportunity to provide feedback

26 July 2023, Eke Panuku Board

Eke Panuku Board meeting

Approve City Centre Action Plan and recommend its endorsement to Parks Environment and Planning Committee

30 November 2021, Planning Committee

City Centre Lead -Implementation of the City Centre Masterplan

Endorse Eke Panuku as the lead agency for the implementation of the City Centre Masterplan 2020.

That all council group entities and projects will follow one integrated strategy and plan for the city centre led by Eke Panuku and approved by its Board to give effect to the City Centre Masterplan 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     The CCMP was introduced in 2012 and updated in 2020 to guide the Auckland Council Group’s efforts to rejuvenate the city centre. The city centre is, broadly, the area bounded by the motorway ring of the central motorway junction, and the waterfront area between Westhaven in the west and Ports of Auckland in the east. The integration with adjoining neighbourhoods through the “city to villages” connection is acknowledged.

13.     The action plan presents a rationale for why the city centre is important and the value it offers to the rest of Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau as a global connection point as well as the region’s traditional gateway and origin point. This value proposition creates the basis for urban regeneration activity, intervention and priorities. It highlights the trends and long-term factors that are driving change in the role of cities globally and the important role Auckland’s city centre can play. This presents opportunities to create multiple benefits as well as make the most of public and private sector investment within the city centre. The important connections the city centre has with neighbourhoods across the Auckland region is recognised, for example through major events, tertiary education, cultural activities, business supply chains and public transport investments. 


 

14.     The action plan is an important deliverable of both Eke Panuku as lead agency and the council group as an integrated team. It has been supported by targeted stakeholder engagement, appropriate within a constrained funding environment and reflective of the extensive public consultation undertaken through the masterplan process. It outlines how the council group will give effect to the masterplan over the next ten years, through city-wide and place-based programmes. It builds on existing knowledge and capability and charts a pathway for the council group to implement ongoing transformation of the city centre in a place-led, best-for-city-centre way. 

15.     The purpose of the action plan is to: 

·        Prioritise our investment by working to one plan and making the most of constrained funding while preparing for the future. 

·        Integrate our work for the city centre by working as one team, harnessing the skills and expertise from across the council group.​

·        Inspire others to joint action by contributing to the masterplan outcomes, advocating for the city centre, listening, and speaking positively and as one voice on the most important issues, and championing the work of others in the city centre.​ 

16.     Urban regeneration is more than infrastructure. To respond to the potential and complexity of the city centre and our collective work in this place, the action plan needed to encompass three dimensions:

·        City centre-wide programmes – economic, social, cultural and environmental outcomes focused actions, over and above physical infrastructure, that are essential to achieve a thriving city centre. 

·        Place-based programmes – focus more on physical infrastructure such as urban realm enhancements, city-shaping infrastructure investment and development delivery programmes.

·        Phased – identifying when investment is needed in certain initiatives. While the masterplan is a 20-year plan, the action plan's integrated work programmes consider action across three timeframes - immediate (next 12 months), short term (1-3 years) and medium term (4-10 years), with more clarity on the immediate and short-term actions.

 

17.     The action plan highlights how partnerships and collaboration underpin a thriving city centre. Each group has a distinct role to contribute to city centre success. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     The Strengthen Climate Response programme outlines the approach to support both adaptation and mitigation responses in the city centre. This programme aligns with Making Space for Water, and blue-green networks that will help to future-proof the city centre. The action plan also supports implementation of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. The ambition is for the city centre to lead the way on sustainability and climate change resilience.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     The action plan was developed with inputs and insights gathered from representatives across the entire council group, including a joint city centre steering group and working group, with collaboration across Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, and Eke Panuku.

20.     This engagement included a series of workshops with business owners and subject matter experts from across the different organisations to help develop and inform the priorities across the different programmes. This enabled the development of the action plan to:

·        gather insights on the existing initiatives and activities already in progress

·        seek feedback on the practicality and potential constraints associated with the proposed actions

·        ensure active involvement and commitment from business owners by seeking their buy-in for the proposed actions

·        ensure that the proposed actions align with the priorities of the business owners.

21.     A wide range of Auckland Council departments have been involved in the action plan, particularly those responsible for city centre work programmes. Watercare has also been informed of the action plan and contributed to the actions.

22.     The Eke Panuku Board has approved the action plan, recommending that endorsement is sought from partner CCOs and the council’s Planning, Environment and Parks Committee. Auckland Transport and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited boards have received the action plan, with endorsement from their respective executive leadership teams.

23.     Through the current endorsement process, further and regular engagement with business owners and subject matter experts is ongoing. This is helping to ensure that business and action owners are clear on the action requirements and that resourcing is in place to enable those that currently have funding allocated. Refinements to the action plan, which is a living document, will be addressed as part of this process and made as part of a regular cycle of updates.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24.     Engagement with the Waitematā Local Board occurs regularly and has taken place throughout the development of the action plan. Workshops with the local board on the action plan were held on 14 March, 9 May, 25 July and 12 September 2023. There is strong alignment between the draft Waitematā Local Board plan and the city centre action plan. A workshop was held on 12 September 2023 that confirmed local board priorities and discussed the opportunity to work together on aligned actions.

25.     The Waitematā Local Board received and endorsed the action plan in principle (subject to LTP funding decisions) at its meeting on 17 October 2023.

26.     Through the development of the action plan, over 30 different city centre stakeholder groups have been met with and listened to. This has been an important process as what was heard has shaped the priorities and actions within the plan. These conversations follow on from the "listening sessions" held in 2022 as part of the establishment of the Eke Panuku lead agency approach. The organisations engaged with include representatives of mana whenua, city centre businesses, city centre residents group, city centre network, thriving city network, NZ Police, Ports of Auckland Ltd, developers, universities, central government agencies and departments, and City Rail Link Ltd. As highlighted above, the action plan was also provided to the inaugural meeting of the Auckland City Centre Advisory Panel (ACCAP) on 24 July 2023. ACCAP has a critical role in shaping delivery and focus for the integrated work programmes.

27.     The themes that have arisen from stakeholders are highly consistent, irrespective of whether the partners and stakeholders engaged with represent business, residents, community organisations or public sector agencies. The action plan reflects these important areas that we heard from our city centre partners:

·    Continue to see value in the city centre and are committed to invest their passion, time, energy and resources here.

·    Ongoing support for the CCMP and its outcomes and transformational moves.

·    Support for the action plan strategic drivers, integrated approach and focus areas.

·    Importance of the city centre "experience" - quality of the public realm, safety, cleanliness, pedestrian friendliness and wayfinding are essential to the city's success. Widespread concerns around safety especially in relation to crime, concern that this has worsened since the COVID-19 lockdown periods. Agreement that pro-social behaviours such as attracting more people into the city centre can help dissuade anti-social activity.

·    Universal acknowledgement of the importance of transport and ease of movement around the city centre.  High expectations around commissioning of the City Rail Link.

·    Reinforce through the action plan the need for an integrated approach across the council group - now is the time to capitalise on the investments and progress that has been made.

·    Continuing high levels of support which provide a strong social license for the City Centre Targeted Rate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     The Advance Mana Whenua Outcomes programme outlines the approach to partnership we intend to uphold through the delivery of the action plan. Eke Panuku holds the ideal that partnership with Māori on our projects provides opportunities and outcomes for all in Tāmaki Makaurau.

29.     Eke Panuku has sought input from iwi mana whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to support the development of the city centre action plan.

30.     A core principle of the action plan is to continue to improve relationships with mana whenua in a way that honours the partnership aspirations of iwi through building on the work that has come before.

31.     As the action plan is considered a living document, Eke Panuku will continue to partner with and seek input from mana whenua to maintain the integrity of this document and to ensure plans are aligned with those aspirations of Māori. This includes a focus on working with mana whenua to ensure that there are actions in place to deliver on the outcomes of the five pou within the city centre:

·    Kia ora Te Hononga – Effective Māori participation

·    Kia ora Te Taiao – Kaitiakitanga

·    Kia Haangai te Kaunihera – An empowered organisation

·    Kia ora te Ahurea – Māori identity and culture

·    Kia ora Te Umanga – Māori business, tourism and employment.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32.     Beyond existing budgets, the implementation of the action plan will be subject to the funding available to the council group. Recognising the dynamic nature of financial planning, the plan is designed to be a ‘living plan’, subject to annual revisions and consistent performance monitoring. This approach ensures the actions remain aligned with available resources and evolving council priorities.

33.     The actions in the plan and the funding status reflect the point in time it was drafted. The action plan has taken a conservative approach and defines the funding status of initiatives as funded, partly funded and unfunded. A key objective of the action plan is to identify gaps in the council group’s existing work programmes within the city centre and offer a transparent view of the funding landscape, aligning initiatives with established priorities.

34.     During the ongoing Long-term Plan (LTP) and Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) processes, where possible Eke Panuku will actively identify and seek to mitigate funding shortfalls within the confines of the council group's financial limitations. Post LTP and RLTP decision-making, the funding status of each activity will be reassessed and finalised, ensuring that the action plan is up-to-date and consistent with the council’s investment directions.

35.     A key element of the action plan is to enhance collaborations, particularly focusing on fostering relationships with the crown and private sector. This initiative aims to maximise the impact of the council group’s limited funding, especially within the city centre context. Concurrently, efforts are underway to integrate financial data across various parts of the council group, facilitating a cohesive overview of the city centre’s investment activities. This integrated perspective will enable more strategic decision-making and resource allocation.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     Project risks were identified and proactively managed through the project plan and project governance.

37.     As this action plan has been produced at the start of an LTP and RLTP process, information about funding status is subject to further work to confirm funding and resources against priorities. The action plan will be updated to reflect the final funding status once this is confirmed through the LTP and RLTP process.

38.     There are many activities and initiatives underway in the city centre at any one time. The action plan is not intended to be an exhaustive list of these but a summary of what are considered to be the main priorities for support. 

39.     The action plan is designed to be flexible to recognise that some actions require further work such as additional engagement, feasibility testing, detailed design and/or additional funding. It will be a ‘living plan’ with regular annual updates and supported by coordinated monitoring.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40.     There are significant resource constraints within the council group. The city centre matrix team model offers an opportunity for the group to work in a much more coordinated and collaborative way.


 

41.     The action plan will be used in several ways including as a resource to:

·    implement the CCMP – its vision, outcomes and transformational moves

·    support our people

·    achieve clarity

·    support further integration

·    inform prioritisation through Statements of Intent (SOI), Long-term Plan (LTP) and Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP)

·    input to place-based planning and programme/project business cases

·    support a joined-up narrative and inform future engagement with stakeholders

·    provide confidence and coherence when working with partners.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland City Centre Action Plan: our priorities for a thriving city centre

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Simon Oddie - Priority Location Director - City Centre Lead Agency

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Executive - Eke Panuku

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Customer and Community Services update

File No.: CP2023/17855

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update of quarter one service trends, financial performance, highlights and focus areas within the Customer and Community Services directorate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee has requested a regular update on key service and operational matters relating to Customer and Community Services, in order to provide more visibility of matters important to communities of Tāmaki Makaurau.

3.       Customer and Community Services is comprised of five departments:

·        Connected Communities

·        Active Communities

·        Parks and Community Facilities

·        Community and Social Innovation

·        Regional Services and Strategy

4.       Dr Claudia Wyss, Director Customer and Community Services, will provide information on key service trends, financial performance, service highlights and Q1 2023 focus areas.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the update from Customer and Community Services.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sam Sinton - Executive Officer

Authorisers

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Implementing Auckland's Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy - Progress Update November 2023

File No.: CP2023/18001

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a progress update on the implementation of the Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy and an overview of the management of council-owned trees.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy, approved in February 2018 (resolution ENV/2018/12) aims to increase understanding of Auckland’s urban ngahere and use that knowledge to protect, grow and maintain trees and other vegetation in Auckland’s existing and future urban areas.

3.       The main goal of the strategy is to increase the average regional tree canopy cover from 18.3 per cent to 30 per cent across Auckland’s urban area by 2050, with no local board area having less than 15 per cent canopy cover.

4.       Eighteen high-level implementation actions were identified to achieve outcomes grouped under three themes: ‘Knowing’, ‘Growing’ and ‘Protecting’.

5.       In July 2020, the Environment and Climate Change Committee received a progress update on implementation of the strategy (resolution ECC/2020/30).

6.       Staff have been asked to provide the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee with a further implementation update. Details of the update are provided in Attachment A.

7.       The key highlights in Auckland's Urban Ngahere Strategy update include innovative canopy monitoring using artificial intelligence (AI) and low-cost aerial imagery, a strategic commitment to increasing canopy cover through various planting programmes, and the integration of Māori cultural knowledge through collaboration with mana whenua.

8.       Staff have also been asked to provide the committee with an overview of the management of council-owned trees that supports implementation of the strategy. Details are provided in Attachment B.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)       whiwhi / receive the progress report on implementing Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (forest) Strategy (Attachment A to the agenda report).

b)       whiwhi / receive the report on the management of council-owned trees (Attachment B to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

9.       A well-managed, flourishing, and healthy urban ngahere contributes to positive urban amenity and creates a healthy living environment with a wide range of evidence based social, cultural, economic, ecological, and environmental benefits.

10.     The ngahere also helps to counteract the pressures of intensification and growth in urban Auckland, and is increasingly essential in assisting our climate mitigation, adaptation, and response work.

11.     LiDAR (Light Detecting And Ranging) data from 2013 indicates that urban Auckland has approximately 18 per cent tree cover distributed unevenly throughout the urban area. Most of the tree cover is located on private land (60 per cent), with the remaining 40 per cent on public land, such as parkland and road corridors.

12.     Recognising these benefits, staff developed a strategy for Auckland’s urban ngahere. In February 2018, the Environment and Community Committee approved Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy (resolution ENV/2018/12).

13.     Te Rautaki Ngahere ā-Tāone o Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland's Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy (Strategy) was published on 27 March 2019 following approval by the Chair, Deputy Chair and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member of the Environment and Community Committee.

14.     The strategic framework of the Strategy consists of a vision, three main objectives (Knowing, Growing and Protecting), two key mechanisms for delivering these objectives (Engage and Manage), and a set of nine supporting principles.

15.     The strategy includes actions to support the primary outcome of increasing the regional tree canopy cover average from 18.3 per cent to 30 per cent across Auckland’s urban area by 2050. Another outcome is that no local board area will have less than 15 per cent canopy cover.

16.     Staff last provided an update report on implementation of the strategy in July 2020 (resolution ECC/2020/30).

17.     Also of note in terms of the context of this update are the following previous reports and memoranda:

i)       2018 report to the Planning Committee ‘Managing and protecting trees in Auckland’ (3 April 2018, resolution PLA/2018/39)

ii)       2018 memorandum to the Environment and Community Committee ‘Update on several workstreams related to trees in Auckland’s urban areas’ (3 August 2018, resolution ENV/2018/101)

iii)      2020 memorandum to the Environment and Climate Change Committee ‘Auckland Council’s Strategic Approach to Planting Group’ (8 July 2020, resolution ECC/2020/43)

iv)      2020 report to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, ‘Tree Risk Assessment Update’ (15 October 2020, resolution PAC/2020/57)

v)      2022 memorandum to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee ‘Parks & Community Facilities: Tree Management Protocols – Tree Risk’ (19 September 2022, resolution PAC/2022/78).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Implementation of Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (forest) Strategy

18.     Attachment A provides a detailed overview of the key initiatives and progress on the implementation of Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy. The overview includes information on initiatives to:

·    improve our understanding of Auckland’s urban ngahere (Knowing),

·    increase urban ngahere canopy cover (Growing) and

·    preserve urban ngahere (Protecting).

19.     The overview includes a progress update on the 18 high-level actions identified in the strategy. These are:

a)      incorporate LiDAR surveys in council work programmes

b)      increase the capacity of nursery programmes

c)       create database for existing [council owned] tree-assets within two years

d)      leverage partnerships established through existing initiatives

e)      integrate scientific knowledge of the urban ngahere with mātauranga Māori

f)       complete a comprehensive review of tree protection under the Unitary Plan

g)      quantify values and benefits

h)      explore potential for new regulatory tools to protect trees on private properties

i)        determine survival rates of new council plantings

j)        increase landowner grants and incentive programmes

k)       identify key pressures and risks in partnership with mana whenua and local boards

l)        address current and future pressures to Auckland’s urban ngahere and protection

m)     increase canopy cover in road corridors, parks, and open spaces

n)      raise public awareness of the values and benefits of the urban ngahere

o)      identify and prioritise locations for future planting on public land

p)      raise arboriculture maintenance programme from two to five years or until new plantings are well established

q)      use science and ongoing engagement to inform decisions in relation to types of planting

r)       establish a labelling programme for protected trees within 12 months

20.     Of particular note is the development of the Ngahere AI project in January 2023 to undertake canopy cover analysis using AI and low-cost aerial imagery. The AI model achieved 96.2 per cent accuracy. This methodology is cost-effective and enables more frequent monitoring and reporting on changes in urban vegetation and tree canopy cover. The results of the Ngahere AI project will be reported to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in 2024.

21.     Auckland Council has launched multiple tree planting programmes, aimed at maximising efforts to enhance canopy cover on council land.

22.     The initial Urban Ngahere planting program has successfully planted around 2,000 large-sized trees (approximately 1.8 meters tall) annually. This number is projected to double to 4,000 by 2024, and additional increases of 10 per cent are anticipated each year, contingent upon the approval of funding. The goal is to plant approximately 10,000 large trees annually. Staff have also conducted a comprehensive geospatial analysis of the Auckland region to identify areas within road corridors and local parks suitable for tree planting (or those areas of green space without any conflicts with infrastructure or assets).

23.     The council is also converting 200 hectares of retired farmland in regional parks to native forest between 2022 and 2032.

24.     In addition to the above planting programmes, mana whenua, schools, volunteers, and community groups plant around 200,000 smaller trees and plants per annum in local parks and around 300,000 in regional parks. These planting events are facilitated by council as part of ecological volunteer programmes.

25.     To understand which parts of the region most urgently require tree planting, a thorough analysis of canopy cover[7] and the Heat Vulnerability Index[8] was undertaken across the Auckland region. This has resulted in the southern local board areas being prioritised for tree planting.

26.     The strategy also supports the retention of urban forest on private land through the ‘Protecting’ phase – informing the community of the importance of a green network, particularly as it provides shade, increases carbon sequestration, and contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

27.     Auckland Council funding for the planting of trees to support the strategy has been provided in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 through the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate, as well as in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 through the Climate Action Targeted Rate. In addition, a number of local boards allocate a portion of their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding to tree planting in support of their local strategies. There are also tree planting initiatives funded by council-controlled organisations.

28.     As noted above, the planting efforts contributing towards the goals of the strategy include those undertaken by residents and private businesses as well as communities and the council on both public and private land. The achievements, in terms of the goal of increasing canopy cover, will be reported to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in 2024.

Management of council-owned trees

29.     The majority of Auckland’s urban ngahere is located on private land (60 per cent), with the remaining 40 per cent on public land (e.g., local parks and road corridors). Auckland Council manages and maintains approximately 500,000 trees across urban Auckland.

30.     The management of Auckland Council-owned trees across the region is shared between Auckland Transport and Auckland Council. Broadly speaking the main tree management work-streams are:

a)         General maintenance - clearance above footpaths and roads, general upkeep and responding to health and safety concerns.

b)         Overhead services - management of clearance between trees and overhead power line services.

c)         Response work e.g., where trees have fallen across a road.

d)         Private tree response work e.g., where private trees have fallen onto public land, or a private tree is obstructing traffic signage.

31.     These work-streams are mainly delivered through arboriculture contracts and overhead services contracts, currently allocated to three specialist suppliers across the Auckland region.

32.     As reported to the former Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in 2020, Auckland Council manages risks associated with trees in accordance with the Parks & Community Facilities: Tree Management Protocols – Tree Risk. Four key elements underpin the management of tree risk:

a)         Ensuring staff and contractors are suitably qualified and experienced.

b)         Undertaking tree inspections on a regular basis.

c)         Maintaining trees to minimise the risk of tree failure.

d)         Capturing/recording data.

33.     Staff manage trees under the General Maintenance Contract. The contract area is classified into four distinct risk designations based on variables including human occupancy rates, tree age, and overall condition. These categorisations dictate the frequency of inspections, with high-occupancy zones such as Queen Street subject to weekly assessments, while areas like town centres undergo annual inspections.

34.     Pruning of trees plays an integral role in the comprehensive risk management strategy, with street trees pruned on a five-year cycle and park trees on a twelve-year schedule. This protocol is further refined through the integration of local expertise and regular inspections, assuring that trees with higher maintenance needs are given priority. For instance, trees situated in the Auckland Domain receive maintenance approximately every three years, in contrast to trees beyond publicly accessible areas, which are pruned around every 15 years, primarily in response to public requests. This method harmonizes safety and resource optimisation in the stewardship of trees across the region.

35.     Trees managed under the Overhead Services Contract (all public trees near power lines) are inspected and pruned approximately every three years. Trees in higher risk areas (where an outage would affect greater numbers of residents) are inspected annually and pruned in accordance with the inspection outcome.

36.     In addition to managing the council’s existing stock of trees, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Climate Action Targeted Rate, the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate and LDI funding support tree planting services across the region. Auckland Council staff work closely with local tree nurseries to ensure an adequate pipeline of large trees that meet the council’s needs and which are suitable for Auckland’s climate and soils. At this stage, it is anticipated that the pipeline of trees will be sufficient to increase the number of trees planted in local parks and the road corridor from 2,000 each year to 5,000 each year over the next 3-5 years, subject to ongoing funding.

37.     In early 2023, the Auckland Anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle resulted in significant storm damage to council-owned trees across the region. Auckland Council received approximately 7,000 requests for tree work during the two months following the weather events. The requests were for a variety of tree work, including large tree failures in combination with landslides. It is estimated that approximately 2,500 trees were removed. Tree planting efforts in the next few years will focus on those areas where trees had to be removed, where appropriate.

38.     In the context of flood management, trees serve as critical components for mitigation. Their robust root systems prevent soil erosion, reducing sedimentation in waterways. Trees also absorb and store rainwater, diminishing floodwater volume. Additionally, their canopy intercepts rainfall, slowing surface runoff and promoting gradual soil absorption. In flood-prone areas, trees play a pivotal role in decreasing flood risks and preserving ecosystem integrity. This has been recognised in the Auckland Water Strategy and the Making Space for Water programme under Resilient Auckland.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39.     Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy is identified as a key action in the Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee recently received the Annual update on delivery of the Plan, including the ‘Natural Environment’ priority (PEPCC/2023/117).

40.     Implementation of the strategy is an example of an integrated action that the council has taken to help mitigate emissions, adapt to the impacts of climate change, and meet climate goals.


 

41.     Increasing Auckland’s stock of trees and vegetation increases carbon sequestration and contributes towards reducing Auckland’s net greenhouse gas emissions. The Auckland Council group is now also reporting its tree planting as part of the Auckland Council Climate Risk Statement required under the Financial Sector (Climate-Related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.

42.     A research program is underway to improve the council’s understanding of ecosystem benefits including carbon sequestration rates for different plant species. The goal is to inform future planting decisions for maximum benefits. Additional research may be needed to develop specific carbon footprint measures and assess the impact on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, contingent on technological advancements and funding availability. This reflects the council’s proactive approach to aligning with global sustainability efforts.

43.     Increasing trees and vegetation also provides various ecosystem benefits that assist with adaptation to climate change impacts for humans and other species. Known benefits are:

·    shading and cooling effects to counter rising temperatures,

·    slowing and reducing stormwater runoff to assist in managing increased rainfall events,

·    supporting physical and mental health, and

·    providing habitats and enhancing their resilience to climate change impacts. 

44.     Planting choices will prioritise species that provide shade and cooling, mitigating the urban heat island effect.

45.     Trees also contribute to climate resilience by preventing soil erosion, reducing the risk of extreme weather events, and protecting vital water resources.

46.     Another key climate consideration is the threat climate change poses to the urban ngahere itself, including:

·    changing rainfall patterns (e.g., drought or prolonged periods of wet soils)

·    increasing temperatures

·    more severe weather events

·    an increasing threat of pests and diseases.

47.     Climate change and urban heat presents challenges for Auckland's urban forests, with rising temperatures likely to impact species composition, survival, and performance. Most of the current tree species in Auckland's urban areas are expected to endure in currently predicted future climates, but careful selection and management are needed to ensure resilience.

48.     Research is planned to improve the council’s understanding of drought and reduced soil moisture on Auckland’s vegetation species and which pests and diseases may benefit from climate changes. This will inform future planting decisions that will assist Auckland’s urban ngahere’s resilience to climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

49.     An internal, cross-council Community of Practice group was established in 2019. It is composed of council experts involved in environmental programmes and aims to increase the efficiency of plant supply and the process of prioritisation of land areas in council ownership to support planting activities across the council group in urban and rural areas.

50.     An information report was provided to the Environment and Community Committee in July 2020 (resolution ECC/2020/43) sharing the group’s functional role in coordinating a regional approach to the council’s planting activities to monitor progress and the effectiveness of our planting programmes.

51.     Auckland Transport has recognised the importance of incorporating environmental systems into planning for new roads and streets. It has included street tree selection and planning guidance for different road and street typologies in their Roads and Streets Framework.

52.     Auckland Transport (AT) has also developed the Hīkina te Wero Environment Action Plan 2020-2030 in response to recent changes in the policy and legislative environment (which includes the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and Waka Kotahi’s Environmental and Social Responsibility Standard). Hīkina te Wero includes reporting requirements and an expectation that AT will demonstrate leadership in the environmental area. Hīkina te Wero also provides a transparent approach to measuring and reporting on AT’s progress towards protecting and restoring the environment.

53.     A draft Code of Practice (COP) developed by the council’s Engineering and Technical Services team includes a section on the design and installation of green assets, including green infrastructure, trees, and new open spaces. The COP promotes the key principle in Auckland’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy to ‘plant the right tree in the right place’.

54.     Work has progressed to identify opportunities to deliver strategy outcomes through the work programmes of council-controlled organisations such as Eke Panuku and Watercare.

55.     Eke Panuku has developed a programme for the Puhinui stream catchment and has adopted the ngahere strategy objective to increase tree cover and provide opportunities to connect communities to nature.

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

Local impacts and local board views

56.     Results of the LiDAR canopy cover analyses undertaken in 2013-2016 and 2018 showed significant variation in the canopy cover for different local board areas, ranging from 8 per cent to 31 per cent.

57.     There is particularly low canopy cover in southern local board areas. This means that southern communities do not have access to the benefits of a healthy urban ngahere.

58.     Growing a healthy and resilient urban ngahere is a priority for many of the urban local boards as demonstrated by existing local board efforts and investment to support area-specific implementation of the strategy.

59.     Thirteen local boards (or most ‘urban’ local boards) have adopted local urban ngahere action plans that support the goal of increasing canopy cover in road corridors, parks, and open spaces, including: Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrakei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour and Waitematā. 

60.     Key feedback from local boards received as part of development of the strategy included:

·    the importance of ensuring that the financial responsibility for the delivery of the proposed outcomes was not fully transferred to local boards,

·    that there was a need for regional financial support and commitment to a long-term programme,

·    the importance of addressing the unequal distribution of Auckland’s urban ngahere,

·    increasing financial assistance to help support local efforts, and 

·    recognition that not everyone wants more trees and that the urban forest can interfere with infrastructure functioning.

61.     Local boards that provide LDI funding to implement the strategy have continued to identify the need for additional funding to help enable full implementation of the strategy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62.     The urban ngahere is an important part of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s cultural heritage.

63.     Remnants of native forest represent traditional kai o te ngahere (supermarkets), wānanga o te ngahere (learning centres), kapata rongoā (the medicine cabinet), kura o te ngahere (schools) and wairua o te ngahere (spiritual domain).

64.     Trees can also represent landing places of waka (canoe) and birth whenua.

65.     Key feedback from mana whenua during the development of the strategy included recognition of the value of the urban ngahere for holistic individual and community wellbeing, and a preference for the use of native species.

66.     Further work is necessary to form partnerships and develop collaborative work programmes with mana whenua to help deliver the strategy. Engagement concerning the management of council-owned trees has been ongoing, both through the regular kaitiaki forums and through direct engagement with mana whenua as issues arise for trees in particular rohe.

67.     Furthermore, Auckland Council has recently partnered with two Māori-owned businesses who will contribute services to tree planting efforts across the region. Auckland Council also sources trees from nurseries owned by Māori enterprises.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

68.     Since July 2020, Auckland Council funding for the planting of trees to support the Urban Ngahere strategy has been provided in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 through the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate, as well as in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 through the Climate Action Targeted Rate. In addition, a number of local boards allocate a portion of their LDI funding to tree planting in support of their local strategies. There are also tree planting initiatives funded by council-controlled organisations.

69.     Through existing programmes, the council invests significantly across the parks and open space network and in street trees, to maintain the health of our ngahere. This includes park and street tree maintenance and environmental programmes such as plant and animal pest control and volunteer tree planting. To further amplify the council’s planting programmes and support climate change initiatives, additional resources and mechanisms are necessary.

70.     Investment options and implications have been developed as part of providing advice and will be considered as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process.  

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

71.     If the strategy is not implemented, Auckland risks losing urban trees and vegetation cover.

72.     Loss of trees and vegetation would also mean loss of ecosystem services provided by the urban ngahere such as:

·    reducing air pollution

·    reducing the rate and volume of storm water runoff

·    securing soil and preventing landslides

·    reducing energy costs for heating and cooling.

73.     This would affect Auckland’s identity and negatively impact Auckland’s reputation as a leader in enhancing environmental stewardship and preserving cultural values (e.g., taonga trees), historic heritage places and significant areas.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

74.     Staff are continuing to develop a more comprehensive implementation programme to further support implementation of the strategy.

75.     This programme will identify specific projects and workstreams at both regional and local scale and will be linked to the 18 high level actions in the strategy.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Progress update on implementation of Auckland's urban ngahere strategy

 

b

Management of council-owned Trees

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Stejskal – Regional Arborists & Ecological Manager

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Proposed Plan Change Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024)

File No.: CP2023/16783

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve public notification of the Proposed Plan Change Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024), to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Plan and Places Department prepare open space plan changes every two to three years to update the zoning of open space in the AUP.

3.       Typically, there are four categories of change included in these plan changes:

i)           Rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space

ii)          Rezoning to correct zoning errors or anomalies

iii)         Rezoning to better reflect the current or future intended use and/or development of land

iv)         Rezoning to reflect land swaps between Kainga Ora and Auckland Council and/or to enable approved land rationalisation and disposal.

4.       It is important that land vested in the council or acquired by the council for open space is appropriately zoned to provide for its intended use and development or protection.

5.       There are currently a number of land parcels that are either incorrectly zoned as open space or require an open space zoning. These include errors where privately owned land is incorrectly zoned as open space. Anomalies typically arise where land is subdivided and the new property boundaries do not align with zone boundaries.

6.       More recently, this type of plan change has involved the rezoning of land, including land shown as “road”, to better reflect either its current or intended future use to enable development to proceed.

7.       Land that is no longer required by the council as open space requires an alternative zoning. This land rationalisation process is an important part of the council’s financial recovery. Also included in this category of proposed zone changes are the land swaps and rezonings that Auckland Council/Kainga Ora are jointly undertaking as part of the redevelopment of neighbourhoods and improvements to the quality of open spaces. The land disposals and land swaps related to the proposed open space plan change have been approved by the relevant council committee (refer Attachment 1).

8.       To address the above matters efficiently and in a cost-effective manner, several proposed changes have been bundled together into one Proposed Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024) plan change.


 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve the notification of proposed Plan Change Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) as outlined in Attachments A and B of the agenda report

b)      ohia / endorse the section 32 evaluation report contained as Attachment C to the agenda report

c)       tautapa / delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, the authority to make minor amendments to the proposed plan change and/or Section 32 report prior to public notification.

Horopaki

Context

9.       The council undertakes open space plan changes every two to three years to update the AUP.

10.     Since the AUP became operative in part in November 2016, the council has initiated four such plan changes (Plan Changes 4, 13, 36 and 60) to update the zoning of recently vested or acquired land as open space, correct zoning errors and anomalies associated with open space, better reflect the current or future intended use and development of land and enable land disposal and/or rationalisation.

11.     A larger plan change is proposed in 2025 which will include a much greater number of land parcels that have either been vested as reserve or acquired for open space purposes. This may also include land that is no longer suitable for development due to flooding constraints and subject to the buy-out by Auckland Council and the government.

Rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space

12.     Historically, the open space plan changes typically include a large number of land parcels that have either been vested as reserve or acquired for open space purposes through the subdivision process.

13.     The rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space applies an appropriate open space zoning, either because of subdivision or purchase during the past year(s). The proposed zoning reflects the land’s open space qualities and intended use and development.

Rezoning to correct errors or anomalies

14.     There are also a number of land parcels that are either incorrectly zoned as open space or require an open space zoning.

15.     This plan change also involves updating both zone and precinct boundaries to align with new property boundaries.

16.     The preparation of the AUP was a large and complex project, undertaken in a short timeframe. In addition, many of the legacy District Plan’s open space zones had not been updated for several years. Hence some errors and anomalies were carried over into the AUP and are progressively being discovered and corrected.

Rezoning of land to better reflect the current or future intended use and/or development

17.     The plan change also includes a small number of proposed zone changes involving open space and/or other zones that are intended to better reflect either the current or future intended use of land and its development (e.g. Open Space – Community Zone becoming Special Purpose – Māori Purpose Zone).

Auckland Council’s land disposal and rationalisation process

18.     Historically, the “Open Space” plan changes have also been used to rezone land that has been approved by the relevant council committee for disposal. Often these surplus land parcels have an open space zoning or are shown as road.

19.     Where an open space zone or the identification of land as a road is no longer appropriate (as roads are not zoned), an alternative zone is required. Typically, a zoning consistent with the adjoining properties (for example residential or industrial) has been proposed for the surplus land parcels.

20.     Also included in this category are zone changes that are related to land swaps between Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council that are intended to facilitate Kāinga Ora redevelopment of particular neighbourhoods, and to provide improved access to existing open spaces. This sometimes involves reconfiguring open spaces and/or widening the access to them.

21.     The land disposals and swaps related to the proposed rezonings have been approved by the relevant council committee (refer Attachment 1).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space

22.     This proposed plan change includes three recent open space acquisitions requiring an open space zoning.

23.     This includes 120 Hill Road, The Gardens (Map 20) which was recently purchased by Auckland Council as an extension to the Regional Botanical Gardens. Other changes involve land acquired for new stormwater ponds (Maps 13 and 16).

Rezoning to correct errors or anomalies

24.     The proposed plan change includes 12 zoning errors or anomalies involving open space zones.  These typically involve land that has been either zoned open space in error (Maps 1, 11, 18 and 19), or conversely land that requires an appropriate open space zoning (Maps 5, 6 and 23). 

25.     Two proposed changes involve WaterCare Services Ltd (WaterCare) owned land. The property at 1 Oruarangi Road, Mangere (Map 9) was originally a road but the use was changed when Mark Ford Drive was upgraded. WaterCare is seeking to amend the zoning so that the entire area accommodating their storage facility area is zoned Light Industry. The second proposed change, Part of 500 Island Road, Mangere Bridge (Map 10), has been requested so that WaterCare’s coastal walkway is fully within the Light Industry zone for consistency when applying the AUP rules.

26.     The proposed plan change also includes aligning and updating both zone and precinct boundaries with new property boundaries resulting from subdivision as there is sometimes a mismatch between the two (Maps 2, 21 and 22), particularly in greenfield areas.

Rezoning of land to better reflect the current or future intended use and development

27.     Five rezonings are proposed to better align the zoning of land with either its current or future intended use and development.

28.     Two of the proposed zone changes relate to marae - Ruapōtaka Marae (Map 7) and Shepherds Park marae (yet to be officially named) (Map 8). The areas identified in the proposed plan change are proposed to be rezoned to Special Purpose – Māori Purpose Zone to enable greater flexibility for marae redevelopment and related activities to be established on the site.

29.     Marae require discretionary activity resource consents to be approved across all open space zones. In the Special Purpose – Māori Purpose Zone, they are permitted activities. The development standards in the Special Purpose - Māori Purpose Zone, particularly the height standards, also provide greater flexibility.

30.     A further change (Map 3) from Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone to Open Space – Community Zone will provide for a future community hub building and activities on reserve land adjacent to Whangaparāoa town centre.

31.     The proposed change for 1 Upper Harbour Drive, Rosedale (Map 15) involves rezoning the now redundant hockey fields to Business – Light Industry Zone, which is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent wastewater treatment plant. This land has been the subject of a land exchange between Auckland Council and WaterCare.

32.     The other change involves land shown as road that is no longer required by KiwiRail (Map 14).

Auckland Council’s land disposal and/or rationalisation process

33.     There are no “open space” land disposal changes put forward by Eke Panunku on behalf of Auckland Council in this proposed plan change.

34.     Eke Panuku have put forward five zone changes and these typically involve rezoning land to an open space zone (Maps 24 – 28).

35.     The site at 528 Ellerslie – Panmure Highway (Map 25) involves rezoning land shown as road to Business – Town Centre zone as part of future redevelopment and disposal in accordance with Eke Panuku’s High Level Project Plan for Panmure.

36.     Auckland Council’s Development Programme Office has requested the rezoning of land parcels to/from open space on behalf of Kāinga Ora (Map 29). The rezoning reflects land swaps between Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council that are proposed in Ōwairaka. These land swaps will facilitate redevelopment in these areas and also improve the quality of access to open space.

37.     A further change to Ferguson Domain (Map 30) reflects a land swap between Auckland Council and Kainga Ora to facilitate future development.

38.     A similar land swap has also occurred between Auckland Council and Fletcher Residential Ltd at 30 Graham Breed Drive, Mount Roskill (Map 12).

39.     WaterCare Services Ltd has requested a zone change to enable the disposal of surplus “plantation reserve” to the adjoining owner (Map 4).

40.     The proposed change for 575 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula (Map 31) reflects the sale of formerly Council owned (and currently zoned Open Space – Community Zone) land to the adjacent land owner, the National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd.

41.     The land swaps and disposals that relate to the proposed rezonings have all been approved by the relevant council committee.    

42.     Attachment A contains a list of all sites involved in the proposed plan change, the current and proposed zoning and reasons for the proposed change.

43.     Attachment B contains the proposed map changes.

44.     Attachment C contains a draft Section 32 analysis of the proposed change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

45.     The rezoning of land to open space will provide opportunity for recreation and sport in close proximity to where people live; enhance stormwater management; and provide opportunity for revegetation. These actions will assist in mitigating the effects of climate change.

46.     Kāinga Ora’s and Auckland Council’s land exchanges also will enable better utilisation of urban land and improve the quality of open space and access to it in the redevelopment areas. This will have a positive impact with additional development/redevelopment occurring within the urban environment along with improvements to the neighbourhood amenity for residents.

47.     Other proposed zone changes either correct zoning errors and anomalies or reflect the existing or proposed future use of land and are neutral in terms of climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48.     Council departments and Council-Controlled Organisations involved in open space acquisition and disposal (e.g. Community and Social Policy (Parks and Recreation Policy), Healthy Waters, Eke Panuku and the Development Programme Office) have identified either land purchased for open space that has not gone through a vesting or gazetting process or land that is identified to be disposed of or swapped that requires an alternative zoning.

49.     Both Parks and Recreation Policy and Healthy Waters (in the case of stormwater reserves) have provided input into the proposed zoning changes.

50.     WaterCare Services Limited have been involved in the nomination of sites for rezoning.

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

Local impacts and local board views

51.     Rezoning of recently acquired and vested land as open space will have positive effects for local communities.  It will enable land to be used and developed (where appropriate) for its intended purpose.

52.     A memo was sent to all affected local boards (there are 14 local boards affected) providing a summary of the plan change on 3 November 2023. 

53.     As a result of further council staff discussions and in response to feedback from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, two properties have been withdrawn from the proposed plan change. The zoning of these two properties will be addressed in a subsequent plan change.

54.     As the cut–off for feedback closed after the agenda item date, any further feedback received will be outlined at the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55.     A draft copy of the plan change was sent to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities on 3 November 2023, as required under the Resource Management Act.

56.     No feedback has been received from iwi yet.

57.     As the cut-off for feedback closed after the agenda item date, any feedback received after that date will be outlined at the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

58.     In terms of land proposed to be rezoned from another type of zone to an open space zone, the proposed plan change will have financial benefits in terms of enabling the land to be used for its intended open space purpose without the need to obtain a resource consent. In terms of land proposed to be rezoned from an open space zone to another type of zone, this will have financial benefits in terms of supporting the council’s land disposal/rationalisation process. 

59.     With respect to the cost of the plan change itself, this is planned expenditure within the Plans and Places department’s budget.  Cost associated with the plan change hearing are covered by the Democracy Services department’s budget.

60.     The bundling together of several rezoning proposals assists in reducing the costs per land parcel of the plan change and hearing processes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

61.     There are no risks associated with notifying the proposed plan change. However, there are risks associated with any delay in notifying the proposed plan change. This may hold up WaterCare Services’ sale of the 119A May Road site, development proposals for 56 Brookview Drive and 66 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush and Kāinga Ora’s Owairaka redevelopment proposals.  

62.     Inappropriately zoned land may also trigger the need for resource consents for basic parks infrastructure and recreational activities.

63.     The above risks can be mitigated by notifying and processing the plan change in a timely manner.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64.     If approval is obtained from the committee to publicly notify the proposed plan change, notification will likely occur on 25 January 2024.

65.     The standard plan change process will then follow: notification; preparation of a summary of submissions and notification of that; receipt of further submissions; preparation of the section 42A hearing report; appointment of independent hearing commissioners; plan change hearing; notification of the decision, appeal period, resolution of any appeals either via consent order or Environment Court hearing, formal adoption of the plan change and updating of the AUP.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024) Plan Change

 

b

Proposed Plan Change Maps

 

c

PCXX Section 32 Report (Draft)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Spatial Land Use Strategy Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zone

File No.: CP2023/17693

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To adopt a Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Dairy Flat and Silverdale West area have been identified by the council as an area for future urban development since the adoption of the first Auckland Plan in 2012. During the previous council term, the Planning Committee established a working party to approve for consultation, a draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones (the draft Strategy). The working party comprised the chair of the Planning Committee, the Rodney Ward Councillor, the chair of the Rodney Local Board and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

3.       The draft Strategy was prepared to support the identification and protection of a future transport network for the area by Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi (via Te Tupu Ngātahi/Supporting Growth Alliance (Te Tupu Ngātahi)). The draft Strategy was approved for consultation by the working party on 22 June 2022.

4.       134 pieces of feedback were received on the draft Strategy. In terms of the feedback to the online questions, 55 per cent did not support the draft Strategy and 44 per cent did support it. In terms of the location of the proposed future town centre within the area (a key aspect of the draft Strategy), 63 per cent opposed it and 36 per cent supported it.

5.       The main themes of the feedback opposing the draft Strategy were:

·    opposition to the proposed location of the town centre extending from the proposed Rapid Transit Corridor alignment to Green Road Park

·    there was no need for growth or such a large centre

·    opposition to urban development near Green Road Park

·    inadequate infrastructure.

6.       Based on the feedback and further discussions, particularly with the council’s Community Facilities department concerning the Green Road Park, and Healthy Waters department in regard to flood levels, changes are recommended to the draft Strategy. The key change is that the proposed metropolitan/town centre has now been re-located on higher ground closer to the central Rapid Transit Corridor and away from more flood-prone land.

7.       Reporting to the committee on the feedback received on the draft strategy was delayed due to the release of the council’s draft Future Development Strategy (the draft FDS) in June 2023. The draft FDS had shown the Dairy Flat Future Urban Zone as “an area for further investigation”, which created uncertainty about the future of the Dairy Flat Future Urban Zone.

8.       The FDS was adopted by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee at its meeting on 2 November 2023. The FDS no longer identifies the Dairy Flat area as an area for further investigation. However, it extends the timeframe for development out to 2050+ from 2038.


 

9.       Now that the FDS has been adopted, it is appropriate to finalise the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones. Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi lodged notices of requirement (NoRs) for the northern future growth transport projects on 20 October 2023. The development of the Strategy in parallel with Te Tupu Ngātahi’s development of the detailed business case for the northern future growth transport projects has enabled land use and transport infrastructure to be considered in an integrated way. The Strategy provides a high-level land use framework against which the NoRs can be considered.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the public feedback received on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones

b)      whai / adopt the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones as shown in Attachment A

c)       tautapa / delegate to the General Manager Plans and Places authority to approve any minor amendments that may be necessary prior to publication on the council website.

Horopaki

Context

Identifying and protecting the future transport network for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zone

10.     The Dairy Flat and Silverdale West area have been identified by the council as a significant area for future urban development since the adoption of the first Auckland Plan in 2012. In response to this, and the identification of other areas for future urban development in the northwest and south, Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi established an alliance (Te Tupu Ngātahi) to carry out the work required to identify a multi-modal transport network to support future urban development in these areas. While some of this transport network is expected to be delivered in the short-term (i.e. Drury and North-West within the next 10 years) the majority of the network (including this part of the region) will be delivered over a much longer timeframe (i.e. over the next 10 to 30 years).

11.     Te Tupu Ngātahi is also tasked with carrying out the detailed investigations required to support long-term ‘route protection’ via the designation process under the Resource Management Act. In the past it has been difficult, and in some cases very expensive to retrofit transport routes once development has commenced. The work carried out by Te Tupu Ngātahi aims to avoid this.

12.     In July 2019, Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi confirmed an ‘indicative strategic transport network’ for Auckland’s greenfield future urban areas. Since then, Te Tupu Ngātahi has been working on a ‘detailed business case’ for the proposed transport network in the Dairy Flat and Silverdale West area and has recently lodged Notices of Requirement (NoRs) with the council based on this work.

13.     The detailed business case includes a Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC), state highway upgrades and upgrades and new roads in the arterial road network. This has led to a specific route protection process with the lodging of the NORs to ensure that the land needed to build and operate the routes in the future is protected ahead of the transport projects being constructed and the land being developed.

14.     Of the projects for the north, the most critical in terms of the interrelationship with land use is the RTC. This is because the RTC route, combined with the proposed bus/train stations, will establish centres and walkable catchments, and provide efficient and convenient transport access to other parts of Auckland.

15.     After an exhaustive analysis of many RTC route options, the final three consisted of the following:

·    immediately to the west of the existing motorway

·    close to Green Road Park – to connect with a centre located adjacent to the park 

·    a central route through the Dairy Flat Future Urban Zone area.

16.     Te Tupu Ngātahi took preferred transport options to landowners and the community for consultation from 11 July 2022 to 19 August 2022. This was at the same time as the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zone was released by the council for feedback.

17.     The RTC route to the immediate west of the motorway was not favoured by Te Tupu Ngātahi as it would not access the bulk of the future urban area and a future centre. The route option close to Green Road Park was not favoured either as it was lower lying, involved more stream crossings, crossing Dairy Flat Highway twice, with additional costs, and was slightly longer meaning longer travel times.

18.     The preferred route for the RTC is the central route through the Dairy Flat Future Urban Zone area which is a new 16km corridor from Albany via Dairy Flat and on to Milldale. This was agreed after lengthy workshops with staff and mana whenua and arrived at using multicriteria analysis. This option enabled better access to more of the future urban area, involved fewer stream crossings, better followed the terrain and was not too long.

19.     The detailed business case recommended network is shown in Figure 1 below.

A picture containing map, atlas, text

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 Detailed Business Case Recommended Network

20.     The north detailed business case was adopted by the Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi boards in October 2023. NoRs were lodged with the council on 20 October 2023 and publicly notified for submissions on 16 November 2023.

The Draft Spatial Land Use Strategy

21.     During the previous council term, the Planning Committee established a working party to approve for consultation, a draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones (the draft Strategy). The working party comprised the chair of the Planning Committee, the Rodney Ward Councillor, the chair of the Rodney Local Board and a member Independent Māori Statutory Board.

22.     The draft Strategy was prepared to support the identification and protection of a future transport network for the area by Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi (via Te Tupu Ngātahi/Supporting Growth Alliance (Te Tupu Ngātahi)). The draft Strategy was approved for consultation by the working party on 22 June 2022.

23.     The draft Strategy identifies a proposed location for a future metropolitan/town centre that the transport network will support and impact upon, particularly the proposed RTC (whether that is a busway or rail corridor). A small metropolitan centre or a large town centre will be needed to provide services to and employment opportunities for the large future community (estimated at 60,000 to 70,000 dwellings) in Dairy Flat when fully built out.

24.     The preferred metropolitan/town centre option set out in the draft Strategy had the centre located on a central RTC alignment extending southwest to Green Road Park as shown in Figure 2 below.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 Draft Spatial Land Use Strategy

25.     The initial proposal was that the centre should be located adjoining the Green Road Park and that there would be benefits for the park and the town centre, particularly for the location of civic facilities such as a library. It was also considered that there would be advantages if the RTC corridor could be located adjoining or even crossing Dairy Flat Highway to integrate the centre, the park and the RTC.

26.     However, as work on the RTC options progressed, the preferred RTC alignment was concluded to be the central location to the north-east of Dairy Flat Highway.


 

27.     Given the size of the centre required, it was considered that a centre option that combined a location adjoining the RTC and Green Park could still be achieved with benefits to the centre of being accessible to both the Green Road Park and the RTC. The distance from the RTC to the Park was approximately 1000m which is close to the edge of a walkable distance.

28.     The draft Strategy also showed a possible high density residential area extending for 800m adjoining the metropolitan/town centre and the Green Road Park to take advantage of the amenities of both.

29.     A local centre was also identified in the Pine Valley area south of Milldale associated with the RTC alignment. Residential zoning for the remainder of the area was not specified as this would require a more detailed assessment than is necessary at this very early stage in the overall planning and development process.

Consultation on the draft Strategy

30.     The draft Spatial Land Use Strategy Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zone was open for consultation from 11 July 2022 to 19 August 2022. The consultation was publicised in conjunction with the Te Tupu Ngātahi Supporting Growth Programme for future transport plans for the north of Auckland. One open day was held in Dairy Flat on 13 August 2022 where both the future transport plans and the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy were presented.

31.     There were 134 pieces of feedback received on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy. The majority of the responses used the council’s feedback form (114). Of these 16 included detailed attachments. A further 14 pieces of feedback were received via email to the dedicated email address set up for the engagement. It is noted that there were around 241 pieces of feedback on the Te Tupu Ngātahi transport network consultation.

32.     In terms of the feedback on the Strategy and the online questions, 55 per cent of did not support the Strategy while 44 per cent did support it. In terms of the location of the proposed town centre extending from Green Road Park to the RTC, 63 per cent opposed it and 36 per cent supported it.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback on draft Strategy

33.     The main themes of the feedback and how the Strategy responds to them are outlined below. The detailed feedback is outlined in the Strategy’s Appendix 1 and its attachments (see Attachment A to this report).

34.     Themes in support of the Strategy and comments made by the public are as follows:

·    Growth Management

The land is zoned for future development and is the next best area, more growth areas needed to support multi modal transport, needs to happen sooner, better than intensification in existing areas.

·    Centre location

Metropolitan/Town Centre located centrally within intended development and between Albany and Silverdale, other areas getting congested, (e.g. Silverdale and Albany), good access to transport if active modes provided.

·    Green Road Park

Unlocks potential of Green Road Park, unique opportunity to integrate the park and the centre.

·    Infrastructure

Infrastructure will be improved.


 

35.     Themes in opposition to the Strategy and comments made are as follows:

·    Centre Location

Advantages of proximity of centre to Green Road Park overstated, too far from RTC, centre located on a floodplain, centre severed by Dairy Flat Highway and Bawden Road, there are other better locations for a centre and RTC, shape of centre will not achieve transport outcomes, land use transport integration and reduced vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT), transit-oriented development not mentioned.

·    Growth Management

No demand for a new centre, centre too large, intensify in existing areas, too close to Albany and Silverdale, creating urban sprawl, keep the area rural/green open space, disruption to existing residents’ lifestyles, leaves them in limbo for a long time, need to plan for other services required by the community (e.g. schools, hospitals etc).

·    Effects on Green Road Park

Oppose urban development adjacent to Green Road Park, not the intended use of the park, it is to be a rural park.

·    Infrastructure

Inadequate infrastructure and it will be expensive.

Response to feedback and key changes to the draft Strategy

36.     Detailed discussion in response to the feedback is provided in section 6.4 and Appendix 1 of the revised Strategy (see Attachment A). The key change from the draft Strategy is the location of the metro/town centre.

37.     Following public feedback, further discussions have been held with the Community Facilities department, the Healthy Waters department and Te Tupu Ngātahi, with the result that the location of the centre has been moved eastwards to be centred solely on the RTC alignment and does not now extend toward Green Road Park (see Figures 3 and 4). This will reduce the risk of flooding within the centre and will retain the park as a predominantly open space recreation space rather than a park for urban civic amenities. This is in line with the Green Road Park’s reserve management plan.

A picture containing text, map, screenshot, atlas

Description automatically generated

Figure 3 Spatial Land Use Strategy - Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones


Figure 4 Dairy Flat Metropolitan/Town Centre

38.     With the preferred location of the RTC being centrally located in the Future Urban Zone, the Community Facilities department now considers that the preferred location for community facilities is close to the RTC and any future stations, rather than on or close to the Green Road Park.

39.     Prior to the recent flood events, and then as part of recent wider investigations, the council’s Healthy Waters department carried out additional flood modelling to reflect climate change and increased temperature scenarios (+2.1oC and +3.8oC). This has shown that the extent of the floodplains in the area will increase slightly, particularly the east west floodplain just north of Dairy Flat Highway. While the increases to the extent of floodplains from those identified in the draft Strategy are not that great, they could have made it difficult to connect the centre across them.

40.     Given the public feedback received on flooding in the area and following the January and February flood events, recent investigations of the floods across Auckland show that the flood levels were likely to have been within the wider floodplains referred to above for the +3.8 oC scenario.

41.     The existence of floodplains in some parts of the area does not necessarily mean that the area is unsuitable for development. Development can be carefully integrated with the flood plains, for example though the open space and walking and cycling network. The extent of flooding and the nature of mitigation can also be considered at a future point in time when more detailed planning for the area (e.g. structure planning) is undertaken.

42.     Given the public feedback and the further consideration of the location of community facilities and flooding, the Strategy has been amended to remove the centre’s direct connection with Green Road Park and avoid it spanning floodplains.  It now focuses the centre solely on the RTC alignment and its associated station. There is still the opportunity to build strong connections between the centre and Green Road Park, as it will still have passive uses, even if the centre does not need to directly connect with it.

43.     In relation to the Pine Valley area to the north of Dairy Flat, a change that has emerged from the detailed investigations undertaken by Te Tupu Ngātahi is that two station locations are now proposed in the Pine Valley area as opposed to the one shown in the draft Strategy. The more eastern of these is proposed to include a park and ride facility. This means that there is now the prospect of two local centres associated with the stations in the Pine Valley area (see Figure 3).

44.     Other changes have been made to the Strategy to address matters raised in the feedback and these are highlighted in section 6.5 of the Strategy and its Appendix 1.

45.     Since the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy was released, the draft Tāmaki Makaurau Future Development Strategy (FDS) was released for public engagement in June 2023. The Future Development Strategy is required by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020. The draft identified the Dairy Flat and Wainui areas (including the Pine Valley area) as areas “Recommended for further investigation" due to uncertainty about the development capacity needed by the city, the infrastructure investment required, funding constraints, impacts on emissions and vehicle kilometres travelled, and potential natural hazards. It also proposed that development should not be enabled at Dairy Flat before 2050+ which is much later than identified in the council’s earlier Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

46.     Reporting the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones to the committee was therefore delayed due to the need to await the adoption of the FDS. The FDS was adopted by the committee on 2 November 2023. It no longer identifies the Dairy Flat area as an area for further investigation. However, Dairy Flat retains the time frame for development identified in the draft FDS of 2050+, extended from 2038 in the earlier Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. The draft Strategy provides further detail as to how the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zone should develop, and is consistent with the growth and change principles which are core to the FDS.

47.     It is therefore now appropriate for the committee to consider the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones. As previously discussed, Te Tupu Ngātahi lodged NoRs for the north transport projects on 20 October 2023. While the timeframes for development and delivery of the transport network extend into the long-term, it is important to have a spatial land use strategy now that provides a high-level land use framework against which the NORs can be considered.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

·    how the proposed decision will impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the approach to reduce emissions

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


 

49.     There are several aspects of the Strategy that seek to inform future decisions in a way that will have a significant impact on mitigating the effects of emissions from vehicles. These include the following:

·    providing for a significant amount of employment in the proposed light industrial and smaller heavy industrial areas to the north of the Dairy Flat area to help reduce vehicle trips and travel distances

·    providing for a centre with services and employment close to a large residential catchment to help reduce vehicle trips and travel distances

·    providing for high density residential development close to the proposed centre

·    providing a Rapid Transit Corridor through the centre of a future residential area

·    providing a walking and cycling network.

50.     As noted above, the issue of climate change and effects of flooding have also been recognised and taken into account in the Strategy. Flooding was in part a reason for the recommended reconfiguration of the preferred location for the metro/town centre.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51.     Auckland Transport staff have played a key role in developing the Strategy and ensuring good alignment and integration with the work undertaken by Te Tupu Ngātahi in respect of the proposed future transport network.

52.     Watercare staff have not been involved in developing the Strategy as bulk water and wastewater servicing for the area are matters that were considered during the preparation of the FDS. Detailed water and wastewater servicing matters are more appropriately considered at subsequent stages in the planning and development process (e.g. at the time of structure planning). 

53.     Various internal council department (including Healthy Waters and Community Facilities) have been involved in developing the Strategy and provided additional comment following receipt of feedback on the draft. As noted above, Healthy Waters also provided additional analysis and comment following the flood events of January and February this year.

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

Local impacts and local board views

54.     At the time of preparing this report, a separate report on the feedback to the draft Strategy and the revised Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones was to be reported to the Rodney Local Board at its meeting on 29 November 2023. A verbal update on the Board’s views and any resolutions from the Board will be provided to the committee at the meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55.     In 2020 at the start of the preparation of the draft Strategy the following iwi groups were advised of the project:

·    Ngāti Wai

·    Ngāti Manuhiri

·    Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua

·    Te Uri o Hau

·    Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

·    Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust

 

 

·    Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

·    Te Kawerau a Maki

·    Te Ākitai Waiohua

·    Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

·    Ngāti Te Ata

·    Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust

·    Ngāti Paoa Iwi

·    Ngāti Maru

·    Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Incorporated

·    Ngaati Whanaunga

·    Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated

·    Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

·    Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara

56.     A draft Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) prepared by Ngāti Manuhiri in 2018 for Te Tupu Ngātahi was available at the beginning of the process. In terms of future management and growth, the concerns/issues raised in the CVA included:

·    the ongoing degradation of waterways through further development, loss of habitat and stormwater runoff

·    growth exceeding current predictions

·    connectivity appropriate to growth, need and demand

·    unforeseen adverse impacts of the environment

·    sustainable development

·    unaffordability of dwellings for mana whenua.

57.     The draft Strategy was made available to 14 of the above iwi groups who had expressed an interest in being informed about the project. At that time, Ngāti Manuhiri advised that they did not have the resources to provide comment on the draft.

58.     Subsequently Te Kawerau ā Maki with Ngāti Manuhiri, prepared a further Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for Te Tupu Ngātahi. This reached conclusions on the proposed transport network that are also relevant to the proposed future land uses outlined in the Strategy.

59.     The CIA concluded that the proposed transport network would result in a range of adverse cultural impacts including cumulative changes to the cultural landscape and urbanisation of waterways and flood prone areas. Positive impacts identified in the CIA related to transport efficiencies and opportunities for ecological and cultural interpretation and enhancement. It identified a number of significant adverse effects that will either need to be reduced further or require offsetting. These particularly related to effects of the proposed transport network on streams and significant areas of native vegetation.

60.     The CIA also indicated that the proposed RTC introduces the largest source of new impacts, and while Te Kawerau ā Maki with Ngāti Manuhiri are not opposed to the RTN in principle, they do have concerns about the unlocking of inappropriate development within flood prone areas and the impact on the landscape of introducing a parallel transit corridor to SH1 rather than integrating their footprints.

61.     However, this concern is prefaced on the RTC unlocking or coming prior to most development rather than the reverse where it is responding to existing development created within the Future Urban Zone over time. As noted above, an important issue identified by mana whenua through Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi’s detailed business case process (via Te Tupu Ngātahi) is the impact on streams. The revised Strategy addresses this to the extent that the proposed metropolitan/town centre no longer spans streams in the area. The development of the rest of the area and its relationship with the stream network is an important matter that would be considered in detail at future stages of the planning and development process (e.g. through structure planning).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

62.     The costs of infrastructure required to support development in the Dairy Flat and Silverdale West areas will be significant. This is one of the key reasons why the committee pushed the timeframe for development of the Dairy Flat area in the FDS out from 2038 to 2050+. Other than some business, development of the Silverdale West area is not planned to begin before 2030.

63.     There is no council funding for either of these areas in the current Long-term Plan because they were not considered to be priority locations for investment. However, as discussed earlier in this report, the Strategy has been developed alongside the detailed business case that was recently approved by the boards of Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi for the northern growth areas identified in the council’s FDS and the Auckland Unitary Plan. The detailed business case has resulted in the lodgement of NoRs by Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi for the proposed future transport network. A key purpose of the NoRs is to avoid the significant additional costs that can occur when private development proceeds within optimal transport corridors, ahead of the land being acquired by the relevant transport agency and the transport infrastructure being delivered.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

64.     There is a risk that adopting the Strategy could raise developer and landowner expectations of particular land uses being absolutely confirmed in particular areas, or that the provision of bulk infrastructure will occur in the near future. To mitigate this risk, the Strategy makes it very clear that more detailed planning (e.g. structure planning) will need to take place in the future and refers to the timing for development set out in the Future Development Strategy (i.e. 2050+). With respect to timing, it is also noted the FDS carries significantly more legal weight than the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the Dairy Flat and Silverdale Future Urban Zones.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65.     If adopted, the Strategy will be able to be considered as part of the NoR process for Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi’s northern future transport network projects. As noted earlier in this report, the northern NoRs were recently notified for submissions. Submissions will be heard by independent hearing commissioners in the new year.

66.     The landowners that were initially advised of the draft Strategy, and those that provided feedback, will be advised of the response to the feedback and the adopted Strategy. The Strategy will then be published in the council’s website.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Spatial Land Use Strategy

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dave Paul - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Request – Pukekohe East Precinct 2 - 50 Pukekohe East Road and 47 Golding Road, Pukekohe (Covering report)

File No.: CP2023/18908

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To decide how to process a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP) from OMAC Limited and Next Generation Properties Limited (the Applicants) to rezone approximately 27.15 hectares of land (the subject site) at Pukekohe from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) Zone. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 30 November 2023 Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Auckland Unitary Plan – Making operative Private Plan Change 74 - Golding Meadows and Auckland Trotting Club

File No.: CP2023/17775

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative private Plan Change 74 - Golding Meadows and Auckland Trotting Club to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 74 (PC74) is a private plan change request to rezone approximately 82.66 hectares of land in south-eastern Pukekohe from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) and Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility Zone (MRFZ) to a combination of Business – Light Industry Zone (LIZ), Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) Zone and Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone.

3.       The plan change also seeks to remove the Franklin Trotting Club Precinct and to introduce a new precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan. The new precinct provisions relate to managing noise from the nearby Pukekohe Park motorsport activities; the transport network; ecological values; stormwater and water quality.

4.       The plan change also adds a new Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Overlay and new notable trees to the Notable Tree Overlay.

5.       PC74 was publicly notified on 24 March 2022 and 28 submissions and 12 further submissions were received.

6.       The hearing on PC74 was held on 27 October 2022 and the decision by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners to approve PC74 (the Decision) with modifications was notified on 26 January 2023. The commissioners were delegated authority to make this decision.

7.       The appeal period closed on 19 March 2023. Two appeals were lodged in respect of the Decision. The appeals have now been settled by withdrawal and an Environment Court consent order.

8.       The relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended to make PC74 operative in accordance with the Decision and the Environment Court consent order (and included in Attachments A and B of the agenda report).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 74 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as set out in Attachments A and B to the agenda report

b)      tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes 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

Overview of Plan Change 74

9.       PC74 to the AUP is a private plan change request from Golding Meadows Developments Limited and Auckland Trotting Club Incorporated which relates to approximately 82.66 hectares of land in eastern Pukekohe. The plan change area is bound by Golding Road, Station Road and the North Island Main Trunk line (NIMT), Royal Doulton Drive, part of Yates Road and a stream that runs in a roughly southerly direction from Golding Road to Yates Road.

10.     In summary the plan change sought to:

·    rezone an area of FUZ to MHU Zone

·    rezone the Auckland Trotting Club land from MRFZ to a combination of MHU Zone, LIZ and Neighbourhood Centres Zone

·    remove the Franklin Trotting Club Precinct

·    add a new precinct, the Pukekohe Golding Precinct

·    add a new SEA to the SEA Overlay

·    add new notable trees to the Notable Tree Overlay

·    add new vehicle access restriction control.

11.     Maps showing the areas to be rezoned, the new precinct and the new overlays are in Attachments A and B of this report.

12.     The new precinct provisions relate to the transport network (including indicative roads, vehicle access restrictions, key indicative walking and cycling connections; ecological values; stormwater and water quality; and managing noise from the nearby Pukekohe Park motorsport activities).

13.     The plan change was publicly notified on 24 March 2022 and 28 submissions and 12 further submissions were received. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Watercare submitted on the plan change. The Council group impacts and views section of this report includes more information about these.

14.     A panel of independent hearing commissioners was delegated authority by the council to make a decision on the plan change.

15.     A hearing was held on the plan change on 27 October 2022.

16.     Through the hearing process a number of amendments were made to the proposed plan change including those generally agreed by experts through expert conferencing.

17.     The Decision to approve (with modifications) the plan change was notified 26 January 2023 and the appeal period closed on 19 March 2023.

18.     Two appeals to the Decision were lodged, one by Ngāti Te Ata, and the other by Christine Montagna. The Montagna appeal was withdrawn in June 2023. Mediation of the Ngāti Te Ata appeal was undertaken through the Environment Court. This appeal has now been settled via a consent order issued on 8 November. The consent order includes further amendments to the precinct provisions which address the matters raised by Ngāti Te Ata in its appeal.

19.     PC74 can now be made operative in accordance with the decision and Environment Court consent order,[9] and included in Attachments A and B of this report.

Medium Density Residential Standards and National Policy Statement on Urban Development

20.     Sections 77G, 77N and 80E of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) require the council to:

·    give effect to Policy 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD)

·    incorporate into the AUP, the medium density residential standards (MDRS) contained in Schedule 3A of the RMA;

using an intensification planning instrument (IPI). Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification is the council’s IPI.

21.     When Plan Change 78 was notified on 18 August 2022, a decision had not been made on PC74 and the area was still zoned FUZ and MRFZ. The area zoned FUZ was not included in Plan Change 78 as it was considered outside the urban environment. Plan Change 78 does not propose any changes to Special Purpose zones, including the MRFZ.

22.     Once PC74 is operative the council will need to consider whether it needs to undertake a variation to Plan Change 78 or initiate a change to the AUP, to give effect to Policy 3 of the NPS-UD or to incorporate the MDRS into the Pukekohe Golding Precinct. Consideration of whether a variation or change to the AUP is needed will be undertaken by Plans and Places after PC74 becomes operative. If such a variation or change is required, a report will be brought to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23.     Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

24.     Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’. Decisions were made on all submissions and the appeal has been resolved (disposed of). On this basis the plan change can now be approved.

25.     Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

27.     As a procedural step, impacts on climate change are not relevant to the recommendation to approve PC74.

28.     While this report is procedural only, it is noted that the plan change will provide for residential development and employment opportunities in a location and in a manner that encourages walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

29.     The plan change area is relatively close to public transport systems (the train station) and the Pukekohe town centre, as well as current and proposed employment nodes. The precinct plan includes indicative pedestrian and/or cycle paths. The precinct provisions also include triggers for transport infrastructure requirements, such as upgrades to specific roads to provide better pedestrian and cycle access.

30.     Proximity to the train station and Pukekohe town centre, combined with the provision of pedestrian and cycle access and connections will help to limit the number of private vehicle kilometres travelled and therefore greenhouse gas emissions.

31.     Parts of the plan change area are subject to flood risk. The area also includes streams, wetlands and overland flow paths. Streams and wetlands are natural hydrological features that have value for stormwater management in addition to the ecological values they hold.

32.     The precinct includes provisions to manage stormwater; including hydrological mitigation, water quantity, and water quality. The precinct also includes provisions to protect and enhance streams and wetlands, requiring the planting of margins and buffers around streams and wetlands.

33.     Healthy Waters provided advice on the plan change. Heathy Waters recommended amendments to the precinct provisions, most of which were incorporated into the precinct. Healthy Waters staff were generally satisfied with the precinct provisions.

34.     The council holds a region-wide stormwater network discharge consent (NDC). The stormwater management plan provided in support of the plan change will be adopted into the NDC. This process is separate to the plan change process and is currently underway.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35.     As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of PC74, therefore no views from the council group were sought in relation to making the plan change operative.

36.     While this report is procedural only, it is noted that through the plan change process input from the council group was sought, including from Parks and Community Facilities and Healthy Waters.

37.     Healthy Waters provided advice on the applicant’s stormwater management plan and proposed precinct provisions. The stormwater management plan was revised taking into account the advice received from Healthy Waters. A stormwater management plan will only be adopted into the council’s NDC once relevant staff from Healthy Waters are satisfied with it.

38.     Heathy Waters recommended amendments to the precinct provisions, most of which were incorporated into the precinct.

39.     Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Watercare all submitted on the plan change. The plan change process enabled their views and expert evidence to be considered as part of the decision making on the plan change.

40.     The Decision on the plan change noted that:

·    the planner representing the council (as submitter) advised that issues raised in his expert evidence had been resolved

·    Auckland Transport generally agreed with the revised provisions

·    Watercare confirmed its overall support for the plan change.

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

Local impacts and local board views

41.     As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with making the plan change operative.

42.     While this report is procedural only, it is noted that the Franklin Local Board provided its views on the proposed plan change at its 26 July 2022 business meeting.

43.     The Local Board’s views related to Golding Road as a future bypass route and consultation with the Supporting Growth alliance; pedestrian safety and the proposed walking and cycling connections to the train station and Pukekohe town centre; and existing rail-crossing limitations and the opportunity for new pedestrian and cycle connections between Station Road and Subway Road.

44.     These local board views were included in the council’s hearing report and were considered in the Decision on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45.     As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of this plan change.

46.     While this report is procedural only it is noted that mana whenua were provided with several opportunities to be involved in the plan change process.

47.     The plan change applicant advised they consulted with Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho and Waikato-Tainui iwi before the plan change was notified. In response to this, Ngāti Tamaoho provided an addendum to the Mana Whenua Engagement Summary from the earlier Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Planning process undertaken by the council.

48.     When the plan change was publicly notified, Auckland Council sent letters to iwi authorities notifying them of the plan change.

49.     Ngāti Te Ata submitted on the plan change, seeking that it be declined unless a Cultural Values Assessment is undertaken by them to ascertain the Ngāti Te Ata history, cultural values and iwi environmental preferences regarding the proposed plan change development. Ngāti Tamaoho made a further submission supporting the submission of Ngāti Te Ata.

50.     Ngāti Te Ata appealed the decision on the plan change, made by the independent hearing commissioners.

51.     Mediation was undertaken between Ngāti Te Ata, the plan change applicant, the council and other parties to the appeal. Through this, agreement was reached between the parties and the appeal was resolved via an Environment Court consent order. This resulted in a number of changes to the precinct provisions that address the issues raised by Ngāti Te Ata.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

52.     There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

53.     As a private plan change, the costs associated with processing the plan change including making it operative, are cost recoverable from the applicant who requested the private plan change.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

54.     There are no risks associated with making the plan change operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

55.     The final step in making PC74 operative is to publicly notify the date on which the plan change will become operative, and to the update the AUP.

56.     Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make PC74 operative, including the public notice and seals.

57.     Once PC74 is made operative Plans and Places will consider whether a variation to Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification or a change to the AUP is required to incorporate the MDRS and to give effect to the NPS-UD.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan Change 74 Decision

 

b

Plan Change 74 Consent Order

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katrina David - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Auckland Unitary Plan - Making Operative Plan Change 83 - Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule

File No.: CP2023/15624

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative Plan Change 83 Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       On 4 August 2022 the former Planning Committee resolved to publicly notify a plan change to add, delete and amend multiple line-items in Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) (Resolution Number PLA/2022/93). The plan change also introduces a mechanism that allows the Notable Trees Schedule to be updated in specific circumstances without requiring a full plan change process.

3.       The hearing of submissions on PC 83 was on 2 May 2023 and the decision approving the plan change was notified on 17 August 2023. The appeal period closed on 28 September and no appeals were received against the decision.

4.       The relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended and made operative in accordance with the hearing commissioners’ decisions.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve the proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Plan Change 83 – Additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report under clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and

b)      tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Plan Change 83 becomes operative, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       Auckland Council notified its IPI (Intensification Planning Instrument) plan change (Plan Change 78) on 18 August 2022 to change the AUP to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) and give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD).

6.       Plan Change 83 (PC83) was one of the ‘non-IPI’ plan changes which formed the suite of complementary plan changes notified alongside the IPI. Unlike PC78, which has its own unique process under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), PC83 was subject to the normal Schedule 1 hearings process.

 

7.       PC83 introduced changes to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule, Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay and the corresponding plan maps. These changes included the addition of individual trees and groups of trees to the Schedule, amendments to existing listed trees or groups of trees, and the removal of listings where it had been established that the trees had been removed. Corresponding amendments to the plan maps and Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay were made (refer to Attachment B).

8.       The plan change also introduced an ‘automatic update clause’ which provides council with the option to amend the Schedule in two specific circumstances without an RMA Schedule 1 process (i.e. without the need for a full plan change). The first circumstance is where a subdivision changes the legal description of a property that contains a notable tree. Using the automatic update clause, council can amend the Schedule accordingly to update the legal description, thereby ensuring that the tree or trees still have full legal protection under the AUP. The second circumstance is where there is evidence that a tree or group of trees have been physically removed as a result of consent processes or emergency works. In that case, the notable tree or group of trees will be automatically removed from the Schedule without a plan change.

9.       The (former) Planning Committee resolved to approve the notification of Plan Change 83 for public notification at its 4 August 2022 meeting (Resolution PLA/2022/93). Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan.

10.     Key dates associated with the plan change were:

·    publicly notified on 18 August 2022

·    open for public submissions until 29 September 2022

·    summary of decisions requested (SDR) was notified on 5 December 2022

·    open for further submissions until 20 January 2023

·    hearing by independent commissioners on 2 May 2023

·    commissioners’ decision was dated 31 July 2023

·    the decision was publicly notified on 17 August 2023 (Attachment C)

11.     Twenty five submissions were received with no late submissions.

12.     Independent commissioners were delegated the authority to make decisions by the Regulatory Committee under section 34 of the RMA.

13.     The appeal period on the PC 83 decision closed on 28 September 2023. No appeals were received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 31 July 2023 (refer to Attachment A).

14.     A total of 20 trees and one group of trees (representing 16 line items) were added to the Schedule, 34 line items were amended and 23 trees (representing 19 line items) were removed. The decision confirmed the amendment to Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay to introduce the automatic update clause.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

16.     Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’. Decisions were made on all submissions and no appeals were received. On this basis Plan Change 83 can now be approved.

17.     Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     As a procedural step, impacts on climate change are not relevant to the recommendation to approve Plan Change 83.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 83.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20.     As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 83.

21.     There was consultation with the relevant local boards as part of the development of the plan change. Local board views were taken into account during the preparation of the plan change, as outlined in the section 32 report.

22.     Following the close of submissions and the notification of the SDR, Local Boards were asked to provide further feedback in a Pre-Hearing Conference. The local boards that made comments in respect of PC83 include:

·    Albert-Eden Local Board supported PC 83 additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees.

·    Puketāpapa Local Board supported PC83 in particular rules that allow for streetscapes that have trees.

·    Henderson-Massey Local Board did not generally support the removal of trees from the notable trees schedule, they support the retention of notable trees overlay, recognise the need to remove trees in case of emergency works and deteriorated health, but do not generally support resource consents seeking to remove notable trees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23.     As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of Plan Change 83.

24.     In May 2022, a letter was provided to all 19 iwi authorities to provide an explanation of the proposed plan change and the draft plan change documents were made available to all iwi on 23 June 2022.

25.     On 14 and 17 June 2022, the plan change was workshopped with iwi as part of the wider NPS-UD project. Letters were also sent to all iwi authorities to determine whether iwi sought a hearing commissioner with tikanga experience for the plan change process. No responses were received.

26.     All iwi authorities were sent letters when PC83 was publicly notified. There was no identified feedback received specifically in relation to PC83.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27.     There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28.     There are no risks associated with making the plan change operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29.     The final step in making Plan Change 83 operative is to publicly notify the date on which they will become operative, and to the update the AUP.

30.     Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Change 83 operative, including the public notice and seals. The update of the AUP to reflect the decision is expected to occur in January 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan Change 83 Decision

 

b

Plan Change 83 Amendments to Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay, Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule and the Auckland Unitary Plan maps

 

c

Plan Change 83 Public Notice on the decision

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lucy Rossiter - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Auckland Unitary Plan - Making operative Private Plan Change 85 - 48 Esmonde Road, Takapuna.

File No.: CP2023/17509

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make Private Plan Change 85 – 45 Esmonde Road, Takapuna to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) operative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 85 (PC85) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) is a private plan change requested by KBS Capital Ltd which sought to rezone the land around the coastal edge of 48 Esmonde Road, Takapuna to Open Space – Conservation Zone, but to retain the existing Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone for the remainder of the land. The proposed private plan change also sought to introduce a new precinct, the Takapuna 2 Precinct, which contains site specific development provisions for the land at 48 Esmonde Road, Takapuna.

3.       The main change associated with the Takapuna 2 Precinct, is to enable more intensive development, including increased building height up to 16 storeys or RL62 (approximately 55m above ground level).

4.       The hearing of submissions on PC85 was on 2 and 3 May 2023 and the council decision approving (with modifications) PC85 was issued on 30 August 2023.  Auckland Council notified the decision of the independent commissioners on 8 September 2023.

5.       No Environment Court appeals were received in relation to that decision.

6.       The relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 8 September 2023 (refer to Attachment B).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 85 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as set out in the decision included as Attachment B

b)      tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Private Plan Change 85 becomes 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

7.       PC85 – 48 Esmonde Road, Takapuna (see location plan at Attachment A) as notified sought to:

a)      to maintain the THAB Zone, with the future esplanade reserve to be rezoned as Open Space: Conservation (OSC) Zone; and did not seek to alter any provisions of the existing OSC Zone (see proposed zoning plan at Figure 1 below).

b)      to apply a new Takapuna Precinct 2 layer over the site (see Figure 2 below).


 

 

8.       The following would be enabled by the precinct[10] (as notified) and the THAB Zone and OSC Zone provisions:

·    All dwellings and development subject to a resource consent.

·    Limited provision for non-residential activities - GFA and location controls.

·    Protection of a range of environmental features within the site (view corridors, vegetation, open space, coastal edge).

·    A range of building heights from four storeys (RL 30m) height to 16 storeys (RL 62m).

·    Maximum building dimension and separation for the proposed taller buildings; Wind controls for taller buildings; Site specific building coverage controls; Up to 60 per cent building coverage; Maximum impervious areas (Precinct Area 1 Outer – 90 per cent, Area 2 Intermediate – 95 per cent, Area 3 Inner 100 per cent); Stormwater controls.

·    A range of front side and rear yards; Specific front, side and rear fences and walls; Outlook space requirements; Daylight requirements; Outdoor living space; Minimum Landscaped area zero per cent Landscaping, but with requirement for the protection of areas of open space outside the building platforms; Specific coastal planting.

·    City wide rules with respect to transport and environmental protection, plus additional site-specific controls on parking, traffic generation and environment enhancements; Transport thresholds; Specific maximum parking standards.

·    Noise controls for sensitive spaces.

9.       The proposed precinct plans included provision for an open space area around the coastal margin and graduated areas of building heights, up to 11-16 storeys in the middle part of the site. The Precinct Plan (as notified) is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 1: PC85 Notified - Proposed Zoning Plan

A map of land with different colored areas

Description automatically generated

 

 

Figure 2: PC85 Notified Precinct Plan

A table with text and numbers

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

10.     PC 85 was publicly limited notified on 9 September 2022 and 55 submissions were received. The Summary of Decisions Requested was notified on 11 November 2022 and closed for further submissions on 8 December 2022. Three further submissions were received.

11.     The council hearing for PC 85 was held on 2 - 3 of May 2023. The hearing was conducted by Independent Hearing Commissioners who were given full delegation to make a decision on PC 85. The commissioners’ decision to approve (with modifications) PC85 was issued on 30 August 2023. The decision was notified on 8 September 2023.

12.     No Environment Court appeals were received in relation to PC85.

13.     The Panel’s decision on PC85 makes amendments to the notified private plan change. The amendments (track changes) are set out in full in Appendix 1 to the Panel’s decision dated 8 September 2023 (see Attachment A of this report).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     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).” 

15.     As the appeal period has closed, and no appeals have been received, the council can approve PC85 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 PC85 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

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

17.     Council’s coastal management experts provided advice on potential risk of coastal hazards and sea level rise associated with climate change. The plan change provisions are considered to adequately respond to these issues. The central plateau of the site is just over 10m above sea level and falls towards the coastal edge. Council experts have assessed the proposal in terms of coastal hazards including from sea level rise (see paragraph 25 below) and are of the view that the land is not subject to significant risk of coastal hazards.

18.     Greenhouse gas emissions from transport are minimised by the development location which is on a major public transport route and will support public transport services. The site is ideally located to support alternative modes of transport to car use being within relatively close proximity to Akoranga bus station and Takapuna Metropolitan Centre.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

20.     No concerns raised by the council group in the PC85 process are unresolved. Amendments to PC85 were agreed to by the applicant addressing the matters of concern.

21.     Discussions between the applicant and Auckland Transport occurred prior to notification of the application. Auckland Transport also lodged submissions. Changes to the transport provisions were agreed to by the applicant to address matters raised by Auckland Transport. At the hearing a letter was tabled on behalf of Auckland Transport, confirming that the amendments to the notified precinct provisions addressed Auckland Transport’s submission points.

22.     Discussions between the applicant and Watercare occurred prior to notification of the application. The plan change has also been reviewed by asset owner Watercare and approved in principle. In regard to the proposed wastewater network, Watercare has determined that the downstream network has sufficient capacity for the proposed development and that the network infrastructure to be constructed as part of the development provides sufficient capacity for the development and future development upstream.

23.     Discussions between the applicant and the Healthy Waters team resulted in revisions to the proposed stormwater management plan (SMP). The revisions satisfied the concerns of the Healthy Waters team. Regarding discharge to the reticulated network, Healthy Waters has confirmed that the revised SMP meets the requirements of relevant schedules of the approved regionwide network discharge consent and also meets the relevant criteria for adoption under the process set out within Schedule 8 of the approved regionwide stormwater network discharge consent.

24.     Council’s parks department and environmental specialists’ advice and recommendations are reflected in the Panel’s decision. The hearing process clarified details on public access, coastal access, and open space. The location of community open space and an elevated perimeter path (rather than a path at the slope), pause points and protected trees were confirmed.


 

25.     Council geotechnical and coastal experts provided expert advice on the geotechnical suitability of the site for the extent of development enabled by the proposed plan change including on matters of coastal hazards, land instability, and erosion rates. Technical details were clarified through the hearing process – with an updated Coastal Hazards Assessment being provided at the hearing by the applicant. Consequential adjustments to the esplanade reserve boundary (revised coastal erosion hazard line) resulting from the additional information have been incorporated into the Panel’s decision and reflect the recommendations from council’s experts.

26.     Council experts in urban design and landscape architecture provided expert advice on the application. The hearing process provided for robust further discussion which gave clarification and confirmation of precinct provisions details in the areas of building height and bulk, landscape values, outlook amenity, dominance, natural character effects, integration, and connectivity to the surrounding area.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27.     Local Board views were not sought for this report as making PC85 fully operative is a procedural matter.

28.     The Takapuna-Devonport Local Board views on PC85 were sought during the PC85 process and included in the hearing report. The intensity of the proposed development and its relationship, connection, and integration with the surrounding area (built and natural environment), with the community, and with key infrastructure (e.g. the transportation network) were identified as important considerations. The need for high quality development, including provision of appropriate open space opportunities (public and private) and environmental responsiveness were also highlighted. The local board identified a number of concerns relating to the coastal location of the site, these included visual effects, environmental effects, and geotechnical risk including potential effects arising from climate change and sea level rise.

29.     The Takapuna-Devonport Local Board feedback to PC85 is contained in the hearing report as Attachment 12 to that report. The local board presented its submission at the hearing, and this was considered in the decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30.     As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of PC85, and it being made operative.

31.     The requestor advised that they contacted 11 mana whenua groups in the preparation of PC85 via an email sent in 2020. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki responded to the email and subsequently prepared an assessment of cultural values.

32.     The consultation has informed provisions proposed in the plan change, including the requirement for high quality stormwater treatment; protection of the coastal esplanade; support to the coastal margin by landscaping (including native species); and incorporation of mātauranga and tikanga into the design of new buildings and public open spaces.

33.     All mana whenua groups were notified as part of the plan change notification process and no submission was received from any mana whenua.

34.     Further to this no iwi resource management groups recommended needing a decision maker in accordance with clause 4A of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35.     There are no financial implications associated with making PC85 operative in full. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP is a statutory requirement and is a budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     There are no risks associated with making PC85 fully operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     The final step in making PC85 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.

38.     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 PC85 operative in full.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

PC85 Location and zoning - map

 

b

PC85 Decision

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alison Pye - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Auckland Climate Grant 2023/2024 strategic allocation

File No.: CP2023/14920

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve grant allocations for the 2023/2024 Auckland Climate Grant strategic funding round.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Climate Grant is a contestable grants programme designed to support community-led climate action.

3.       The Auckland Climate Grant scope and criteria, priority action focus areas, and decision-making were approved by the Environment and Climate Change Committee at its September 2022 meeting (ECC/2022/80). Strategic grants ($15,000-$50,000) are subject to approval by the relevant committee of council. Decision-making for response grants ($1,000-$15,000) is allocated to the General Manager Environmental Services.

4.       The purpose of the Auckland Climate Grant programme is to support projects that:

·        reduce greenhouse gas emissions through community-based action

·        build community resilience to climate change impacts

·        support Māori-led responses to climate change.

5.       The total budget available for allocation in the 2023/2024 Auckland Climate Grant programme funding round is $362,750, funded from a combination of Long-term Plan 2021-2031 climate investment package and general rates.

6.       Grants through the Auckland Climate Grant are allocated through one strategic grant round and up to two response grant rounds. The grant programme guidelines including detailed information on eligibility criteria are published on the council website.

7.       This year 31 applications were received for the 2023/2024 Auckland Climate Grant strategic funding round requesting a total of $1,188,831.

8.       Staff assessed the applications against the fund’s key criteria: alignment with grant purpose, Māori outcomes, unmet need and project reach, collaboration, and likelihood of success.

9.       Based on this assessment criteria, staff recommend that eight applications are supported in this grant round allocating $225,000 from the Auckland Climate Grant budget.

10.     The eight applications recommended for approval were assessed by subject matter experts and reflect a range of climate action areas: Māori-led (two), transport (two), and food (one). The remaining three applications recommended for funding fit into more than one priority area. The funding rationale for all projects is fully detailed in Attachment A.

11.     The recommended grants supported through the Auckland Climate Grant range in value from $16,000 to $40,000, with an average value of $28,125.

12.     Staff recommend that 20 applications be declined due to the round being oversubscribed, and that funding be directed to the projects which will have comparatively greater contributions towards regionally significant outcomes.

13.     The remaining $137,750 from the Auckland Climate Grant budget will be allocated to applications received through the response funding round ($1,000-$15,000 climate grants). 

14.     The committee could choose not to approve the strategic grant allocation, however staff do not recommend this due to the reputational risk to the council and the multiple outcomes and investment that the grants leverage.

15.     If approved, staff will contact grant applicants to notify them of the outcome in December 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve the grant allocations for the 2023/2024 Auckland Climate Grant Strategic funding round totaling $225,000 as listed below and detailed in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Applicant

Project title

Funding recommendation

Augustine Kopa under the umbrella of Community Waitākere

Mātauranga Māra

$31,000

Te Waipuna Puawai

Te Whenua Mauri Ora Maara

$40,000

Bike Auckland

Community Activation Boost

$35,000

For The Love of Bees

Year one Auckland Communities of Regenerative Learning CoRL network

$16,000

Environment Hubs Aotearoa

EcoFest 2024

$25,000

Youth Climate Collective Limited

The Climate Action Conference 2024

$28,000

Climate Club

An introduction to high-impact collective action during a climate crisis

$20,000

Workride Limited

Workride Auckland Launch: Ride-to-Work tax benefit

$30,000

Total

 

$225,000

Horopaki

Context

Grant programme background and funding priorities

16.     The Auckland Climate Grant was established in 2021 with budget allocated to a climate grant programme through the 10-year Recovery Budget 2021-2031. The grant is designed to support delivery of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

17.     The Auckland Climate Grant scope and criteria, priority action focus areas, decision-making were approved by the Environment and Climate Change Committee at its September 2022 meeting (ECC/2022/80). Decision-making for strategic grants ($15,000-$50,000) sits with the relevant committee of council. Decision-making for response grants ($1,000-$15,000) is allocated to the General Manager Environmental Services.


 

18.     The purpose of the Auckland Climate Grant programme is to support projects that:

·        reduce greenhouse gas emissions through community-based action

·        build community resilience to climate change impacts

·        support Māori-led responses to climate change.

19.     Projects supported through the Auckland Climate Grant may address a wide range if the priorities included in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. The priority focus areas for the 2023/2024 funding rounds are energy, transport, food, and Māori-led projects.

20.     Strategic grants ($15,000-$50,000) will support programmes and activities aligning with one or more priority activity areas (transport, food, energy or Māori-led) with tangible or clearly quantifiable emissions reduction and/or resilience outcomes. The grant programme guidelines including detailed information on eligibility criteria are published on the council website.

Grant programme budget and funding available for 2023/2024

21.     In the 2023/2024 financial year, the climate grant budget available for allocation is $362,750.  This is made up of funding from the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 climate investment package ($258,750) and the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage (RENH) general rates funded budget ($104,000) due to the separation of climate related projects out of the RENH grant programme and inclusion in the Auckland Climate Grant.

Timing and promotion of funding rounds

22.     The Auckland Climate Grant programme has one annual strategic funding round and two response funding rounds. In 2023/2024, strategic applications opened on 14 August 2023 and closed on 18 September 2023. Applications were assessed by subject matter experts in September and October 2023.

23.     The grant was promoted through Auckland Council’s website and social media sites, the Infrastructure and Environmental Services mana whenua forum, staff networks and emails to community climate action stakeholders and partners.

24.     Three online community workshop presentations were held during August 2023. The workshops provided a forum for applicants to seek support with the application process and request advice from council staff.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

25.     Thirty-one applications requesting total funding of $1,188,831 were received to the Auckland Climate Grant strategic grant round.

26.     All applications were assessed and scored against the Auckland Climate Grant assessment criteria in Table One.

Table One: Auckland Climate Grant assessment criteria

Assessment criteria

Assessment weighting

Alignment with grant purpose

40

Māori outcomes

20

Unmet need and project reach

20

Collaboration

10

Likelihood of success

10

 

27.     Following initial assessment, the assessment team met to moderate scores and recommend grant allocations. Along with assessment scores other factors considered when setting funding recommendations were:

·        geographic distribution

·        distribution across grant priority areas (transport, food, energy, Māori-led)

·        support for applications from traditionally under-served communities

·        co-funding and funding available for projects from other sources.

28.     Of the 31 applications received, eight applications are recommended for funding either in part or in full.

29.     Three applications, Hoani Waititi Marae project, Matuku Reserve Trust Emission free energy in emergencies and EcoMatters Environment Trust Climate Facilitators Training Programme were identified as having strong alignment to outcomes supported through storm response budgets. These projects will be allocated a total of $122,500 from the storm response budget, decision making of which sits at officer level.

30.     Information on all applications is provided in Attachment A. The geographic and priority area distribution of applications and funding recommendations is summarised in tables two and three below.

Table Two: Geographic distribution of Auckland Climate Grant strategic applications and funding recommendations

 

No. of applications received

Funding requested

No. projects recommended for supported

Funding recommended

North

4

$149,394

0

 

Central

5

$168,648

0

 

West

4

$145,399

2

$71,000

South

2

$65,000

0

 

Regional

16

$660,390

6

$154,000

Total

31

$1,188,831

8

$225,000

 

Table Three: Activity area distribution of Auckland Climate Grant strategic applications and funding recommendations

 

No. of applications received

Funding requested

No. projects recommended for supported

Funding recommended

Transport

5

$229,354

2

$65,000

Food

11

$373,668

1

$16,000

Energy

4

$167,710

0

$0

Māori-led

3

$110,199

2

$71,000

Multiple areas

8

$307,900

3

$73,000

Total

31

$1,188,831

8

$225,000

 

31.     Reporting metrics for the Auckland Climate grant include number of Aucklanders undertaking low carbon actions and carbon emissions saved by Auckland households or individuals. 

32.     Based on an assessment of information provided by applicants as part of their application the projects recommended for funding would reach 18,650 Aucklanders and support carbon emissions saved of 288.1 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33.     The Auckland Climate Grants support community-led climate projects focussed on reducing carbon emissions and increasing community resilience to climate impacts. The provision of grants through the Auckland Climate Grant programme contributes towards Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan action area C4: Remove barriers and support community initiatives that reduce emissions and build resilience in a fair way.

34.     Individual projects supported through the Auckland Climate Grant programme may respond to a range of action areas within Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan including:

·        Action area T3: Increase access to bicycles, micro-mobility devices and the safe, connected and dedicated infrastructure that supports their use.

·        Action area C1: Work together to strengthen the resilience of our communities, people and places.

·        Action area F4: Increase supply and demand for local, seasonal and low carbon food.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35.     Auckland Climate Grant applications may potentially relate to work being carried out by the Waste Solutions and Customer and Community Services departments, and other programmes supporting community resilience to climate impacts. Views on the applications from Matuku Reserve Trust and EcoMatters Environment trust were sought from these departments during the assessment of strategic grant applications.

36.     The Auckland Climate Grant’s support of community-led transport initiatives may have an impact on Auckland Transport. Views on transport applications from Bike Auckland, Workride Limited, Electric Bicycle Hub, Whakaupoko Landcare and Bike Devonport were sought from Auckland Transport during the assessment of strategic applications.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impact

37.     Equitable geographical distribution of grant allocations across different local board areas was considered among other factors by the moderation panel.

Local board views

38.     The Community Grants Policy provides for local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. Local boards may choose to fund local climate action projects and activities, some of which may complement the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa. An applicant’s funding track record including a review of all previous local board grants they have received is considered as part of the Auckland Climate Grant assessment process.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39.     The Auckland Climate Grant programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitments through Kia ora Tāmaki Makaurau including supporting projects that contribute to Māori environmental outcomes and improve Māori wellbeing. This is achieved through providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori.

40.     Under the Auckland Climate Grant Māori-led projects include those that

·        provide activities or opportunities for Māori individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi or other Māori communities to respond to climate impacts or build community resilience to climate impacts

·        have a foundation in Te Ao Māori philosophy and principles and apply Māori language

·        the applicant groups or project leaders are predominantly Māori.

41.     Three applications were received to the Auckland Climate Grant strategic round that met these criteria.

42.     Māori outcomes were assessed for all applications to evaluate the extent to which the project empowered mana whenua to response to climate change and how Te Ao Māori has been integrated into the project methodology and goals.

43.     Of the applications which were recommended for support, the projects with greatest contributions towards Māori outcomes are detailed in Table Four below.

Table Four: Projects with significant contributions to Māori outcomes

Applicant

Project title

Māori outcomes assessment

Augustine Kopa under the umbrella of Community Waitākere

Mātauranga Māra

The audience for this project is primarily Māori communities, as well as Pacifica. The project was co-developed with Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi. The project is grounded in Māori tikanga including traditional gardening practices, and will include running wānanga, supporting existing and upcoming māra (gardens) and supporting, creating and growing the network of kaupapa Māori gardeners.

There are numerous Māori-led organisations involved in the project, including local iwi Te Kawerau ā Maki, Te Kura Kaupapa o Hoani Waititi, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Kutuku (Māori immersion schools), Te Ukaipo community organisation, Awhi Mai Te Atatū, Ae Ka Taea e Koe mobile community hub, and the bilingual unit at Birdwood Primary School. The West Auckland Māori Thought Leadership Roopu will assist with promoting the project.

Te Waipuna Puawai

Te Whenua Mauri Ora Maara

This is a Māori-led initiative. The applicant is a Māori-led community organisation that works primarily with local Māori communities and at-risk rangatahi. The project is an extension of an existing pā harakeke initiative that has the support of local iwi Te Kawerau ā Maki. The project's aim is to transform an underutilized green space into a thriving Indigenous knowledge-based māra, blending traditional wisdom with modern sustainability practices. The project responds to the Mana Motuhake o te Kai (Māori Kai Sovereignty) plan for west Auckland.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

44.     The total amount available for allocation in the 2022/2023 funding round of the Auckland Climate Grant is $362,750. The budget was reduced by $100,000 through the Annual Budget 2022/2023. This is funded through the Auckland Climate Grant budget ($258,750) and from the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage (RENH) general rates funded budget ($104,000) due to the separation of sustainable living projects out of the RENH grant programme.

45.     Attachment A details the amounts recommended for funding from both the grant programme budget and the additional targeted rate funding. This report recommends the allocation of $225,000 of funding from the Auckland Climate Grant.

46.     The remaining $137,750 from the Auckland Climate Grant budget will be allocated to applications received through the response funding round.  Decision-making authority for Auckland Climate Grant response applications sits with the General Manager Environmental Services.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47.     A risk assessment has identified three risks associated with the grant allocation process which are all considered low risk. These are listed below along with the mitigations:

Table Five: Risks and mitigations

Risk

Risk assessment

Considerations and mitigations

Perceived inequity in grant allocation

Low

Applicants may query the grant allocation process and feel it has been inconsistent or unfair. This risk is mitigated through the thorough and transparent evaluation and assessment process, carried out in accordance with the grant framework.

Projects unable to be completed due to unforeseen circumstances

Low

This risk is mitigated through the application assessment which has included consideration of alternative delivery options where required.  In the event of project disruption, council staff will work with grant recipients to agree alternative delivery plans or extended project timeframes. 

Grant applicants do not use grant funds appropriately to fulfil the conditions of their grant or deliver the outcomes desired by the council

Low

This risk is mitigated through the initial assessment, which included evaluation of the capacity of applicants and their track record, and requirements for detailed reporting on outcomes of all applications. Grant recipients are required to account for use of allocated funds and the council can request the return of any funds not used in line with the approved grant purpose.

48.     Staff will maintain regular contact with grant recipients during project implementation to follow up on progress and make sure any risks of individual projects are properly addressed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49.     Once approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practicable. Successful applicants will have one to three years to complete the proposed project work.

50.     At the end of the grant term recipients will be required to complete an accountability report on what has been achieved through their projects. Accountability reports provide detailed information about different aspects of the project, including receipts to show expenditure, photos and videos and are reviewed by subject matter experts against prespecified metrics.

51.     Unsuccessful applicants will be issued with a decline letter as soon as practicable. These applicants will also be offered the opportunity to work with council staff on applications for future funding rounds or other opportunities for funding.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Climate Grant 2023/2024 strategic grant recommendations

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Fran Hayton - Low Carbon Specialist

Authorisers

Rachel Kelleher – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

30 November 2023

 

Investment into the sport sector in Tāmaki Makaurau

File No.: CP2023/14120

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval on the allocation of the $552,000 Investment in Sport fund, as budgeted for in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, and confirm that future funding allocation decisions be made in accordance with the Community Grant Policy 2014.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Investment in Sport funding was allocated through the Long-term Plan 2021 – 2031 (LTP). The fund invests $552,000 annually, split among Aktive and the Regional Sports Trusts (RSTs), to enable the collective development of system building across the sport sector in Tāmaki Makaurau.  

3.       Aktive and Regional Sports Trusts (RSTs) deliver on council’s investment into sport and provide an annual report on how the investment has delivered agreed outcomes from the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan.  A regional organisation, Aktive works with and through national, regional and local partners to fund and deliver community sport in Auckland. RSTs are sub-regional partners, providing coordination, delivery and local leadership.  

4.       The allocation in FY 2022/2023 delivered well on investment with the sector focusing on sector capability, building capability for Māori, relationships and communication. The report highlighted that key challenges were the enduring impacts of COVID-19 and weather events in January and February 2023. 

5.       In response to these challenges, the FY 2023/2024 investment will deliver sector capability with a focus on climate change, targeting emissions reduction, climate adaption and supporting the sector to deliver quality sport experiences in a sustainable way.  

6.       Focusing on climate change will deliver on the sustainable sector development outcome in Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP) and advance the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan (TTĀT) actions for sport, align the sector with our climate actions and start to build sector resilience. 

7.       For the purpose of this report, local Regional Sport Trusts are defined as the Aktive system build partners: Harbour Sport, Sport Waitākere, Sport Auckland, and CLM Community Sport. 

8.       In July 2021, and August 2022, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee approved allocation of $552,000 for one year. A one-year allocation of funding is recommended again in this report.

9.       The options for allocation within the $552,000 budget envelope are: 

·    Option 1 (status quo): Continue to invest in Aktive (for regional initiatives) and RSTs at FY 2022/2023 investment levels. A minimum of $512,000 will be distributed to RSTs while Aktive will use $40,000 for the delivery of regional work programmes. 

·    Option 2: Investment into Aktive and RSTs with funds equally apportioned across the group to best deliver on local and regional strategy. All five organisations would receive funding of $110,400 for sector development capability investment. 

10.     Staff recommend Option 2 as it would provide consistent investment around the region and allow for both regional and local sport sector capability uplift, driven by Aktive and the RSTs respectively.

11.     During 2022 and 2023 collaborative planning work and regular sector connections have helped to build good working relationships and align sector development. Aktive and the RSTs have signalled support for an equitable split of funding for FY2023/2024 (Option 2).

12.     While the Community Grants Policy 2014 generally requires decisions on regional grants to be made by the Governing Body (or relevant committee), the policy specifically excludes Aktive. Decisions on this fund have been elevated to the relevant committee in order to ensure that distribution achieves desired outcomes, and that funding best responds to the strategic direction set by committee members.

13.     Annual reports provided by Aktive and the RSTs confirm that the organisations are working as key partners in a cohesive and integrated way to progress shared objectives and long term outcomes.

14.     Options for future funding decisions are outlined in this report and include:

·    Status quo (annual decision via the designated Committee of the Whole)

·    A committee decision for FY 2023/2024 and a three-year allocation decision following confirmation of the budget in the Long-term Plan 2024-34.

·    A committee decision for FY 2023/2024 and confirmation that future allocation can be made in accordance with the Community Grants Policy 2014, following confirmation of the budget in the Long-term Plan 2024-34.

15.     For all of the options outlined above, performance of this grant investment would be monitored via key performance indicators within a funding agreement, and through regular reporting. 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / approve $552,000 for FY 2023/2024 to Aktive - Auckland Sport & Recreation, for sport and recreation outcomes, and require Aktive to distribute $110,400 to each of their system build partners: Harbour Sport, Sport Waitākere, Sport Auckland, and CLM Community Sport.

b)      whakaū / confirm that following funding confirmation in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, future allocations be made operationally, in accordance with the Community Grants Policy 2014, with annual performance reporting to committee.

Horopaki

Context

16.     The Auckland Plan 2050 recognises the value of sport and recreation to the quality of life of Aucklanders. Within this reference the Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014 – 2024 (ASARSAP) as a key informing document detailing how these outcomes can be achieved for Aucklanders. 

17.     Auckland Council supports the delivery of ASARSAP outcomes through a variety of mechanisms, including providing facilities, delivery of services and investment into sector partners to provide outcomes under this plan. 

18.     Investment into sport brings multiple benefits. A recent Social Return on Investment report by Ihi Aotearoa (Sport New Zealand) found that for every $1 spent on Play, Sport and Active Recreation there was a social return on investment of $2.12 to New Zealand.  

19.     The Investing in Sport Plan (2019) outlines criteria for investment into sport from Auckland Council, with a goal of all Aucklanders participating in sport. The plan objectives outline how this will be achieved by targeting communities of greatest need, addressing disparities and delivering a broader range of programmes, services and facilities that better respond to the diverse needs of Auckland’s communities.  

20.     Auckland Council’s Investment in Sport funding was allocated through the Long-term Plan 2021–2031. It invests $552,000 annually to enable the collective development of system building across the sport sector.  

21.     It is allocated to Aktive and the Regional Sports Organisation Auckland’s four RSTs. The local RST system build partners are Harbour Sport, Sport Waitākere, Sport Auckland, and CLM Community Sport. The key purpose and relationships of Aktive and RSTs are outlined in Table 1. 

22.     Through the grant to Aktive and the RSTs, council is investing in Auckland’s sport system. The organisations use this funding to support the sector development, growing organisational capability across the sector and improving outcomes for the community. The specific focus areas that are funded under this area vary between funding periods and are agreed through the funding agreement alongside the KPI’s for delivery.

23.     Auckland Council also invests regionally into local sport and recreation development through the capital investment grant (the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund) along with a Programming and a facility Operating Grant. 

Table 1: Purpose of Aktive and RSTs 

Organisation 

Purpose 

Key relationships 

Aktive – a Regional Sports Organisation 

https://aktive.org.nz/ 

 

To provide regional leadership, support and funding opportunities for the sector 

Ihi Aotearoa (Sport New Zealand)  

Code-specific Regional and National Sports Organisations 

Regional Sports Trusts  

Auckland Council  

Regional Sports Trusts  

https://harboursport.co.nz/ 

https://www.clmnz.co.nz/clm-community-sport/ 

https://www.sportauckland.org.nz/ 

https://www.sportwaitakere.co.nz/ 

To provide sub-regional leadership, support and funding opportunities for the local sports sector in four geographical areas of Auckland 

Aktive 

Sub-regional sports organisations 

Local sports clubs and codes 

Auckland Council 

Prior funding allocation decisions

24.     Prior to 2021, funding agreements with Aktive were for a three-year strategic partnership, with funding allocated based on population and deprivation, and Aktive receiving a lower level of funding than the RSTs. 

25.     In July 2021, the PACE Committee approved an allocation of $552,000 for FY 2022/2023 only. The one-year agreement was based on elected member feedback, to allow time for Aktive to build greater cohesion with the RSTs and sector. A subsequent one-year agreement was drafted and agreed in August 2022, which continued the work initiated in the previous year.

26.     Since 2021, Aktive has worked in collaboration with Harbour Sport, Sport Auckland, Sport Waitākere and CLM Community Sport on strategy, roles, functions and responsibilities. Aktive and the RSTs have identified a shared vision for their partnership, developed design principles and objectives, and landed on a revised model for their partnership into the future.

27.     Through this work, Aktive has built trust and good working relationships with the RSTs and is able to now focus on regional capability with sector development funding. An increase in funding for Aktive will enable an equitable approach to capability growth and will provide regional leadership that will benefit both the sector and its work with Auckland Council.

Outcomes and performance in Financial Year 2022/2023 

28.     In FY 2022/2023 Aktive distributed $512,000 among the RSTs. The allocation followed the previous financial year’s ratio, which has been historically based on population distribution and deprivation across the region.

29.     Aktive were allocated $40,000 of this council investment for regional work programmes, per the committee resolution. This was less than investments prior to FY 2021/2022. Distribution of funds is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of funding in FY 2022/2023 

30.     Aktive submitted an annual investment report which describes what has been achieved against three agreed ASARSAP outcomes in the 2022/2023 year. A copy of the Aktive and RST reports can be found at Attachments A - E. 

31.     The three outcomes of focus for the past year, deliverables and key achievements highlighted in the report are in Table 3. 

Table 3: Outcomes and key achievements FY 2022/2023 

Outcome 

Deliverables 

Key achievements 

To build the capability of sport and recreation organisations and strengthen the sector

Review and embedding of the ‘Health Check Tool’

Sector Support Prospectus development

Sector calendar development 

RSTs are enabled to circulate the ‘Health Check Tool’ via multiple channels, making it more accessible.  

A single/simple Sector support Prospectus has ensured that RSOs are not overwhelmed with multiple points of contact, meeting requests or calls.  

To increase the capability of Māori sport and recreation organisations

Engagement with Māori organisations on the Health Check Tool 

Support and knowledge for Māori around funding and grant opportunities 

Opening up communication loops to enable sharing of opportunities to upskill volunteers

Engagement and increased awareness of the sector and support available for Māori. 

Greater awareness of funding opportunities, accessibility into council facilities and available grant funding. 

The volunteer base is more aware of the opportunities for learning and development. 

To build relationships and communication within the sector

Responding to weather events of January 2023 and providing support to the sector 

Holding forums and events for the sector to come together to connect, share challenges and learnings 

Provision of online and in-person forums ensured there were multiple opportunities to engage and connect. 

More success with Tū Manawa (Sport NZ) grant funding for first time applicants. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Focus for investment in FY 2023/2024 

32.     The reporting on this investment from the last year identifies key challenges for the sector in FY 2022/2023 with the ongoing disruption caused by the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic and weather-related events in January and February 2023. These challenges highlight the vulnerability of the sector in the face of our changing climate and the resilience of the sector in the face of future events.  

33.     Section four of ASARSAP outlines the changing context for sport and recreation in Auckland, and the need for increasing environmental awareness. The sector development priority also highlights the need for ‘a strong and capable sector that delivers quality recreation and sport experiences in a sustainable way.’ 

34.     The Investment in Sport funding from Auckland Council is proposed to be used to support the sector to become more environmentally aware and sustainable. A focus on climate change will enable the sector to consider the shift to delivering sustainable sport experiences while reducing emissions and preparing for climate-related impacts in the future.   

35.     Staff will work with Aktive and RSTs on outcomes and key performance indicators to build a sustainable sector. This is a large piece of work, which will take longer than a single year, and so future investment through this funding will likely continue to build on progress, leveraging the capabilities created through previous investment periods.

36.     The options below outline the funding difference for each organisation and the benefits for both the sector and Auckland Council. Consideration has been given to the achievements over the past years in bringing the sector together; the purpose of the funding for this year, and the pros and cons of the two options.

Options for funding allocation for FY 2023/2024 

37.     There are two proposed options for the allocation of the $552,000 fund for FY 2023/2024: 

38.     Option 1 (status quo): Continue to invest in Aktive (for regional capability build initiatives) and RSTs at FY 2022/2023 allocation levels. A minimum of $512,000 will be distributed to RSTs while Aktive will use $40,000 for the delivery of regional work programmes. 

39.     Option 2 (recommended): Investment into Aktive and RSTs with fund allocation equally split across the group to best deliver on local and regional strategy. This would include all five organisations receiving funding of $110,400 for sector development capability investment. 

Options analysis 

40.     Table 4 outlines the difference in funding for each organisation under each option and the bullet points below provide analysis of financial and non-financial impact of the options.


 

Table 4: Funding difference between option 1 and option 2

Organisation

Option 1

Option 2

Funding difference between Option 1 and Option 2

CLM Community Sport

$150,613

$110,400

-$40,213

Sport Auckland

$134,622

$110,400

-$24,222

Harbour Sport

$121,050

$110,400

-$10,650

Sport Waitākere

$105,711

$110,400

+$4,689

Aktive

$40,000

$110,400

+$70,400

Option 1: 

·   Continues the level of investment that was provided into Aktive and the RSTs in FY 2023/2024, providing stability in income into each of the organisations. 

·   Continues to provide some investment into Aktive for regional initiatives, meaning region-wide organisations and regional oversight of climate related initiatives capability development and reporting would be consistent with the past year’s investment.  

·   Local RST investment remains consistent with FY 2022/23, supporting their mahi on a local level. 

·   Enables local climate related capability and place-based initiatives to be developed with greater investment (than option 2) for South, Central and Northern regions.

·   Is insufficient investment for Aktive to employ a dedicated role to develop sector capability, which may limit the funding impact at a regional level.

Option 2: 

·    Ensures each organisation has adequate resource to fund a dedicated role and grow capability in the delivery of sector development initiatives. 

·    Increasing investment into Aktive will increase the impact of council investment into the regional provision of sport and recreation and consider the needs and support requirements for Tāmaki Makaurau as a whole. For example, this could include work with a regional sports organisation to change the structure of a competition framework to minimise travel across Auckland and reduce emissions.

·    Provides greater investment into region-wide data collection, analysis and climate related initiatives and a more coordinated approach climate adaption and mitigation through sport initiatives.

·    Builds climate capability and understanding consistently across each organisation, enabling regional leadership through Aktive to be aligned with the RST’s development of local initiatives through place-based knowledge and capability building.

·    Strengthens the strategic approach by the sector when seeking investment from Sport NZ and other regional funders into the Tāmaki Makaurau region. 

·    Brings a consistent level of resource for each organisation, enabling it to plan more effectively and creating a team which can work across all of Tāmaki Makaurau, drawing upon individual strengths in the support of sector organisations. 

·    Decreases the levels of localised investment in three locations, which may have detrimental effect on the level of impact that occurs in those sub-regions.


 

41.     Table 5 below outlines how the two options are aligned with deliverables against the Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039 criteria, the ability for the sector to reduce emissions and adapt (TTĀT) and deliver quality experiences in a sustainable way (ASARSAP). 

Table 5: Options analysis

Increasing Aucklander’s Participation in Sport criteria

TTĀT

ASARSAP

Option

Strategic alignment

Equity

Outcome focus

Financial sustainability

Accountability

Reduce and adapt

Sustainable sector

Option 1 - 

Continuation of status quo 

  

  

  

  

  

 

 

Option 2 – 

Equitable distribution 

  

  

         

  

  

 

 

Key (alignment and achievability)  

Red       (does not align/will not deliver) 

Orange  (moderately aligns/ achievable) 

Green    (strong alignment/highly achievable)  

42.     During discussions on options for funding distribution, it was proposed by an RST that an equitable split of the funding be considered. This is recommended as Option 2.

43.     Option 2 is recommended on the basis of the above analysis. It progresses a regional approach to developing a climate resilient and sustainable sector, while locally, it builds capability and enables planning of local initiatives through the RSTs 

44.     This option will also enable Aktive to coordinate climate resilience building and advocate for support of the sector through its relationship with National Sports Organisations (NSOs) and Ihi Aotearoa.

45.     Staff have been in communication with Aktive and the RST CEOs seeking their feedback on the options, including equitable distribution for the FY 2023/2024 investment. RSTs understand the impact that Option 2 will have on their funding, however also recognise the benefits that a stronger regional lens will bring. They have supported in principle Option 2 verbally and have also shared that support via email between staff and with each other.

Decision making framework

46.     The Community Grants Policy 2014 (paragraph 17 and 145) generally requires decisions on regional grants to be made by the Governing Body (or relevant committee). However, the policy also provides that: “Grants provided as part of a broader strategic relationship with key partner organisations operating regionally (e.g. Aktive…) where the service, role or expertise by the funded partner is key to the council delivering its own objectives and long term outcomes for that activity or sector” is out of scope (paragraph 98, point 6).

47.     Through the Long-term Plan 2021-31, $552,000 per annum is budgeted for investment into the sport sector in Tāmaki Makaurau. Under the Community Grants Policy 2014, allocation of this fund to Aktive and the RSTs is generally an operational decision.

48.     Decisions on the allocation of funds among parties have been elevated to this committee and its predecessors in order to ensure that distribution achieves desired outcomes, particularly following Covid-19 disruption, and that the funding split best responds to the direction provided by committee members.

49.     If the committee is satisfied that the relationship has sufficiently matured and that the strategic intent of the grant is being fulfilled, then staff can be directed to apply the guidance within the Community Grants Policy 2014 and allocate funding in future years as delegated.

50.     Staff have considered pros and cons of three options for future decision making, as outlined in Table 5.

Table 5: Decision making framework options

Option

Consideration

Pros

Cons

Option 1 – status quo (annual decision via the designated Committee of the Whole)

·     Funding is allocated for the current financial year

·     Staff set KPIs with Aktive and RSTs, monitor delivery throughout the year and seek a committee decision on allocation of funding for the upcoming year

·     Reporting and progress updates are made to the committee annually

·     The committee has oversight of annual funding allocation among Aktive and RSTs

·     Decisions can be agile and respond to current information and insights

 

 

·     Aktive and RSTs are unable to undertake sector development planning for more than one year.

·     Community Grants Policy 2014 directive is not followed, with inconsistent treatment of one grant against others

Option 2 – A committee decision for FY 2023/2024 and a three-year allocation decision (following confirmation of the budget in the 2024-34 LTP)

 

·     Funding is allocated for the current financial year

·     Staff set KPIs with Aktive and RSTs, monitor delivery and seek a committee decision on allocation of funding for the next three years (pending LTP budget approval)

·     Reporting and progress updates are made to the committee annually

·     The committee has oversight of initial funding allocation among Aktive and RSTs

·     With confirmation of LTP budget, Aktive and RSTs can develop a three-year plan and have one year to prepare for this

·     Community Grants Policy 2014 directive is not followed, with inconsistent treatment of one grant against others.

·     The committee receives annual oversight rather than making an annual allocation decision

Option 3 (recommended) – A committee decision for FY 2023/2024 and confirmation that future allocation decisions within the LTP-approved budget can be made in accordance with the Community Grants Policy 2014.

 

·     Funding is allocated for the current financial year

·     Staff set KPIs with Aktive and RSTs, monitor delivery and seek a committee decision on allocation of funding for the next three years (pending LTP budget approval)

·     Reporting and progress updates are made to the committee annually

·    The committee direct staff to return to the guidance provided in the Community Grants Policy 2014 for future years

·     The committee has oversight of initial funding allocation among Aktive and RSTs

·     With confirmation of LTP budget, Aktive and RSTs can develop a three-year plan and have one year to prepare for this

·     Staff and elected member time is used more efficiently

·     Community Grants Policy 2014 direction is adhered to

 

·     The committee receives annual oversight rather than making an annual allocation decision

51.     Annual reports provided by Aktive and RSTs confirm that the organisations are working as key partners in a cohesive and integrated way to progress shared objectives and long term outcomes. As such, staff recommend Option 3 as this will create efficiencies, deliver security of funding for sector partners and align with the CGP and staff delegations register.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement

52.     Within Te Tāruke ā Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan (TTĀT), Action Area B8 in the Built Environment section directly refers to the response for Sport and Recreation – ‘Explore initiatives to reduce travel needs and adapt locations and scheduling for more local community events such as sporting events’. 

53.     A recent update to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on progress on TTĀT did not report on this initiative as there has been no action taken to date. The report highlighted the need to greatly accelerate the scale and delivery of climate action if we are to meet our climate goals.

54.     In the same meeting, the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee resolved to allocate funding through the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund (PEPCC/2023/124). The report outlined a commitment to review settings for the investment fund with greater prioritisation of projects which demonstrate their climate adaption or mitigation outcomes.  

55.     Focusing the Investment in Sport funding in FY 2023/24 on climate action and resilience will enable the Aktive and RSTs to respond to prioritised climate settings of the investment fund, work as a sector to deliver on actions in TTĀT and plan for the impacts of climate change on the sport sector.

56.     Through an even funding split between Aktive and the RSTs, each organisation can continue to fund a role in sector development which will be used to start the mahi on developing climate resilience. KPIs will be agreed which enable RSTs to develop community-focused, local initiatives with Aktive simultaneously developing a regional lens, working with Regional Sports Organisations on regional initiatives. Through this approach, a joined-up strategy will support community delivery.

57.     Initiatives and capability built in FY 2023/2024 will inform allocation recommendations for the following three years. This funding will build on both regional and local initiatives that mitigate the contributing factors to climate change. This will bring both local and regional climate-resilience benefits for Auckland and deliver on commitments in Te Tāruke ā Tāwhiri. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

58.     The ongoing administration of the sport and recreation investment is managed by Active Communities staff, however the development of the sector has an impact across the wider council group.

59.     Active Communities staff regularly connect and collaborate with other council staff on sport and recreation outcomes, particularly with the Parks and Community Facilities and Regional Services and Strategy departments.  

60.     Engagement and collaboration will extend to the Chief Sustainability Office as the lead department delivering and reporting on TTĀT, to seek support on sector development and enable initiatives which deliver on Action B8 to be tracked and reported.  


 

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

Local impacts and local board views

61.     Specific local board views have not been sought on the options presented in this report. 

62.     The recommended option aligns with the ASARSAP, Auckland Plan priorities and initiatives, and actions from TTĀT. Local board feedback was incorporated in the development of these strategic documents. 

63.     Local boards allocate funding to prioritised projects in their Sport and Recreation Facility Plans. Council staff, Aktive and the RSTs will continue to work together to ensure sector development aligns with local priorities as outlined in facility plans. 

64.     There is no impact or proposed change RSTs that currently receive funding directly from local boards. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

65.     Increasing Māori participation in sport and recreation is supported through to the following ‘Māori Identity and Wellbeing’ outcome in Auckland Plan 2050: 

Māori Identity and Wellbeing: 

·    Direction 1 – ‘Advance Māori wellbeing’ 

·    Focus area 1 – ‘Meet the needs and support the aspirations of tamariki and their whānau’ 

66.     Ihi Aotearoa Spotlight on Deprivation report 2019, shows Māori are over-represented in the most deprived areas of New Zealand and people from high deprivation areas participate in fewer sports and activities. 

67.     Aktive acknowledges this through its strategic priority to partner with Māori and to enable underactive Aucklanders to be more active with a focus on tamariki and rangatahi from high deprivation areas. 

68.     Staff have taken a collaborative approach with Aktive to engage with mana whenua in FY 2022/2023 and this shared engagement and partnership development mahi will continue as the investment into sector development is progressed through FY 2023/2024.  

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

69.     The investment currently has a budget of $552,000 each year in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031. The budget amount will remain unchanged through this decision. 

70.     An Auckland Council funding agreement for this investment will be developed with payments made upon signing of agreement, and the receipt of satisfactory reporting against key performance indicators. 

71.     The recommendation to provide one year of investment does not give rise to any major financial risks. 

72.     The recommendation to follow the Community Grants Policy 2014 to a three-year allocation agreement is anticipated to improve organisational efficiency.


 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

73. Staff have identified reputational, operational, and financial risks associated with the recommended option, shown in Table Five. 

Table 5: Risks and mitigation 

Type 

Risk 

Mitigation 

Reputational 

Moderate risk – RSTs want a greater share of council investment 

Moderate risk – The relationships are not strengthened across the sector and regional alignment weakens. 

Active Communities staff will: 

·    Work with RSTs to understand financial challenges and support their approaches to increase funding across their investment partners

·    continue to build partnerships with sector organisations and monitor sentiment 

·    continue to work closely with Ihi Aotearoa (as the group principal funder), as guided by our MOU 

·    guide priorities via the collective ASARSAP leadership group 

·    regularly discuss performance with Aktive and RSTs 

 Auckland Council may continue to provide funding locally into the organisations through grants e.g., local board, multi-board funding and locally led initiatives. 

Operational 

Moderate risk – Key performance indicators cannot be agreed among council and the group 

Active Communities staff will: 

·    develop KPIs which reflect current capability and roles of Aktive and RSTs 

·    ensure draft KPI’s are strategically aligned and contribute to ASARSAP and TTĀT outcomes and priorities 

·    ensure all invested organisations have the opportunity to contribute to the prioritisation of FY24 deliverables 

Financial 

Low risk – If Aktive and RSTs fail to deliver regional and local outcomes for investment. 

 

Low risk – Reduction in funding leads to challenges for RSTs to operate

 

Sport and Recreation staff will: 

·    require six monthly reporting against performance indicators 

·    monitor the group accountability through improved key performance indicators with strong, quantitative deliverables 

·    identify this risk early on and support the RST to work with other funders, including local boards, who may fund sector development within their communities

Governance

Low risk - Elected members feel that they have insufficient decision-making authority over future funding allocations

·    Sport and Recreation staff will provide annual progress updates to committee

·    Committee members can raise concerns directly with council staff for management, or bring back to committee to revert to an annual allocation process

74.     The main risk is associated with status quo investment option (Option 1), in that it continues to invest into regional outcomes at low levels and fails to support the sector capability of region wide sports organisations. Additionally, it may weaken the relationship between Auckland Council and Aktive which could have a destabilising impact on other sport and recreation deliverable across Tāmaki Makaurau. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

75.     Should the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approve the allocation a funding agreement will be implemented between the council and Aktive with key performance indicators. 

76.     Staff will provide an update by memo to the committee after six months reporting on performance of investment against agreed key performance indicators. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Aktive FY23 End of Year report

 

b

CLM Community Sport FY23 End of Year report

 

c

Harbour Sport FY23 End of Year report

 

d

Sport Auckland FY23 End of Year report