I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Rodney Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 20 March 2024

10:00AM

Kumeū Meeting Room
296 Main Road, Kumeū

 

Rodney Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brent Bailey

 

Deputy Chairperson

Louise Johnston

 

Members

Michelle Carmichael

 

 

Mark Dennis

 

 

Tim Holdgate

 

 

Colin Smith

 

 

Geoff Upson

 

 

Ivan Wagstaff

 

 

Guy Wishart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ignacio Quinteros

Democracy Advisor

 

15 March 2024

 

Contact Telephone: +64 21579781

Email: ignacio.quinteros@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


Local Board Member

Organisation

Position

Brent Bailey

Central Shooters Inc

President

Auckland Shooting Club

Member

Royal NZ Yacht Squadron

Member

Michelle Carmichael

Fight the Tip Tiaki te Whenua Inc

Deputy chairperson

Tapora School Board of Trustees

Staff representative

Mark Dennis

Helensville Tennis Club

Elected member

Parakai Springs Complex

Operations manager

Tim Holdgate

Landowners Contractors Association

Vice chairman

Agricultural & Pastoral Society Warkworth

Committee member

 

Rodney Co-Operative Lime Company Limited

Director

 

Louise Johnston

Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society

Treasurer

Colin Smith

Landowners Contractors Association

Committee member

Geoff Upson

 

 

Ivan Wagstaff

 

 

Guy Wishart

Huapai Kumeū Lions

 

Member

Kaipara ki Mahurangi LEC

Member

Kumeū Community Centre

Committee member

Kumeū Small Landowners Assoc

Member

Future Kumeū Inc Committee

Member

Kumeū Live (Music Events)

Manager

Kumeū Emergency Network

Member

Kumeū Community Action

Member

Kumeū Showgrounds Committee

Member

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Nau mai | Welcome                                                                                                        5

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies                                                                                         5

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

4          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes                                                    5

5          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence                                                            5

6          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements                                                                                       5

7          Ngā Petihana | Petitions                                                                                                5

8          Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations                                                                    5

8.1     Deputation: Proposed surf park, data centre and solar farm                         5

8.2     Deputation: Grant application request for the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2024                                                                                         6

8.3     Deputation: Proposed public sculpture                                                            6

8.4     Deputation: Restore Rodney East                                                                      6

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                                                      7

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business                                                              7

11        Proposed agreement to lease with draft community lease to Bowls Warkworth Incorporated for land at Glenmore Drive Reserve, Warkworth                                9

12        Local board views on private plan change 92 for Wellsford North                       23

13        Auckland Unitary Plan - Local board views on Private Plan Change 93 (PC93) by KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited, Warkworth South                                                                                                                             55

14        Representation review and local board reorganisation                                          65

15        Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards                                                        81

16        Representation project – issues specific to Rodney Local Board                        89

17        New public and private road names at 26 State Highway 1, Warkworth (Warkworth Ridge Development Stages 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D)                                                       99

18        Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate – March 2024                                                                                                                 111

19        Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement                                                                                                                121

20        Local board input to Auckland Council Submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34                                                                    127

21        Local board Views on thirteen - Notices of Requirement from Auckland Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency for the Future Road Network in North Auckland                                                                                                                                     129

22        Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland                                                                                                                                     141

23        Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans                                                                  153

24        Rodney Local Board work programme reallocations 2023/2024                         163

25        Rodney Ward Councillor update                                                                              169

26        Rodney Local Board workshop records                                                                 175

27        Hōtaka Kaupapa – Policy Schedule March 2024                                                    181

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

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

29        Te Mōtini ā-Tukanga hei Kaupare i te Marea | Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public        187

C1       Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua - Tranche 2a Proposed Plan Change                                                                                                                        187

C2       Holiday Parks update                                                                                                188

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

Mr Smith will lead the meeting in prayer – or whatever set text we decide will appear here.

 

 

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

 

3          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

4          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)         whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 21 February 2024, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

 

6          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

 

 

7          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

8          Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.


 

8.1       Deputation: Proposed surf park, data centre and solar farm

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Trevor McKewen has requested a deputation to discuss a proposal for a surf park, data centre and solar farm.

2.       A presentation has been provided and is available under Attachment A of this item (under separate cover).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakamihi / thank Mr McKewen for his attendance at the meeting.

Attachments

a          20 March 2024 - Rodney Local Board, Item 8.1 - Proposed surf park, data centre and solar farm - Presentation.................................................... 191

 

 

 

 

8.2       Deputation: Grant application request for the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2024

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Tyron Lagerwall has requested a deputation to discuss a Grant application request for the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2024. 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakamihi / thank Mr Lagerwall for his attendance at the meeting.

 

 

 

 

8.3       Deputation: Proposed public sculpture

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Jeffrey Thomson has requested a deputation to discuss a proposed public sculpture for the entrance to Helensville.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakamihi / thank Mr Thomson for his attendance at the meeting.

 

 

 

 

8.4       Deputation: Restore Rodney East

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Restore Rodney East requested a deputation to provide an update and progress on their activities for 2024.

2.       A presentation has been provided and is available under Attachment A of this item (under separate cover).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakamihi / thank Mr Armitage for his attendance at the meeting.

Attachments

a          20 March 2024 - Rodney Local Board, Item 8.4 - Restore Rodney East - Presentation.................................................................................................. 211

 

 

 

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of three minutes per speaker is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

 

 

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Proposed agreement to lease with draft community lease to Bowls Warkworth Incorporated for land at Glenmore Drive Reserve, Warkworth

File No.: CP2024/01800

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

To seek approval to grant an agreement to lease with draft community lease attached, to Bowls Warkworth Incorporated for the land at Glenmore Drive Reserve, Warkworth.Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.       The land at Glenmore Drive Reserve Warkworth comprises three land parcels. The largest of the three land parcels is legally described as Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 77687 and is the subject land relevant to this agenda report.

2.       Bowls Warkworth Incorporated (the club) currently own its land and improvements at 9 - 11 Mill Lane, Warkworth business district.

3.       The club’s improvements comprising clubrooms, greens, parking and associated infrastructure are nearing the end of their lifecycle. During 2022, the club has explored the opportunity to sell its land holding at 9 – 11 Mill Lane and apply for an agreement to lease (with draft community lease attached) for council reserve land in Warkworth. The club proposed to construct a new bowls facility that would be made available to the wider Warkworth community to hire for social and recreational activities.

4.       In February 2023, the club furnished staff with an application for an agreement to lease for land at Glenmore Drive Reserve in tandem with its investment in a comprehensive feasibility study in support of its proposal.

5.       The Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2023 (the guidelines) inform staff standard recommendations to the respective local board. In accordance with the guidelines, the club’s request for an agreement to lease (with draft community lease attached) would trigger an expression of interest process.

6.       At its workshop on 8 March 2023, staff presented the local board with a memorandum about the club’s proposal to apply for an agreement to lease (with draft community lease attached) for the land at Glenmore Drive Reserve, Warkworth. During the workshop, local board members provided leasing staff with informal feedback to the effect that staff were to bring a report to the local board about undertaking an expression of interest process.

7.       At its business meeting of 17 May 2023, staff presented the local board with a formal report recommending an expression of interest process be undertaken, at which time the local board approved it (resolution number RD/2023/63).

8.       In accordance with the resolution number RD/2023/63, staff advertised the availability of the land at Glenmore Drive Reserve, calling for expressions of interest from eligible groups (including mana whenua) to develop the land under the terms of an agreement to lease and on completion of any development and issue of code compliance certificate, under the terms of a community lease.

9.       Advertisements were placed in the Mahurangi Matters on 3 July 2023, the Rodney Times on 20 July 2023, on Auckland Council’s website and direct to mana whenua. The closing date for expressions of interest applications was 5.00pm on Friday 18 August 2023. During the expressions of interest process, staff did not receive any applications.

10.     Consequently, staff prepared a memorandum for circulation to the local board on 15 September 2023, advising it that no expressions of interest were received and sought its feedback about progressing an agreement to lease to the club. Additionally, informing it of the statutory requirement of public notification to progress an agreement to lease to the club. The local board was provided with a week to respond to the information in the memorandum and did not indicate any concerns with the public notification process.

11.     Staff undertook the public notification and engagement with mana whenua process, placing public notices in the Rodney Times on 9 November 2023, the Mahurangi Matters on 20 November 2023 and on Auckland Council’s website. In late November 2023, staff emailed a PowerPoint presentation on the matter to mana whenua identified as having an interest in the land in the geographical area. The statutory public notification process closed at 5.00pm on 26 January 2024, during which time, staff did not receive any objections to the proposal.

12.     This report recommends that the local board grant Bowls Warkworth Incorporated an agreement to lease with draft community lease attached for reserve land at Glenmore Drive, Warkworth. This will enable the club to progress its proposal to construct a new bowls facility that would be made available to the wider Warkworth community to hire for social and recreational activities.

13.     If the local board decides to grant the agreement to lease, staff will work with the lessee to finalise the agreement.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakaae / grant under section 54(1)(c) of the Reserves Act 1977 an agreement to lease to Bowls Warkworth Incorporated for 12,000 square metres of land (more or less) at Glenmore Drive Reserve, Glenmore Drive, Warkworth, legally described as Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 77687 (as per Attachment A to the agenda report - site plan), subject to the following terms and conditions:

i)        term – five years commencing 21 March 2024.

b)      whakaae / grant, under section 54(1)(c) of the Reserves Act 1977 a community lease to Bowls Warkworth Incorporated for 12,000 square metres of land (more or less) at Glenmore Drive Recreation Reserve, Glenmore Drive, Warkworth, legally described as Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 77687 (as per Attachment A to the agenda report – site plan), subject to the following terms and conditions:

ii)       term – 10 years commencing on date of issue of code of compliance certificate for its completed construction works for a new bowls facility with one right of renewal for 10 years

iii)      rent - $1,300 plus GST per annum (if demanded)

iv)      the inclusion of a Community Outcomes Plan - to be appended as a schedule to the community lease agreement documentation (as per Attachment B to the agenda report – Community Outcomes Plan).

c)      whakaae / approve the Community Outcomes Plan for Bowls Warkworth Incorporated (as per Attachment B to the agenda report – Community Outcomes Plan).

Horopaki

Context

14.       Local boards have the allocated decision-making authority relating to local parks, including community leasing matters in those parks.

15.       At its business meeting on 19 July 2023 the Rodney Local Board approved the Customer and Community Services Work Programme 2023/2024 (resolution number RD/2023/95).

16.       At its business meeting of 17 May 2023, the Rodney Local Board resolved to request staff to progress an expressions of interest process advertising the availability of the land at Glenmore Drive Reserve (resolution number RD/2023/63).

17.       During the expressions of interest process, staff did not receive any applications from eligible groups. As such, staff prepared and emailed a memorandum to the local board seeking its feedback about progressing an agreement to lease for the land at Glenmore Drive Reserve to Bowls Warkworth Incorporated.

18.       The memorandum included information about the statutory requirement to publicly notify and engage with mana whenua about the proposal. Staff did not receive any feedback from the local board on the matter.

19.       All requirements have been satisfied in terms of the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines and similarly, the statutory provisions. As such, staff recommend that the local board grant the club an agreement to lease with community lease attached.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Land

20.       The land at Glenmore Drive Reserve, Warkworth is legally described as Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 77687 and held in fee simple by Auckland Council (Attachment A). Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 77687 is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 and classified as recreation reserve under the Act.

Bowls Warkworth Incorporated

21.     Bowls Warkworth Incorporated was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 27 February 1924. It’s objects include:

·        encourage participation and achievement in the game of bowls in the geographical region in which the club operates

·        promote the health and safety of all participants in the game of bowls.

22.     In February 2023, the club formally applied to the council for an agreement to lease with a draft community lease attached for land at Glenmore Drive Reserve.

23.     The club has invested in a comprehensive feasibility study via Recreation Sport Leisure Consultancy which includes information on:

·        the Warkworth community profile

·        a needs analysis

·        a preliminary sketch plan

·        cost estimates

·        its financial model.

24.     The club is cognisant of the fact that exclusive use of the council land by way of a community lease comes with a requirement to make any proposed new facilities available and accessible to the community when not in use by the club.

Statutory processes required prior to the local board grant of an agreement to lease

25.     The underlying land is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 and classified as recreation reserve. As such, public notification and engagement with mana whenua was undertaken about the proposed grant of an agreement to lease to the club.

26.     Staff undertook the public notification and engagement with mana whenua process, placing public notices in the Rodney Times on 9 November 2023, the Mahurangi Matters on 20 November 2023 and on Auckland Council’s website.

27.     In late November 2023, staff emailed a PowerPoint presentation on the matter to mana whenua identified as having an interest in the land in the geographical area. The statutory public notification process closed at 5.00pm on 26 January 2024, during which time, staff did not receive any objections to the proposal.

Landowner approval and agreement to lease with draft community lease attached

28.     The club will require landowner approval and will apply for this when it has firmed up its architectural plans. The club also requires an agreement to lease (with a draft community lease attached) to enable it to apply for all necessary regulatory consents for its proposed new facility. Each component is detailed in the table below:

Component

Description

Landowner approval

The local board grants approval for the club to ‘use’ the land, subject to certain terms and conditions. In turn, landowner approval is required for the club to implement regulatory consents such as resource and building consents, once obtained

Agreement to lease

The agreement evidences the council’s and the club’s intentions for the land which is to be set aside for a lease. The agreement contains strict conditions that must be met within a certain time frame (one term of five years). The agreement allows the club time and security of tenure to seek and obtain all necessary funding and consents, then construct its facility. A draft community lease document is appended as a schedule to the agreement to lease

Community lease

The community lease proper takes effect on the issue of code compliance certificate/certificate of public use for its facility (for an initial term of 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years)

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.     Staff anticipates that construction of a new facility will result in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions. A shared workspace/community space will however decrease overall energy use, as users will not consume energy at individual workspaces.

30.     The shared space will provide opportunity and enable people to enjoy positive healthy lifestyles and will increase capability and connections within local community. Each and every community lease agreement contains a smoke-free clause.

31.     To improve environmental outcomes and mitigate climate change impacts, the council advocates that any new lessee:

·        use sustainable waste, energy and water efficiency systems

·        use eco labelled products and services

·        seek opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from lease-related activities.

32.     All measures taken are aimed at meeting council’s climate goals, as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which are:

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

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

33.     Climate change does not have potential to impact the proposed new lease, as the subject land at Glenmore Drive Reserve area does not sit within a flood plain or flood prone area (as per Attachment C to the agenda report – GIS aerial view from Auckland Council’s Hazard Viewer).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34.       Council staff from within the Customer and Community Services Directorate have been consulted throughout the process and their respective feedback was supportive of the proposal.

35.       The proposal has no identified impact on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36.       At its business meeting of 17 May 2023, staff presented the local board with a formal report recommending an expression of interest process be undertaken, at which time the local board approved it (resolution number RD/2023/63).

37.       On 15 September 2023, staff emailed a memorandum to the local board advising it that no expressions of interest were received and sought its feedback about progressing an agreement to lease to the club. The local board was provided with a week to respond to the information in the memorandum and did not indicate any concerns with the public notification process.

38.       The delivered activities align with the Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 outcomes and objectives as shown in the table below:

Outcome

Objective

Outcome Tō Tātou Hapori (Our Community)

Our community facilities, libraries and parks are great places to connect, play and learn

Outcome Ō Tātou Tāngata (Our People)

Our people support each other, have what they need to live well and are able to adapt to change

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

40.       During the expression of interest process, staff engaged directly with mana whenua about the opportunity to apply for an agreement to lease to develop the available land at Glenmore Drive Reserve. Mana whenua indicated that it did not have any interest in developing the land.

41.       With regard to the public notification process, in late November 2023, staff emailed a PowerPoint presentation on the matter to mana whenua identified as having an interest in the land in the geographical area (Te Ākitai Waiohua, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngati Maru, Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāti Manuhiri, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Wai, Te Patukirikiri, Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, Ngāti Tamaterā and Ngāti Te Ata).

42.       The statutory public notification process closed at 5.00pm on 26 January 2024, during which time, staff did not receive any objections to the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43.         The Parks and Community Facilities Department bore the costs involved with the expression of interest process (advertising the availability of the land for development), similarly, the public notification costs.

44.         All costs involved with any development undertaken at Glenmore Drive Reserve (including ongoing operating and renewal costs) would be the responsibility of any new lessee.

45.         Should the Rodney Local Board grant the club an agreement to lease (with draft community lease attached) the consequential rent revenue associated with the community lease would be available to the local board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46.         Should the local board resolve not to grant the proposed agreement to lease (with draft community lease) to Bowls Warkworth Incorporated, this will impact the club’s ability to seek and secure funding and consents and construct its proposed facility. This will have an adverse impact on the achievement of the desired local board plan outcomes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47.       Staff will take the necessary action in accordance with the local board resolution.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Site plan

17

b

Attachment B - Community Outcomes Plan

19

c

Attachment C - GIS aerial view from Auckland Council's Hazard Viewer

21

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karen Walby - Community Lease Specialist

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 



Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Local board views on private plan change 92 for Wellsford North

File No.: CP2024/00238

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To invite local board views on a private plan change by the Wellsford Welding Club Limited for approximately 72 hectares of land on the northeastern edge of Wellsford.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Decision-makers on a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the plan change if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

3.       The Wellsford Welding Club Limited lodged a private plan change for approximately 72 hectares of land on the northeastern edge of Wellsford. The purpose of the plan change is to enable additional housing in Wellsford through the rezoning of Future Urban zoned land to residential zones and a small Neighbourhood Centre zone. The plan change also proposes to convert some existing rural zones to urban (residential) and to rezone some Rural Production zoned land to Countryside Living.

4.       Private plan change 92 proposes a precinct which details the indicative collector road network, stormwater quality management, amended minimum net site areas within the Single House and Large Lot zones, and seeks to ensure that development capacity is staged with the release of infrastructure.

5.       The rezoning proposal would provide capacity for potentially around 650 to 800 dwellings supported by a small neighbourhood centre servicing the day to day needs of this part of the local Wellsford community.

6.       Fifty submissions were received on the plan change that included 300 submission points. There were also five further submissions. The submissions seek a range of outcomes. Some seek that it be approved, and others seek that it is declined. There are many submission points seeking detailed changes to the proposed precinct rules.

7.       Overall, some of the key issues raised in submissions are around access from Batten Street / Monowai Street, setbacks from State Highway 1 and the railway, the intersection treatment with State Highway 1, funding of required water and wastewater upgrades, and the minimum site sizes in the Single House zone and Large Lot zone.

8.       A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on private plan change insert number. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide local board views on private plan change 92 by the Wellsford Welding Club Limited for approximately 72 hectares of land in the northeastern edge of Wellsford

b)      kopou / appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on private plan change 92

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

 

Horopaki

ContextDecision-making authority

9.       Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (ss15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

10.     A private plan change request will be included in the Auckland Unitary Plan if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on private plan change requests – when an entity other than council proposes a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

11.     If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes those views in the hearing report. The hearing report will address issues raised in local board views and submissions by themes.

12.     If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the private plan change request.

13.     This report provides an overview of the private plan change, and a summary of the key themes in submissions.

14.     The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board expresses its views on private plan change 92 (“PC92”). The planner must include any local board views verbatim in the evaluation of the private plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

15.     The private plan change applies to approximately 72 hectares of land in the northeastern edge of Wellsford. The land is bordered to the east and south by the railway corridor, to the north by Bosher Road, and to the west by State Highway 1 (“SH1”) and established residential development around Batten Street, Monowai Street, and Armitage Road.

16.     The subject land (outlined in red) is shown on an aerial map in Figure 1 and an existing zoning map in Figure 2 below.

Figure 1: Area of PC92 outlined in red.

 

Figure 2: Existing zoning map (PC92 area outlined in red)

17.     As shown in Figure 3 below, the private plan change request seeks to rezone the land from a combination of Future Urban, Residential Single House, Rural Countryside Living and Rural Production zoned land to a combination of residential zones (Residential – Large Lot, Residential – Single House and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zones) with a small Neighbourhood Centre (zoned Business – Neighbourhood Centre) and an area of Rural – Countryside Living in the north.

18.     The Request proposes to urbanise some land outside the FUZ in the south (land currently zoned Countryside Living) and a smaller area in the north (land currently zoned Rural Production).

Figure 3: Proposed zoning map (PC92 area outlined in red)

19.     The purpose of the plan change is to enable additional housing in Wellsford through the proposed rezonings. PC92 also proposes a precinct which details the indicative collector road network, stormwater quality management, amended minimum net site areas within the Single House zone (300m2 rather than 600m2) and Large Lot zone (3,000m2 rather than 4,000m2), and seeks to ensure that development capacity is staged with the release of infrastructure. A copy of PC92 is included in Attachment A to the agenda report.

20.     The rezoning proposal would provide capacity for potentially around 650 to 800 dwellings supported by a small (0.9ha) neighbourhood centre servicing the day to day needs of this part of the local Wellsford community.

21.     The Wellsford Welding Club included technical reports that evaluate transport, ecology, stormwater, geotechnics, land contamination, soils, archaeology, urban design, cultural values, arboriculture, and infrastructure effects. The reports and other application details are available from council’s website at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=204. Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

·        technical reports supplied by the applicant

·        submissions

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

Themes from submissions received

22.     Submissions were made by fifty parties with a majority in support (see Table 1 below). Aside from the various institutional submitters (i.e., Auckland Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency, Watercare, KiwiRail, Ministry of Education, and Kainga Ora) most submissions were from people local to the Wellsford area.

 

Submissions

Number of submissions

In support

4

Support (with amendments)

34

In opposition

7

Oppose (with amendments)

1

Neutral

4

TOTAL

50

Table 1: Submissions received on plan change 92

 

23.     Some of the key submission themes are listed below:

·        opposition to the use of Batten Street / Monowai Street to access the proposed development

·        support and opposition for setbacks / buffers for buildings from SH1 and the railway corridor

·        seeking that the full SH1 roundabout to be constructed at the beginning of development rather than an interim right turn intersection

·        funding of required upgrades to the Wellsford water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant

·        support for the reduction of the minimum site size in the Single House zone to 300m2 (rather than 600m2) and Large Lot zone to 3,000m2 (rather than 4,000m2)

·        seek that the Single House zone includes a number of larger sites (e.g., around 1,000m2).

24.     Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from council’s website: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/pc92_summary_of_decisions_%20requested.pdf

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25.     Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

·        to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

·        to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

 

26.     The PC92 site is mostly in an area identified by the council for urban development in the future (the Future Urban zone). The stormwater/ flooding assessment includes consideration of climate change. 

27.     The climate impacts can be considered in the hearing report on the private plan change request. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (whether it encourages car dependency, enhances connections to public transport, walking and cycling or supports quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding).

28.     There were no submissions that raised specific climate change matters.

 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.     Pre-lodgment meetings were held between the applicant and a number of Council departments including Plans and Places and Healthy Waters. Furthermore, Council Controlled Organisations: Auckland Transport and Watercare and have provided inputs into the clause 23 further information process or have been directly consulted by the applicant. Both Watercare and Auckland Transport made submissions on PC92.

30.     The key matters raised by Auckland Transport were:

·        require that future residential development mitigate potential road traffic noise effects from SH1

·        only enable the Future Urban zoned areas to be rezoned for urban development – do not allow the existing rural zoned areas to be rezoned for urban development.

31.     The key matters raised by Watercare were:

·        amend the plan change to ensure that water and wastewater capacity and servicing requirements will be adequately met on the basis that:

o   future upgrades to the Wellsford water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant can accommodate the proposed Plan Change

o   a satisfactory funding arrangement should be reached between Watercare and the applicant to accommodate the Plan Change in future treatment plant upgrades

o   the precinct provisions require adequate water supply and wastewater servicing be provided prior to subdivision and development

o   the upgrade of the local water supply and wastewater network can be addressed at the resource consent stage.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32.     PC92 relates to the Rodney Local Board area only.

33.     In terms of Rodney Local Board administered properties, the southern edge of the PC92 site is around 250m walking distance from the nearest Open Space zoned land (on Batten Street), around 750m from the Wellsford Community Centre, around 1.5km from the Wellsford Library, and around 2km from the Centennial Park (sports fields etc.).

34.     The riparian areas that flow through plan change area are proposed to be protected for ecological reasons and there may be an opportunity to incorporate these with pedestrian and cycle access as part of a public open space strategy.

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

·        interests and preferences of people in local board area

·        well-being of communities within the local board area

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

·        responsibilities and operation of the local board.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37.     If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori People, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview). Around a quarter of residents in Wellsford identify as Māori.[1]   

38.     The Wellsford Welding Club Limited advised council that it consulted with Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Wai when it prepared the private plan change.

39.     Ngāti Manuhiri provided a Cultural Values Assessment / Kaitiaki Report that was included within the submitted documents. Ngāti Manuhiri supports the plan change in principle subject to some recommendations around accidental discovery protocols, diversity of workers, and the attendance of Ngāti Manuhiri at pre-start meetings and official gatherings.

40.     No iwi requested the appointment of a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapū. No iwi authorities made a submission on PC92.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41.     The private plan change will have a financial implication for assets and operations provided by the Rodney Local Board. PC92 proposes a new suburb park, two neighbourhood parks, and various green corridors along waterways that provide recreational and passive open space. New residents of the PC92 area will also be served by the existing community facilities in Wellsford (e.g. library, sports fields) as well as in Warkworth. If approved, the development of the PC92 area will trigger operational expenditure requirements for the Rodney Local Board.

42.     Costs to the council associated with processing the private plan change request will be recovered from the applicant. Impacts on infrastructure arising from the private plan change request, including any financing and funding issues will be addressed in the hearing report. 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43.     There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the plan change, if it doesn’t pass a resolution. This report provides:

·        the mechanism for the Rodney Local Board to express its views and preferences

·        the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing.

44.     If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

45.     The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a private plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s)[2]. This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

46.     The reporting planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the section 42A hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing of submissions for that purpose. 

47.     The reporting planner will advise the local board of the decision on the private plan change request by memorandum.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Proposed Plan Change 92: Wellsford North

31

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Warren Maclennan - Manager Regional, North, West and Island

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 
























Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Auckland Unitary Plan - Local board views on Private Plan Change 93 (PC93) by KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited, Warkworth South

File No.: CP2024/01370

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek the Rodney Local Board views on Private Plan Change 93 by KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Decision-makers on a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the plan change if the relevant local boards choose to provide their views.

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

4.       KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited seeks to rezone approximately 159 hectares of Future Urban, Open Space – Conservation and Rural – Rural Production zoned land to a mix of residential, business, open space and rural zones on either side of the old State Highway One, south of Warkworth. The request also seeks to introduce two new precincts Waimanawa” and “Morrison Heritage Orchard.”

5.       A total of 41 submissions and 13 further submissions were received on the plan change.

6.       A number of submissions support the plan change. There are also a number of submissions opposing the plan change. Key themes that have been raised in submissions opposing the plan change include requesting improved rules to ensure the provision of adequate infrastructure including transport and wastewater, clarification of certain rules, conservation issues including protection of native fauna, and the retention of the existing environment and planning provisions.

7.       This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on Private Plan Change 93. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide local board views on private plan change 93 lodged by KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership and Stepping Towards Far Limited.

b)      kopou / appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on private plan change 93.

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

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

8.       Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents.[4]

9.       A private plan change request will be included in the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on private plan change requests when an entity other than the council proposes a change to the AUP.

10.     If the local board chooses to provide its views, the reporting planner includes those views in the section 42A hearing report. Local board views are included in the analysis of the private plan change, along with submissions.

11.     If appointed by resolution, local board members may present the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the private plan change request.

12.     This report provides an overview of the private plan change and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

13.     The report does not recommend what views the local board should convey, should the local board convey its views on Private Plan Change 93 (PC93). The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

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

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

16.     PC93 and the precinct provisions generally align with the Warkworth Structure Plan including providing for the Wider Western Link Road (“WWLR).

17.     Figure 1 below illustrates the plan change and precinct boundaries.

Figure 1: Map plan change area and precinct\s

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

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

Private plan change content

20.       The purpose of the PC93 is to re-zone land in Warkworth South to:

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

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

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

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

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

o   Business – Local Centre

o   Residential – Large Lot

o   Residential –Single House.

o   Residential – Mixed Housing Urban

o   Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings

o   Open Space – Conservation.

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

o   Rural – Mixed Rural

o   Residential – Large Lot.

23.     PC93 also seeks the following controls be applied;

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

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

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

                   Figure 2 – Proposed Zoning

25.     PC93 rules and standards include triggers that require the provision of infrastructure prior to development. In addition triggers provide for a portion the Wider Western Link Road that is not subject to the current Notice of Requirement (NOR) for this work and links in with the current NOR. It also includes a requirement for pedestrian linkages between the plan change area and the existing urban area to the north.

26.     The reasons given by the applicant for PC93 includes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Themes from submissions received

27.     A total of 41 submissions were received on PC93. Key matters raised are outlined in the Table 1 below:

 

Table 1 submissions received on Plan Change 93

Submissions

Number of submissions

Key matters raised

In support

18

Approve the plan change without amendments

In Support, with amendments

13

Specific amendments to the plan change provisions

In opposition

6

Oppose the plan change due to:

-     Is premature

-     Lack of infrastructure

-     Terraced housing not appropriate

-     Town centre not financially viable

-     Area is large and more suited to single house zone.

-     Effect on aquifers

-     Noise and dust pollution and other disruption through construction period.

-     Traffic congestion and noise.

-     Effects on natural environment

-     Effects on stormwater

-     Inappropriate type of development

In opposition (unless these concerns are addressed)

2

-     Traffic/transport effects including specific changes to provisions.

-     Specific changes to manage effects on natural environment including flora and fauna

Neither supports or opposes the plan change

2

Seek specific amendments without being for or against.

 

28.     Detailed information on individual submissions and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters is available from the following link on council’s website:

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/UnitaryPlanDocuments/pc93-summary-of-decisions-requested.pdf

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

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

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

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

30.     The subject site is in an area identified by the council for urban development in the future. The proposal includes measures to provide for public transport (i.e. Bus station) and the stormwater/ flooding assessment includes consideration of climate change. 

31.     The climate impacts can be considered in the hearing report on the private plan change request. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (whether it encourages car dependency, enhances connections to public transport, walking and cycling or supports quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32.     Staff from Healthy Waters, Environmental Services and Engineering [in Regulatory Services] will review relevant submissions and provide expert advice that supports the preparation of the hearing report.

33.     Auckland Transport and Watercare Services have submitted on PC93 in order to address the provision of infrastructure. These submissions will be dealt with in the hearing and decision making process.

34.    The submission from Auckland Transport submission concerns the lack of public transport to service the plan change area, the need for acoustic mitigation to mitigate potential road traffic noise effects for sensitive activities located adjacent to arterial roads, aligning subdivision and development with the provision of transport infrastructure and amendments sought to provisions relating to transport provisions achieve greater clarity and robustness. 

35.     Watercare neither supports nor opposes the Plan Change. The submission notes that the Warkworth Wastewater Scheme is currently anticipated to be operational by late 2025 and that development from the Plan Change area cannot connect to the public wastewater network until then. It also notes that if the anticipated density of development in the Warkworth North Future Urban live-zoned areas is realised in the short to medium term, the additional population from the Plan Change area will not be able to be accommodated in the first phase of the Warkworth Wastewater Scheme. The Applicant’s proposed bulk wastewater network servicing has been accepted as a viable alternative to the Warkworth Wastewater Servicing - Conceptual Design prepared in 2018.

36.     Watercare also notes that If the anticipated density of development in the Warkworth North Future Urban live zoned areas is realised in the short to medium term, the additional population from the Plan Change area will not be able to be accommodated in the existing water take consent and associated water treatment plant upgrades.

37.     The submission also seeks that the bulk infrastructure required for the plan change area be funded by the applicants via a funding agreement and that changes to plan change provisions be amended to ensure that subdivision and development are coordinated with an adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure.

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

Local impacts and local board views

38.     The PC93 request is within the Rodney Local Board area.

39.     This plan change relates to the Rodney Local Board area only.

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

·     interests and preferences of people in local board area

·     well-being of communities within the local board area

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

·     responsibilities and operation of the local board.

41.     This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The decision-maker (Independent Commissioners) for PC93 will consider local board views, if provided, alongside the section 42A report, technical reporting, submitters and a site visit when deciding on PC93.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42.     If the local board chooses to provide its views on PC93, it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori people, wellbeing of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

43.     All relevant iwi authorities were notified in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 and had the opportunity to make submissions on PC93 on issues that are important to them.

44.     The Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust provided a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) that was included within the notification documents. The CVA from the Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust supports PC93 in principle subject to a number of recommendations. These cover areas such as protecting the mauri, cultural values, management of taonga natural resources, providing opportunities for Māori, the need for the natural resource and protecting the whenua for future generations. The applicants note that the plan change has incorporated a number of these in the plan change and remain committed to including the appropriate tikanga, review of plans and cultural/environmental monitoring for the project. No iwi requested the appointment of a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapū.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45.     The costs associated with processing the private plan change request are recovered from the applicant. The effects of development associated with the private plan change request on infrastructure (and any associated funding/financing issues) are a matter that will need to be addressed in the section 42A hearing report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46.     There is a risk that the local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on PC93 if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides:

·        the mechanism for the Rodney Local Board to express its views and preferences

·        the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing on behalf of the local board.

47.     If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

48.     The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a private plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s).[5] This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49.     The reporting planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the section 42A hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing of submissions for that purpose.

50.     The reporting planner will advise the local board of the decision on the private plan change request by memorandum.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Private Plan Change 93 - Summary of decisions requested (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Wren – Consultant Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Representation review and local board reorganisation

File No.: CP2024/02453

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from the local board on:

i)          The review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections.

ii)         Local board re-organisation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       There are two projects underway in relation to governance arrangements for the 2025 elections:

i)          a review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections

ii)         a local board re-organisation plan.

3.       Every council is required to review its current representation arrangements at least every six years. Auckland Council’s previous review was for the 2019 elections. It must review arrangements for the 2025 elections.

4.       A council’s representation arrangements are its electoral arrangements. For the Governing Body a review includes the total number of councillors and whether councillors are elected by ward or at-large. If by ward then the number of wards, their names and the number of members in each ward.

5.       For local boards a review includes, for each local board, the total number of members, whether members are elected at-large or by subdivision, number of subdivisions, their names and number of members in each subdivision. The local board name may also be reviewed. A review of representation arrangements reviews each current board’s representation arrangements. It does not alter the number of local boards. It cannot change local board boundaries other than make very minor adjustments to correct anomalies.

6.       At the same time there is a project investigating a local board reorganisation plan which will provide for fewer local boards. If the Governing Body decides to proceed with the reorganisation plan and it is approved by the Local Government Commission, the local board representation arrangements set out in the plan will take effect at the 2025 elections.

7.       The Governing Body has tasked the Joint Governance Working Party with developing the council’s initial proposal for the representation review and developing options for the re-organisation plan.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide feedback on any matters relating to the review of representation arrangements for the current 21 local boards (except for any matters specific to this local board that are addressed in a separate report)

b)      whakarite / provide feedback on the proposal to reduce the number of local boards through a re-organisation plan noting that Governing Body has supported the development of a 15 local board model as described in this report

c)      support a re-organisation plan for local boards proceeding to public consultation.

 

Horopaki

Context

Overview

8.       Every council is required to undertake a review of representation arrangements at least every six years. Auckland Council conducted a review for the 2019 elections and must now conduct a review for the 2025 elections. The Governing Body has referred the development of an initial proposal to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP). The Governing Body resolved in April 2023:

That the Governing Body:

e)      whakaae / agree that the council’s initial proposal for representation arrangements for the 2025 elections is developed by the Joint Governance Working Party as follows:

i)     the Joint Governance Working Party will develop Auckland Council’s initial review of representation arrangements after seeking feedback on issues and options from the Governing Body and local boards, then make recommendations to the Governing Body for the Governing Body to formally resolve its proposal for public notification for submissions

ii)    the Joint Governance Working Party will conduct the hearing of submissions and report its findings to local boards and the Governing Body before the Governing Body makes the final statutory resolution on any representation changes, which will then be publicly notified for objections and appeals.

(Resolution: GB/2023/68, 27 April 2023)

9.       On the initiative of the mayor, the Governing Body has also referred to the JGWP the development of a re-organisation plan relating to local boards. The Governing Body resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a)      whakaae / agree that any reorganisation of local boards is considered under the provisions of the “unitary authority-led reorganisation application” of the proposed Schedule 3A to the Local Government Act 2002

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that these provisions include requirements for the council to consider the views and preferences of affected local boards and to demonstrate community support for a reorganisation plan

c)      tautohu / refer to the Joint Governance Working Party the development of a reorganisation plan, or options for reorganisation plans, for recommendation back to the Governing Body so that the Governing Body may then decide whether to proceed further, including whether to undertake public consultation.

(Resolution: GB/2023/108, 22 June 2023)

10.     The Governing Body further resolved on 14 December 2023

That the Governing Body:

a)      whakaae / agree that the Joint Governance Working Party continue to develop an initial proposal for the Auckland Council review of representation arrangements, based on retaining rural Governing Body wards and noting that this results in 20 ward councillors

b)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Joint Governance Working Party intends to report an initial proposal for representation arrangements for the Governing Body and for all current local boards, to the May 2024 meeting of the Governing Body, for public notification for submissions

c)      whakaae / agree that the Joint Governance Working Party continue to develop a draft reorganisation plan for local boards based on option one (15 local boards) vs the status quo as per resolution number JGWPC/2023/28 and report back its findings at the same time as it reports its recommendations for the review of representation arrangements

d)      tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that when the Joint Governance Working Party reports back its findings that the Governing Body will then decide whether to proceed further with formal public consultation on a reorganisation plan, based on the Working Party’s investigation into costs and benefits, or to stay with the status quo in terms of number of local boards

e)      whakaae / agree that as part of developing a reorganisation plan for local boards the Joint Governance Working Party will seek initial local board, Māori and targeted community feedback on preferences either for the status quo or for one or more other options for the number of local boards, as identified by the Joint Governance Working Party and that this will also include early engagement on representation arrangements.

(Resolution GB/2023/237)

11.     The table below outlines the differences between a review of representation arrangements and a local board re-organisation plan.

 

Representation review

Reorganisation plan

Legislation

Local Electoral Act 2001

Local Government Act 2002

Scope

·    Total number of councillors

·    Wards and their boundaries

·    Number of members of local boards

·    Subdivisions and their boundaries

·    Names of local boards

·    Number of local boards

·    Local board boundaries

·    Representation arrangements for each local board

Output

·    A proposal for the 2025 elections which is publicly notified for submissions

·    Appeals on final proposal are determined by Local Government Commission

·    A local board re-organisation plan which is submitted to the Local Government Commission for approval

Frequency

At least once every six years

Ad hoc

 

12.     If the council decides to submit a re-organisation plan, the Local Government Commission will consider the approval of the re-organisation plan parallel with any appeals and objections to the council’s proposal for representation arrangements for the 2025 elections. If it approves the re-organisation plan then the contents of the Order in Council relating to the re-organisation plan will be reflected in the Commission’s final determination for representation arrangements.

Representation review

Legislative requirements

13.     A review of representation arrangements must take into account:

·        effective representation of communities of interest

·        fair representation.

14.     Ward and local board boundaries should align as far as is practicable.

15.     The legislation does not define “communities of interest”. The Local Government Commission has provided guidance suggesting there are three dimensions:

·        Perceptual:

o   a sense of belonging to an area or locality which can be clearly defined

·        Functional:

o   the ability to meet with reasonable economy the community’s requirements for comprehensive physical and human services

·        Political:

o   the ability of the elected body to represent the interests and reconcile the conflicts of all its members.

16.     The “fair representation” requirement applies if an area is comprised of wards (in the case of Governing Body members) or subdivisions (in the case of a local board). The population per member in the ward, or subdivision, must not vary by more than 10 per cent from the average across the whole of Auckland (for councillors) or across a whole local board area (for local board members).

17.     A council may decide to not comply with this requirement if complying would compromise effective representation of communities of interest by:

·        dividing a community of interest or

·        joining communities with few commonalities of interest.

18.     The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires the council to base its population statistics on the ordinarily resident population as provided by the Government Statistician.

19.     Legislation that was passed in 2023 allows the council to include minor adjustments to a local board’s external boundary for the purpose of aligning with a ward. The number of residents affected by such a change must not be greater than 2,000 residents.

Re-organisation plan

Legislative requirements

20.     Legislation was passed in 2023, amending the Local Government Act 2002 by adding a Schedule 3A that deals with the re-organisation of local boards in a unitary authority area. That schedule provides a process titled “Unitary authority-led re-organisation applications”.

21.     The process involves a unitary authority adopting a re-organisation plan and submitting it to the Local Government Commission which is required to approve it unless the required documentation is not supplied or the council has not considered the views and preferences of local boards or the plan does not have community support.

22.     The council is required to consider a number of matters. It must consider the scale and likelihood of achieving the objectives set out in legislation:

·        enabling democratic decision making by, and on behalf of, communities

·        better enabling the purpose of local government

·        efficiencies and cost savings

·        boards have the necessary resources

·        effective responses to opportunities, needs, and circumstances of the area

·        alignment with communities of interest

·        enhanced effectiveness of decision making

·        enhanced ability of local government to meet the changing needs of communities for governance and services into the future

·        co-governance and co-management arrangements.

23.     The council must also consider:

·        implementation costs

·        consequences of not implementing

·        communities of interest

·        public support

·        views and preferences of affected local boards.

Timeline

24.     A summary of the timeline for making decisions:

·        March 2024 - formal reports to local boards

·        April 2024 - Joint Governance Working Party considers its recommendations to the Governing Body

·        May 2024 – Governing Body:

o   resolves initial proposal for representation arrangements for 2025 (including 21 local boards)

o   agrees on draft local board re-organisation plan for consultation

·        June – August 2024 - submissions and hearings

·        September 2024 – Governing Body makes final decisions:

o   final proposal for representation arrangements

o   local board re-organisation plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Representation review

Local boards

25.     Local boards which have subdivisions are as follows. There is significant non-compliance with the 10 per cent rule in the Rodney and Howick local boards:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Rodney Local Board Area

Wellsford Subdivision

6,960

1

6,960

-2,036

-22.63

Warkworth Subdivision

23,600

3

7,867

-1,129

-12.55

Kumeū Subdivision

40,900

4

10,225

1,229

13.67

Dairy Flat Subdivision

9,500

1

9,500

504

5.61

Total

80,960

9

8,996

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area

Hibiscus Coast Subdivision

64,800

4

16,200

1,563

10.67

East Coast Bays Subdivision

52,300

4

13,075

-1,563

-10.67

Total

117,100

8

14,638

Albert-Eden Local Board Area

Ōwairaka Subdivision

50,200

4

12,550

125

1.01

Maungawhau Subdovision

49,200

4

12,300

-125

-1.01

Total

99,400

8

12,425

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Area

Maungakiekie Subdivision

32,100

3

10,700

-1,314

-10.94

Tamaki Subdivision

52,000

4

13,000

986

8.20

Total

84,100

7

12,014

Howick Local Board Area

Pakuranga Subdivision

43,100

3

14,367

-3,144

-17.96

Howick Subdivision

44,000

3

14,667

-2,844

-16.24

Botany Subdivision

70,500

3

23,500

5,989

34.20

Total

157,600

9

17,511

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area

Papatoetoe Subdivision

60,700

4

15,175

1,361

9.85

Ōtara Subdivision

36,000

3

12,000

-1,814

-13.13

Total

96,700

7

13,814

Franklin Local Board Area

Waiuku Subdivision

16,350

2

8,175

-1,308

-13.80

Pukekohe Subdivision

41,800

4

10,450

967

10.19

Wairoa Subdivision

27,200

3

9,067

-417

-4.39

Total

85,350

9

9,483

 

26.     Issues which are known to staff are summarised in the table below. Many of these issues are simply enquiries from individual members and do not represent the formal position of a local board:

Local board

Issue

Status

Devonport-Takapuna

Looking at a name change

 

Devonport-Takapuna

Saunders reserve is split between Devonport-Takapuna and Upper Harbour local boards, requiring two different reserve management plans

Investigated. Problem is due to a large meshblock. Solution is to split the meshblock and do minor boundary change to the local board area

Franklin

Looking at a name change

 

Franklin

Subdivisions do not comply with 10 per cent rule. Largest variance is Waiuku at ‑13.80 per cent

 

Hibiscus and Bays

Subdivisions do not comply with 10 per cent rule. Variance is 10.67 per cent

 

Howick

Subdivisions do not comply with 10 per cent rule. Largest variance is Botany at 34.20 per cent

Staff attended workshop with Howick Local Board on Thursday 1 February 2024. Preference is to add 2 members to the Botany subdivision and split the subdivision. Local board is consulting community

Howick

May look at name change.

Name “Howick Local Board” clashes with name of one of the subdivisions.

Kaipātiki

Move part of northern boundary to Goldfinch Rise

Move all Kereru Reserve to Upper Harbour

Local board re-organisation: move Unsworth Heights from Upper Harbour to Kaipātiki

Goldfinch Rise and Kereru Reserve changes can be implemented as minor boundary changes

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Maungakiekie subdivision does not comply with 10 per cent rule being -10.94 per cent

 

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Concern about misalignment with ward boundaries

It is possible to address this with the review of wards

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Ōtara subdivision does not comply with 10 per cent rule being -13.13 per cent

 

Rodney

Rearrange subdivisions to provide better rural representation

Rodney Northern Action Group (NAG) initially submitted to the Governing Body for the 2022 elections and were advised that the next review would be for the 2025 elections

Rodney

Subdivisions do not comply with 10 per cent rule. Largest variance is Wellsford at
‑22.63 per cent

Staff attended workshop with local board on 28 February 2024

Upper-Harbour

Create subdivisions

Investigated possible subdivisions for compliance and seems ok. Not yet discussed with local board

Waitākere Ranges

Ensure representation from the heritage area by creating a subdivision

Staff have investigated

 

27.     Some of these issues are reported separately in more detail to the relevant local boards.

Governing Body

28.     Due to legislative change this review is the first time the council can review the number of councillors. An approach is to consider whether the Rodney and Franklin rural areas as communities of interest require their own wards in order to provide effective representation. If this is so, then the ratio of residents to councillor is set at about 85,000 which results in 20 councillors (the current number). Any at-large councillors would need to be in addition.

29.     The Joint Governance Working Party and the Governing Body have confirmed that ward options should be developed based on 20 councillors.

30.     One issue is the misalignment between wards and local board boundaries in the isthmus. For the 2019 review of representation there was significant non-compliance with the 10 per cent rule in the Waitematā and Gulf wards. This was corrected by shrinking the Waitematā and Gulf wards on the eastern side with the effect of Parnell and Newmarket becoming part of the Ōrākei Ward. There were flow-on effects to Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa wards.

31.     Current population estimates indicate it will be possible to return these ward boundaries to their pre-2019 positions with only minor non-compliance. This option will be developed further.

32.     If there are minor changes to local board boundaries as part of the representation review then relevant ward boundaries might need adjusting to retain alignment.

Re-organisation plan

Discussion to date

33.     The Governing Body tasked the Joint Governance Working Party with developing options for a local board reorganisation plan. The Governing Body noted that one option would need to be the status quo.

34.     The Joint Governance Working Party investigated:

·       (20, 11 and six “local councils”)

·       the mayor’s preferred option of 13 local boards, based on the Royal Commission’s model of 11 local councils but adding the two island local boards

·       a model of 15 local boards where the local boards in all wards containing two local boards are amalgamated

·       Various clustering arrangements that were already in existence.

35.     The JGWP recommended to the Governing Body that the model that is developed further is the 15 local board model, to be compared to the status quo. The Governing Body supported this approach. The Governing Body will decide at its May 2024 meeting whether to proceed further with public consultation on local board reorganisation.  

36.     Early engagement has been held with local boards through workshops, advisory panels, community stakeholders and Māori.

Affected local boards

37.     In a 15 local board model, the local boards that are affected:

·        Albany ward: Hibiscus and Bays, Upper Harbour

·        North Shore ward: Kaipatiki, Devonport-Takapuna

·        Waitākere ward: Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges

·        Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa ward: Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa

·        Manukau ward: Mangere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe

·        Manurewa-Papakura ward: Manurewa, Papakura.

38.     The local boards that are not affected are:

·        the two island local boards: Aotea / Great Barrier, Waiheke

·        the two rural local boards: Rodney, Franklin

·        some isthmus local boards: Whau, Waitematā, Ōrākei, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

·        the Howick Local Board (it is already associated with a two-member ward).

39.     The following map shows the local boards that are affected (amalgamated) or not affected.


40.     There are sound arguments that rural local boards should not amalgamate (they already have very large geographic areas and their communities have different issues to urban communities). The island local boards are geographically separate. The Howick Local Board is already one large board in a two-councillor ward. All the remaining local boards would experience amalgamation except for some in the isthmus (Whau, Waitematā, Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki).

Population size

41.     One issue is that most current local boards have population sizes that are larger than district councils. Under the 15 local board model an amalgamated local board will have a population size of around 180,000.

42.     To put this into perspective staff note that this is the size of Hamilton City Council, which does not have a separate layer of community boards. City councils larger than Hamilton have community boards. The relationship between a local board with a community of 180,000 people is similar in scale to that of Hamilton with its community. Another similarity is that Hamilton City Council makes local decisions (the Waikato Regional Council makes the regional decisions).

43.     However, Hamilton City Council makes decisions that do not come within the scope of a local board, such as employing a chief executive, making bylaws, striking the rate, appointing council-controlled organisations and making regulatory decisions. Hamilton has more responsibilities than local boards yet makes its decisions without there being a more local level of representation.

44.     The following table shows possible local board sizes.

Local Boards

Map

Pop 2023

Amalgamated?

Mbrs

Current
members

Hibiscus & Bays + Upper Harbour

2

191,700

Amalgamated

12

14

Henderson-Massey + Waitākere Ranges

4

187,000

Amalgamated

12

14

Manurewa + Papakura

12

186,700

Amalgamated

12

14

Ōtara-Papatoetoe + Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

10

185,900

Amalgamated

12

14

Albert-Eden +Puketāpapa

6

160,600

Amalgamated

12

14

Howick

11

157,700

No change

11

9

Kaipātiki + Devonport-Takapuna

3

149,900

Amalgamated

12

14

Waitematā

7

86,700

No change

7

7

Whau

5

86,300

No change

7

7

Ōrākei

8

86,200

No change

7

7

Franklin

13

85,300

No change

9

9

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

9

84,100

No change

7

7

Rodney

1

81,000

No change

9

9

Waiheke

14

9,420

No change

5

5

Aotea/Great Barrier

15

1,050

No change

5

5

 

 

 

 

139

149

 

Representation

45.     Where two local boards amalgamate it is possible to retain existing representation arrangements through establishing subdivisions in the new local board that reflect the contributing local boards and their original subdivisions – providing that subdivisions meet the +/-10 per cent rule. This ensures voters in each of the contributing areas would continue to vote for representatives for their area.

46.     However, there would be a decrease in representation in that the maximum size of a local board is set at 12 members in legislation. In each case where two local boards amalgamate within a ward the total members of contributing local boards are 14 members. Therefore, on amalgamation, there would be a loss of two members over the whole of the new local board area. The ward name is used in the table below for the name of the amalgamated board.


 

Current boards

Subdivisions

Mbrs

New boards

Subdivisions

Mbrs

Hibiscus & Bays

East Coast Bays 4

8

Albany

East Coast Bays 4

12

Hibiscus Coast  4

Hibiscus Coast 3

Upper Harbour

 

6

Upper Harbour 5

Henderson-Massey

 

8

Waitākere

Henderson-Massey 8

12

Waitākere Ranges

 

6

Waitākere Ranges 4

Manurewa

 

8

Manurewa-Papakura

Manurewa  7

12

Papakura

 

6

Papakura  5

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

 

7

Manukau

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu  6

12

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Ōtara      3

7

Ōtara  2

Papatoetoe                 4

Papatoetoe 4

Albert- Eden

Maungawhau                 4

8

Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa

Maungawhau 4

12

Owairaka                 4

Owairaka 4

Puketāpapa

 

6

Puketāpapa 4

Kaipātiki

 

8

North Shore

Kaipātiki 7

12

Devonport -Takapuna

 

6

Devonport–Takapuna 5

 

47.     The subdivisions in the table are based on the existing subdivisions. There is minor non-compliance in the new Waitākere Ranges, Puketāpapa and Ōtara subdivisions which could be corrected by tweaking boundaries.

48.     It is, of course, possible to have any other arrangement of subdivisions provided they provide effective representation of communities of interest and comply with the 10 per cent rule. For example, in any case where subdivisions provide unequal number of members, subdivisions could be drawn to ensure equal numbers.

Objectives

49.     The following table provides very brief comments alongside the summary of the legislative objectives. If the council proceeds with a re-organisation plan the Local Government Commission will require our documentation to comment on the scale and likelihood of achieving these objectives.


 

Objective

Comment

Enabling democratic decision making by, and on behalf of, communities

This is part of the purpose of local government and includes elements of:

·    Community engagement in decision-making

·    Decision-making by elected representatives on behalf of the community and their accountability back to the community (through the election process).

While there is some evidence that turnout at elections can be better for smaller councils, engagement with communities between elections tends to be issue-based

People will engage over issues that affect them. Last year’s engagement on the Governing Body’s annual plan attracted over 40,000 submissions whereas there were 5,000 submissions total for all local board plans

Better enabling the purpose of local government

The other part of the purpose of local government is “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future”

Amalgamated local boards will be better resourced to promote community well-being

Efficiencies and cost savings

Cost savings are not the main driver for the proposal. There is a value-for-money analysis being undertaken which will identify efficiencies and cost savings

Local boards have the necessary resources

This is a key consideration in the empowerment part of the project and one of the reasons for seeking fewer local boards

Effective responses to opportunities, needs, and circumstances of the area

Amalgamated local boards will be better resourced to respond to the opportunities, needs and circumstances of their area

Larger geographical areas mean less likelihood of boundary issues (for example when a facility close to a boundary is funded by one local board and used by residents of the neighbouring local board)

Alignment with communities of interest

Each amalgamated local board will align with the community of interest of the corresponding ward. There will be a one-to-one alignment between all local boards and wards (apart from the island local boards)

Enhanced effectiveness of decision making

Decision-making will likely be more effective because the organisation is better able to support the decision-making if there are fewer local boards. Quality advice is crucial to effective decision-making and prompt and competent implementation after a decision is made is equally important

Enhanced ability of local government to meet the changing needs of communities for governance and services into the future

Future planning is important in terms of providing for communities’ needs for services into the future and will be enhanced through more resources being made available to local boards

Proposals for changes to governance arrangements, such as amalgamating local boards, must take future growth into account

Co-governance and co-management arrangements

Staff believe that proposals are unlikely to have any significant effect on existing arrangements with Māori. There is engagement with Māori to obtain their feedback on the proposals to understand their views more fully Engagement with existing co-governance and co-management entities will need to be covered as well

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50.     There may be a climate impact if there is increased motor vehicle use due to members, staff and the public having to travel more due to larger local board areas. This is offset by fewer meetings for staff to travel to and the regular use of remote attendance. It is expected that travel for constituency work would not increase if subdivisions reflect existing electoral areas.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51.     Council-controlled organisations are involved with the work of local boards to varying extents. Most affected would be Auckland Transport and Eke Panuku. Comments from the council group are being collated as part of the value-for-money exercise.

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

Local impacts and local board views

52.     The representation review and local board re-organisation affect local boards – for some local boards the affect of the local board re-organisation is significant and is discussed in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

53.     Council is engaging with Māori to ascertain how these proposals affect them.

54.     The Governing Body has not decided to include Māori representation in its representation arrangements for 2025. It has resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a)   whakaae / agree that further work is required to determine the appropriate arrangements for Māori representation on Auckland Council, including in discussion with Māori and the Auckland public, and request that this be considered by the Joint Governance Working Party and reported back to the Governing Body by 31 December 2024.

(Resolution GB/2023/195, 26 October 2023)

55.     For the local board re-organisation plan there is a requirement to consider the “effective provision for any co-governance and co-management arrangements that are established by legislation (including Treaty of Waitangi claim settlement legislation) and that are between local authorities and iwi or Māori organisations”.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56.     There will be internal resource requirements and costs associated with the programme stages and public consultation in both the current financial year and 2024/2025. Costs through each stage of decision-making by the Governing Body, include:

·        if Governing Body confirms support for the JGWP to further investigate the matters outlined in the recommendations, the early engagement costs are estimated at $30-35k, in addition to some fixed term staff resource. The Governance and CCO Partnerships Directorate will look to absorb these costs within operational budgets 

·        if the re-organisation of local boards proceeds through to a final proposal to the Local Government Commission, the bulk of additional fixed term staff resources will be needed through to April 2025. This cost is estimated at $210k. The Governance and CCO Partnerships Directorate will look to resource this through re-prioritisation of resources and deferral of other work.

57.     If Governing Body confirm support for regionwide public consultation on both a representation review proposal and a local board reorganisation plan at the May 2024 meeting, the costs associated with consultation are between $165 - $200k. A contribution from the mayor’s discretionary budget has been requested to support consultation costs, should this proceed. The above costs relate to undertaking further work on the analysis and policy elements to support Governing Body decisions for the representation project. Should a change to the status quo be supported by the Governing Body, the cost of change will be reported to the Governing Body as the analysis progresses.

58.     Existing staff will undertake most of the analysis that is required for the local board reorganisation work. Staff do not anticipate a need to engage external resource in order to undertake the analysis. 

59.     The financial implication of a re-organisation decision, particularly a reduction to fewer local boards, is being evaluated and this information will be made available in due course.

60.     A budget of $66k associated with the mandatory review of representation arrangements is unavoidable and has been budgeted for.

61.     There are implications of adopting a re-organisation plan at the same time as conducting a representation review.  Council staff have held discussions with the Local Government Commission staff about how the two projects interact. These discussions are continuing.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62.     Work on both the review of representation arrangements and local board re-organisation has commenced earlier than necessary in order that final decisions are not made too close to the 2025 elections. This mitigates the risk that if there is slippage, final decisions will still be known by early April 2025 in time for the election.

63.     There is a risk that, if the council proceeds with a local board re-organisation application, that the Local Government Commission will not approve it due to shortcomings in documentation or due to lack of community support. This risk is mitigated by on-going contact between council staff and Local Government Commission staff to ensure the correct process is followed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64.     Local board feedback will be reported to, and considered by, the Joint Governance Working Party as it develops its recommendations to the Governing Body.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards

File No.: CP2024/02454

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board feedback on initial staff proposals for more empowered local boards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Staff have workshopped the proposal for fewer, more empowered local boards and representation arrangements with all local boards during February 2024 and are now bringing these proposals to March 2024 local board business meetings seeking formal feedback.

3.       At the workshops, staff advised that the proposals for fewer more empowered local boards represented initial staff thinking and that they were seeking initial responses from local boards.

4.       This report focuses on the more empowered local boards proposal. It uses work done to date and what staff have been seeing and hearing both from elected members and the organisation to identify how the existing local board model might be improved to give effect to the Mayor’s request.

5.       The report outlines matters under two key shifts which if implemented would support local boards to be more empowered. These shifts are that local boards need to have:

a)      sufficient strategic advice to fulfil their purpose on behalf of their specific communities.

b)      sufficient resourcing and greater decision-making/accountability over their funding arrangements.

6.       Several ideas are put forward about what the council group might need to do differently to support this shift, such as:

·        examining the complexity of current approaches and identifying where things could be simpler

·        working towards an organisation that is responsive and flexible

·        developing bespoke systems and processes that reflect the needs and differences of different local boards and only retain consistency where necessary

·        lifting the level of local board activity to a governance level aligned with what more empowered local boards should do and reducing the time and resource taken up on low impact and operational matters

·        reviewing plans and policies which impact on the operation of local boards to ensure the approach best fits what is needed for more empowered local boards.

7.       While staff are undertaking early engagement on proposals for fewer and more empowered local boards together and to meet the Mayor’s wish for change to be in place by 2025 local election, the more empowered aspect is not subject to electoral timelines and can, if necessary take longer.

8.       Staff will report initial feedback from February 2024 local board workshops to the March 2024 meeting of the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) and the six local board representatives on the JGWP will share the working party’s consideration of that with the local board clusters they represent.

9.       Local board March 2024 business meeting feedback will be reported to the April 2024 working party meeting, ahead of consideration by the Governing Body in May 2024. If the Governing Body agrees to proceed, the proposals will go to formal public consultation in June 2024.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide feedback on staff proposals for more empowered local boards, in particular:

i)        aspects of the proposal that it supports, opposes, has further comment on or would like further information on

ii)       ideas and examples of what more empowered local boards should be able to do

iii)      the benefits, or otherwise of linking proposals for more empowered local boards with having fewer local boards.

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

What does ‘more empowered’ mean?

10.     The Mayor’s proposal for more empowered local boards is part of his wider proposal that there be fewer local boards and that they be more fairly funded. The Mayor’s expectation is that local boards have the true level of local leadership and accountability over local matters envisaged for them under the legislation, and if necessary, where current legislation has not met this intent, that legislative change be pursued.

11.     Many of the recommendations of the 2016 Governance Framework Review (GFR) are in effect proposals for local boards to be more empowered. In particular, the Governing Body’s October 2021 decision to approve Increased Local Board Decision-making is a significant example of this.

12.     While there have been notable wins and improvements in such areas as the organisation establishing more teams which directly work with and face local boards, more remains to be done and this has been evidenced by local board member responses to elected members surveys and the 2023 Mayoral Office survey of local board members. In both cases these show significant dissatisfaction from local board members on their role and decision-making, funding, the advice they seek and receive, and their ability to advance the matters that they value.

13.     So how might fewer more empowered local boards help to turn that around? At a holistic level local board roles and responsibilities, allocations and delegations, financial policy and process matters should be tested against the following: that local boards should be:

a)      supported to fully give effect to the provisions included in and envisaged by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) and enabled by Auckland Council to do so.

b)      empowered according to the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in LGACA - that non-regulatory decisions should be made by local boards except where decisions are better made on an Auckland-wide basis.

14.     Based on previous work and feedback, the following are the key themes and matters that have been identified. It isn’t considered to be exhaustive or definitive list. Rather it is a catalyst to stimulate local board members and staff, to think about and articulate what they think local boards should be able to do. The two key themes are as follows:

Sufficient strategic advice

15.     Local boards should receive sufficient strategic advice to fulfil their purpose on behalf of their communities. Local boards need to be supported and provided with advice to fully exercise all the legislative powers they have been given (and as appropriate legislative change), including:

a)      being genuinely able to govern in ways that reflect their communities’ differences and diversity and not have to all do things in the same way for administrative convenience.

b)      have access to strategic advice to support the development of local solutions provided these are consistent with regional policies and plans.

c)      have a level of influence over the decisions and activities of the Governing Body and Auckland Council group commensurate with local board’s legislated governance role.

d)      be supported and enabled to interact with the communities they represent with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of their engagement and trust in their activities.

e)      be supported by systems and processes that are fit for purpose, simple to understand, flexible and agile, and of practical value.

Funding arrangements - resourcing, decision-making and accountability

16.     Local boards should receive sufficient resourcing and have greater decision-making and accountability over their funding arrangements, including:

a)      Auckland Council should develop minimum standards for all or most local community services in discussion with local boards and commit to funding these

b)      Local boards should be able to:

i)       raise funds to advance some or all their local community services beyond agreed and funded minimum service levels

ii)       decide what additional activities and services they want, provided that they can fund and justify them, and that required support structures are in place

iii)      engage with Auckland Transport to seek delegated decision-making over local transport activities such as town centre improvements and street trading activities, where this doesn’t adversely impact on the transport network.

17.     The following are some examples staff have heard about which support the above proposals:

a)      more easily obtain approval to use targeted rates without the major time consuming and resource heavy process that is currently required and to be able to use a targeted rate more widely e.g. for all or any local community services.

b)      change a local asset or the way it is used. Currently it is difficult to get advice for something that isn’t already on a work programme or being progressed under a regional provision.

c)      have greater opportunities for local procurement. Current most procurement is managed and decided centrally and local boards see opportunities for use of local providers without adversely impacting the agreed value of bigger contracts.

d)      be able to more easily review community leases to free up space currently tied up in peppercorn leases with low-value, low-participation activities on valuable council land.

e)      be able to have decision-making over local planning and policy development for local community services for such things as open space and town centres.

f)       have clear, consistent advice on what the proceeds from sale of service property can be used for and enabling local boards to dispose of a property prior to identifying project(s) to which the proceeds of sale will be allocated.

g)      shifting local assets between community and commercial use (or a hybridisation of the two).

h)      enable open space acquisition and development in high-growth areas (including through demolition of under-utilised assets to free up open space).

i)        better understand and have clear roles and responsibilities on local vs regional strategic asset network decision-making.

18.     As discussed at workshops, staff are encouraging local boards to identify things they would like to do, but haven’t had advice on, or where they have been advised that matters can’t proceed. In addition to formal resolutions, staff have also asked that members bring matters they have been thinking about to staff working on these proposals. Examples will help staff understand what roadblocks there are to advancing these matters.

What might the council group need to do differently to support this change?

19.     Having noted that significant resource is applied to operating 21 local boards and that over the last 13 years the organisation has continually sought to improve how it supports local boards, there does however remain some disconnect between what local board members want to do and what the organisation currently supports. There may be times when things that local boards want to do will not fall within their role and responsibilities, but this does need to be tested and justified.

20.     An approach going forward might include to:

a)      examine the complexity of current approaches and identify where matters can be simplified and what duplication can be removed.

b)      alter systems and processes to reflect the needs and differences of different local boards and only retain consistency where the need for efficiency overrides these individual needs.

c)      overtime lift the level of local board activity to a governance level commensurate with what more empowered local boards will do and reduce the time and resource taken up on low impact matters.

d)      review where advice comes from to local boards in the organisation and ensure it is led organisation-wide and that the level of strategic and policy advice available to local boards is commensurate with their more empowered role.

e)      review plans and policies which impact on the operation of local boards to ensure the approach best fits what is needed for more empowered local boards.

21.     Considerable resources, time and thinking will be required to implement agreed changes successfully. Experience with issues around delivering increased decision-making for local boards suggests this should be approached systematically and in stages. Phasing change, prioritising what is doable, what will have the most impact for the least effort, and where resources can be applied relatively easily to change is suggested.

Other implications

22.     Staff have also noted that local boards need to be remunerated and have work hours commensurate with their intended role – understanding that this is a decision of the Remuneration Authority. A review of its approach to setting the remuneration of Auckland’s local board members was undertaken by the Authority in 2019 and uses a size index based on local board:

·        population

·        gross operating expenditure (taken from local board agreements)

·        total assets (council assets attributed to local boards)

·        the Socioeconomic Deprivation Index.

23.     The Authority’s size index is based on the roles and responsibilities of the board rather than the number of members or the population of the local board area. Staff are working with the Authority to understand how any proposed changes might impact on local board member remuneration. It is likely a review of Auckland Council’s elected member remuneration will be reviewed on a holistic basis by the Authority.

How this fits with other workstreams?

24.     Local boards are also being asked for their views on proposals for fewer local boards; status quo or a 15 local board model. An analysis is also being undertaken on the costs and benefits of fewer local boards and this will be reported to the April 2024 JGWP meeting. The ‘fairer funding’ model is currently out for consultation as part of the Long-term Plan and feedback and next steps will also be brought back to the JGWP, including how funding would be allocated if there were 15 local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25.     This report itself has no climate impacts. It is possible that more empowered local boards will making more influential decisions will have different impacts on the climate. Climate impacts will be reported both when a report is brought to Governing Body when a final decision on more empowered local boards is made and when each board makes a decision that impacts climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26.     Fewer, and/or more empowered and/or more fairly-funded local boards will have a significant impact on the council group, and particularly those parts of the organisation that interact with local boards. These impacts will be considered and addressed if proposals proceed to public consultation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27.     These proposals have the potential to have a significant local impact, not just on local boards but on their communities. This includes a possible change in community awareness of, and engagement with their representatives as communities become aware of what more empowered local boards might do.

28.     Comprehensive engagement with local boards on these changes and the provision of high-quality advice is critical for success throughout this entire process. Early engagement in February 2024 and reporting to local board business meetings in March 2024 are part of this. Regionwide consultation and further engagement with local boards will be triggered if the Governing Body decides that the proposal has merit and should be investigated further.

29.     All matters will primarily be progressed through the JGWP which has six local board members, each representing a “cluster” of local boards. These representatives are responsible for bringing the views of these clusters to JGWP meetings and engaging with their members on the direction and next steps agreed by the working party.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30.     Engagement with Māori is a core part of advancing these proposals for fewer more empowered local boards. The early engagement process includes Mana whenua and Mataawaka. The outcomes of this engagement will be reported back to the April 2024 JGWP meeting.

31.     Many of local board members who responded to the recent Mayor’s survey outlined in this report suggested that having Māori representation on local boards, along with fewer boards might improve the way they engage with Māori. The Independent Māori Statutory Board chair is also on the JGWP and has contributed to these discussions to date.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32.     While this report itself has no direct financial implications, there are potentially very significant financial implications resulting from the establishment of fewer, more fairly-funded and more empowered local boards.

33.     These will be progressively identified as the above parts of this wider change develop. Stage one of the value for money work will outline the costs and benefits of having fewer local boards and will progress this further as options for more empowered local boards progress. The associated organisational change workstream will contribute further to this.

34.     The JGWP work is supported by a general manager level steering group which meets ahead of each JGWP meeting. This includes finance staff and is a key control and oversight group for financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.     There are a number of risks and mitigations associated with this workstream, as follows:

a)      Political risks. Local board representatives on the JGWP have expressed scepticism about these proposed changes, questioned the need for them and asked why there can’t be 21 more empowered local boards, not fewer. Local board feedback on these proposals from February workshops and March 2024 business meetings will be considered alongside other early engagement feedback.

b)      Implementation risks. It is inevitable that the disruption of change will be felt for some time and this could have negative impacts on local community service delivery, council’s and local boards’ reputation and level of trust, and increase disaffection by local board members. To mitigate this risk, the change process will need to be robust and adequately resourced.

c)      Delivery risks. The ability of the organisation to pivot to support these changes and to provide the enhanced advice needed for change to be effective, may not be achieved in a timely manner.  To mitigate this risk, the Executive Leadership Team oversight will be needed. This will be required of CCO executives as well, which is why it is important to capture their views at an early stage.

36.     Broader programme risks have been identified and are being monitored.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     The JGWP has monthly meetings planned for 2024. Staff will report initial informal local board workshops themes to the March JGWP meeting alongside those of stakeholder views that have been gathered. March local board business meeting feedback will be reported to the April JGWP. The JGWP and the Governing Body will decide on public consultation in June/July 2024.

 

 


 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

John Nash – Principal Advisor – Local Board Services

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - General Manager – Governance Services

Louise Mason - General Manager - Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Representation project – issues specific to Rodney Local Board

File No.: CP2024/02074

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on representation project issues that are specific to the Rodney Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The representation project comprises the review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections, which the council is required to undertake, and the development of a reorganisation plan that reduces the number of local boards.

3.       A report on both these matters is being presented to all local boards and is on the same agenda as this report.

4.       This report deals only with those matters that are specific to the Rodney Local Board. The key issue is the non-compliance of subdivisions with the 10 per cent rule which applies to a representation review. This report presents alternative options to correcting the non-compliance.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive any further advice on options as circulated prior to the meeting

b)      whakarite / provide feedback on its preferences for changes to subdivisions in order to address current non-compliance.

Horopaki

Context

5.       It is important to note that the issue raised in this report relates solely to the review of representation arrangements regarding the Rodney Local Board for the 2025 elections. It does not relate in any way to the local board reorganisation project which changes the number of local boards and for which Rodney is not affected.

6.       The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that subdivisions provide for effective representation of communities of interest and also comply with the rule that the population per member within a subdivision does not vary from the average population per member for the whole local board by more than 10 per cent.


 

7.       The population table for subdivisions in the Rodney Local Board is as follows:

Local board

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Rodney Local Board Area

Wellsford Subdivision

6,960

1

6,960

-2,036

-22.63

Warkworth Subdivision

23,600

3

7,867

-1,129

-12.55

Kumeū Subdivision

40,900

4

10,225

1,229

13.67

Dairy Flat Subdivision

9,500

1

9,500

504

5.61

Total

80,960

9

8,996

 

8.       The Wellsford subdivision varies from the average (“quota”) by -22.63%, being over-represented (the subdivision needs more population).

9.       A council may decide to not comply with the requirement for population to member to not vary by more than 10 per cent from the average, if complying would compromise effective representation of communities of interest by:

·        dividing a community of interest

·        joining communities with few commonalities of interest.

10.     A decision to not comply is referred to the Local Government Commission for their determination.

11.     The subdivisions were last reviewed in 2019.

Original subdivisions

Current subdivisions following the 2019 review

12.     One of the reasons for the change was a submission from a resident in Kakanui, then in the Warkworth subdivision, who stated they had no commonality of interest with Warkworth but related more to the south. The Wellsford subdivision was slightly extended south along the Kaipara Harbour and the Kumeū subdivision extended north, matching the then Helensville electorate, with the effect that the Warkworth subdivision no longer extended westwards to the Kaipara Harbour.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.     At a workshop on 28 February 2024 staff presented six options which comply with the 10 per cent rule. Three options are based on moving current boundaries and three options are based on a proposal from the Rodney Northern Action Group (NAG).

14.     For options based on the current boundaries, Wellsford needs to gain population in order to comply. For these first three options, the number of members per subdivision does not change from the present.

Option 1 - based on current boundaries


•     Gains population for Wellsford by extending Wellsford south into Kumeū (1)

•     Warkworth moves into Dairy Flat (2)

•     Dairy Flat takes a bit of Kumeū (3)

•     Note: residents alongside Kaipara Harbour join the Wellsford community of interest which they would not align to.

 

 

Option 2 – based on current boundaries


•     Wellsford does not move so far south along the Kaipara Harbour but also moves into Warkworth

•     Warkworth moves west into Kume and meets the Kaipara Harbour

•     Note: residents alongside Kaipara Harbour to the north join the Wellsford community of interest; those to the south join Warkworth.

 

Option 3 – based on current boundaries

•     Wellsford does not move south alongside Kaipara Harbour

•     Wellsford moves into Warkworth

•     Warkworth moves into Dairy Flat and Kumeū

•     Dairy Flat moves into Kumeū

•     In terms of avoiding Warkworth extending to Kaipara Harbour this is possibly the best of the options based on current arrangements.

 

Option 4 – based on Northern Action Group proposals

•     All Rodney is rural except for the urban areas of Warkworth, Dairy Flat and Kumeū which have guaranteed representation.

 

Population (2023)

Mbrs

Rural

33,740

4

Warkworth

17,910

2

Kumeū

19,750

2

Dairy Flat

9,520

1

Rodney Local Board

80,920

9

Option 5 – based on Northern Action Group proposals

·    As for Option 4 but guarantees representation for the northern rural area.

 

Population (2023)

Mbrs

North Rural

9,260

1

South Rural

24,480

3

Warkworth

17,910

2

Kumeū

19,750

2

Dairy Flat

9,520

1

Rodney Local Board

80,920

9

Option 6 – based on Northern Action Group proposals

·    North Rural and South Rural have the same number of members.

Population (2023)

Mbrs

North Rural

16,690

2

South Rural

17,050

2

Warkworth

17,910

2

Kumeū

19,750

2

Dairy Flat

9,520

1

Rodney Local Board

80,920

9

Further options

15.     Following the workshop on 28 February 2024 a couple of local board members raised further options with staff. At the time of preparing this report staff were still developing these and will circulate further advice before the meeting:

i)        join Wellsford with Warkworth

ii)       create an additional subdivision that recognises a Helensville community of interest

iii)      adjust the boundaries of the Dairy Flat subdivision to take in some of Kumeū up to Riverhead.

Effective representation of communities of interest

16.     Each of the options presented above complies with the 10 per cent rule. The key question for consideration is which best provides effective representation of communities of interest. It is important to note that the criterion is not just “communities of interest” but “effective representation of communities of interest”. The way communities of interest are defined needs to be relevant to effective representation.

Candidate pool

17.     A valid point that was raised at the 28 February workshop related to effective representation in terms of how the size of a subdivision might affect the candidate pool. For the 2013 to 2022 elections the number of candidates was as follows:

 

Positions

Candidates

 

 

2013

2016

2019

2022

Wellsford

1

4

2

unopposed

2

Warkworth

3

10

7

5

8

Kumeū

4

9

7

6

11

Dairy Flat

1

3

3

unopposed

unopposed

 

9

26

19

11

21

 

18.     An unopposed election in a single-member electorate might mean no-one in the electorate is motivated to oppose the single candidate because the electorate generally supports the person standing as candidate. On the other hand it can be argued that unopposed single member elections are not good for the health of democracy: voters do not have a choice, there is no campaign with an exchange of ideas and if an incumbent is expecting to be unopposed at the next election there is a decrease in accountability to the electorate.

19.     If the lack of candidates to oppose an incumbent is due to apathy rather than support for the incumbent, then there is a risk of having no candidates at all, should, for example, an incumbent decide to not stand for re-election.

20.     Increasing the size of an electorate does not automatically guarantee a larger candidate pool. There have been Auckland Council ward elections which have been unopposed. In the 2019 elections, the councillors in the Rodney and Franklin wards were re-elected unopposed. In 2013 the two Howick ward councillors were re-elected unopposed as was the Ōrākei ward councillor.

21.     Nevertheless, larger, multi-member, electorates might generally be expected to facilitate more candidates and provide voters with more choice. Local board members will be better able to evaluate local dynamics at play here than staff.

Large multi-member subdivisions

22.     When Auckland Council was established, the Local Government Commission determined ward and local board arrangements following receipt of submissions. In its determination the following comments are of interest.

23.     When considering whether to have single member wards or larger wards the commission noted:

“Communities of interest are often not confined to small geographically concentrated areas. Given this, larger wards have the advantage of being better able to avoid the splitting of communities of interest between wards. Larger multi-member wards also provide more choice for voters and as a result can provide more diversity in representation than that provided by a single representative. After the election, residents in multi-member wards have a choice of representatives they can approach on local issues.”

And

“Large wards may mean that representatives are too remote to effectively engage with local communities and the cost of election campaigning may be prohibitive for many candidates. As a result we have concluded that, for Auckland, wards larger than those electing two members are undesirable.”

24.     These comments could also be applied to the size of subdivisions in local boards. It needs to be noted also that in multi-member subdivisions each member within the subdivision has the whole subdivision as their constituency. In other words, unless members agree informally to divide constituency work, each member will be expected to attend and assist residents as required throughout the whole subdivision.

25.     Specifically on the need for subdivisions the commission stated:

“We believe that the geographical size of the area is one important factor in determining the need for subdivisions. This led us to conclude that subdivisions for the widespread Rodney and Franklin Local Boards were essential.”

Communities of interest

26.     The Local Government Commission’s guidelines suggest that communities of interest can be thought of in terms of:

·        a sense of identity with and belonging to a community (a perceptive aspect)

·        the geographical area of services provided for a community (a functional aspect)

·        other organisational boundaries for representing community interests (a political aspect).

27.     The following paragraphs comment on aspects of the six options from a staff view-point. Local board members will have more understanding of local communities of interest.

28.     The three options based on current boundaries recognise geographical communities of interest. The original subdivisions split Rodney roughly into three bands: Wellsford to the north, Warkworth in the middle with Kumeū in the south but with Dairy Flat having separate representation. In terms of the Local Government Commission guidelines:

i)        Perceptual dimension: there have been minor perceptual problems in the past – such as the submission in 2019 from a resident in Kakanui (in the Warkworth subdivision) stating he did not identify with Warkworth. Option 3 recognises this, Options 1 and 2 do not. (In Option 1 the resident would be part of Wellsford and in Option 2 part of Warkworth).

ii)       Services: Do all the residents in each subdivision receive similar services? Do subdivisions contain both rural and urban communities? Do rural areas receive different services to the urban areas and, if so, do the options recognise this?.

iii)      Political: It was noted at the workshop that some representatives of urban areas actually live in rural areas, mitigating any under-representation of rural areas.

29.     The three options based on the NAG proposals recognise rural and urban communities of interest rather than geographical areas of roughly similar size. In terms of the Local Government Commission guidelines:

i)        Perceptual dimension: the proposal recognises that those in rural areas have things in common which might lead them to perceive themselves as ‘rural’; those in the Warkworth, Kumeū and Dairy Flat subdivisions might be expected to see themselves as having things in common with others in each subdivision.

ii)       Services: the proposal recognises that those in rural subdivisions have different services to those in semi-urban subdivisions.

iii)      Political dimension: by dividing the local board area into rural and urban subdivisions the proposal ensures there is representation of those having rural issues, not just in Wellsford but in all rural areas in Rodney.

30.     Option 4 has one very large rural subdivision. One advantage is that voters will more likely have more candidates to choose from. However, the voting density is in the south and it is possible there will not be a member elected from the northern area.

31.     This does not matter to the extent that all rural residents share the same issues and type of services. If all members in the rural subdivision reside in the southern part of the subdivision, constituents in the north could see representatives in the south as being remote. Attending to a northern constituent matter by a member living in the south could be burdensome for the member. To the extent that location matters and that it is desirable for the northern area to have guaranteed representation, Option 5 introduces a northern rural subdivision. 

32.     Option 6 presents an alternate arrangement such that members in each rural subdivision are equal. However the resident who previously submitted they should not be in the Warkworth subdivision would now be in the North Rural subdivision which is not appropriate. Option 6 is not favoured.

Conclusion

33.     Of the six options above, staff recommend against Options 1, 2 and 6 in that they reintroduce an issue with identity that was addressed in the 2019 review – that the resident in Kakanui relates southwards rather than northwards or towards Warkworth.

34.     Of the NAG proposals staff see merit in both Option 4 and Option 5 in terms of joining together all areas that might identify as “rural”, having common services and issues.

35.     Local board members will be better able to assess the relative merits of Options 3, 4 and 5.

36.     Staff will provide further advice on the matters raised by local board members under “Further options” above. This includes adjusting the boundaries of Dairy Flat which might flow through to the NAG proposals if appropriate. Option 3 above already includes an expanded Dairy Flat, including into an area east of Riverhead.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37.     Large distances are currently travelled since the local board area is geographically large. Option 4, with a very large rural subdivision, might result in more travel if subdivision members all reside in the south and need to travel to constituents or events in the north. The likelihood of this occurring, and its frequency, is not known.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38.     The decisions around subdivisions do not affect the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39.     This report provides the local board with the opportunity to feedback its views on subdivision arrangements for the 2025 elections. The local board’s views will be considered by the Joint Governance Working Party, then the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40.     The subdivision arrangements do not impact the Māori community differently to other communities. Some local boards have submitted there should be opportunity to have Māori subdivisions in the same way that councils can have Māori wards. This is not currently legally possible.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41.     There is a cost for LINZ to officially redraw boundaries. This mapping is done for all the changes made in the review. For the 2019 review the cost was around $12,000 total.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42.     Whatever option is chosen, there is a risk there will ultimately be an appeal against it with the final decision being made by the Local Government Commission after hearing all submissions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43.     The feedback from the local board will be presented to the Joint Governance Working Party.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

New public and private road names at 26 State Highway 1, Warkworth (Warkworth Ridge Development Stages 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D)  

File No.: CP2024/01675

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval to name three public roads, five private roads being commonly owned access lots and to use one existing road name for the extension of an existing public road, created by way of a subdivision development at 26 State Highway 1, Warkworth.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       The developer and applicant, Templeton Warkworth Ridge Limited has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

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

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

 

Applicant’s Preference

Alternatives

Road 1

Kaitiaki Avenue (extension of an existing road)

Road 10

Blythen Crescent

Stockyard Crescent

Livestock Crescent

Road 11

Wharariki Crescent

Horoeka Crescent

Bracken Crescent

Road 13

Mokomoko Avenue

Drovers Avenue

Ika Avenue

COAL B2-A

(commonly owned access lot)

Kākahi Lane

Auctioneer Lane

Stockyard Lane

COAL B3-A

(commonly owned access lot)

Pa Tuna Lane

Mauri Lane

Broker Lane

COAL B3-B

(commonly owned access lot)

Sentinel Crescent

Dusty Crescent

Ika Crescent

COAL B4-A

(commonly owned access lot)

Blackwell Lane

Cotter Lane

Moka Lane

COAL B4-B

(commonly owned access lot)

Jacks Lane

Dublin Lane

Northwards Lane

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakaae / approve the following names for three new public roads, five private roads and the extension of one public road created by way of subdivision undertaken by Templeton Warkworth Ridge Limited at 26 State Highway 1, Warkworth, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90112463, resource consent references BUN60381824 and SUB60381825)

i)        Kaitiaki Avenue (Road 1, extension of existing road)

ii)       Blythen Crescent (Road 10)

iii)      Wharariki Crescent (Road 11)

iv)      Mokomoko Avenue (Road 13)

v)      Kākahi Lane (commonly owned access lot B2-A)

vi)      Pa Tuna Lane (commonly owned access lot B3-A)

vii)     Sentinel Crescent commonly owned access lot B3-B)

viii)    Blackwell Lane commonly owned access lot B4-A)

ix)      Jacks Lane (commonly owned access lot B4-B).

Horopaki

Context

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

7.       This road naming application relates to Stages 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D of the development. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

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

9.       The new public roads therefore require a name, and also the commonly owned access lots as they each serve more than five lots. The roads to be named are highlighted in yellow in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

·        a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature

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

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

Road Number

Proposed name

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Road 10

Blythen Crescent

(applicant’s preference)

Gifted from the Warkworth Agricultural and Pastoral Society, in recognition of Majorie and Dean Blythen’s years of service

Stockyard Crescent

(alternative)

Since prior to 1913 there has been large saleyards and saleyard holding paddocks on the northwestern side of this development. The saleyards were a major communal meeting and trading place and were only closed in recent years. Sales were held there every fortnight

Livestock Crescent

(alternative)

In reference to the saleyards that were adjacent to this development

Road 11

Wharariki Crescent

(applicant’s preference)

This name is referring to a flax species. This name is gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri

Horoeka Crescent

(alternative)

This name is referring to lancewood found in the lower reaches of the stream

Bracken Crescent

(alternative)

In reference to bracken fern found on the site

Road 13

Mokomoko Avenue

(applicant’s preference) 

In reference to a taonga species found in the rohe/ tribal area of Ngāti Manuhiri. This name is gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri    

Drovers Avenue

(alternative)

Before trucking and the increase of road traffic, all cattle and sheep were driven to the saleyards by drovers on horseback with teams of dogs

Ika Avenue

(alternative)

This name is referring to the taonga fish species that swim in the awa /river or stream. This name is gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri

COAL B2-A

Kākahi Lane

(applicant’s preference) 

This name is referring to the freshwater mussel found in streams and awa /river.  This name is gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri  

Auctioneer Lane

(alternative)

In recognition of the auctioneers at the former saleyards

Stockyard Lane

(alternative)

Since prior to 1913 there has been a large saleyards and saleyard holding paddocks on the northwestern side of this development. The saleyards were a major communal meeting and trading place and were only closed in recent years. Sales were held there every fortnight

COAL B3-A

Pa Tuna Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Meaning ‘weir’ for catching eels.  This name is gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri 

Mauri Lane

(alternative)

Meaning ‘the wellbeing of the whenua’. This name is gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri

Broker Lane

(alternative)

In recognition of the stockbrokers at the saleyards

COAL B3-B

Sentinel Crescent

(applicant’s preference)

A place of lookout

Ika Crescent

(alternative)

This name is referring to the taonga fish species that swim in the awa /river or stream. This name is gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri 

Dusty Crescent

(alternative)

In recognition of the stockbrokers at the saleyards

COAL B4-A

Blackwell Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Named after the birthplace of Thomas Scott, a prominent ship builder in the Warkworth Area

Cotter Lane

(alternative)

‘Cotter’ is Scottish for farmer. The developers have some Scottish heritage

Moka Lane

(alternative)

This name is referring to fibres found within flax /harakeke plants. This name is gifted by Ngāti Manuhiri

COAL B4-B

Jacks Lane

(applicant’s preference)

The Clayden family have owned much of this land since 1856

John "Jack” Robert Clayden was a WWII veteran, Army, 24th Infantry Battalion, 2NZEF, Service number 266248. Jack lost a leg and thumb as a result of a mine in Castelfrentano, Italy. At night he was taken as a Prisoner of War on 8th Dec 1943 and was in a German POW camp for 14 months He eventually came home and carried on the family farm

Dublin Lane

(alternative)

In reference to the developer’s Irish heritage

Northwards Lane

(alternative)

This lane runs northward

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

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

15.     Road Type ‘Avenue’, ‘Lane’ and ‘Crescent’ are acceptable road types for the new roads, suiting the form and layout of the COALs and public roads.

16.     Consultation: Community groups and mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows. The applicant has also consulted with the Warkworth District Museum which together with members of the Clayden family suggested a number of names

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

21.     Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust are the mana whenua and mandated iwi authority for the area where the development is located. The applicant has consulted with Ngāti Manuhiri, and they have gifted several names for the development, many of which are the applicant’s preferred options.

On 16 January 2024, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the Guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

·        Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

·        Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

·        Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

·        Ngāti Tai Ki Tāmaki

·        Te Kawerau ā Maki

·        Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

·        Ngāti Paoa

·        Ngāti Maru

·        Ngāti Whanaunga

·        Ngāti Manuhiri

·        Ngāti Wai.

22.     By the close of the consultation period (10 working days), a response had been received from Ngāti Whanaunga, confirming their endorsement of the proposed names. No other responses were received.                  

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

26 State Highway 1 Warkworth Report Attachment  A - Location Map

107

b

26 State Highway 1 Warkworth  Report Attachment B - Scheme Plan

109

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Qiuan Wang – Senior Consultant Align

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate – March 2024

File No.: CP2024/02342

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To update the local board on progress since September 2023 on the programme of work being delivered by Auckland Transport using the funding from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The current financial year is the sixth of the planned 10-year term of the targeted rate. As planned, cumulative spending will exceed total revenue for the FY24 and FY25. This shortfall will be debt funded by Auckland Council. This will be equalised over the remaining four years of the rate, ensuring no deficit at the conclusion of the term.

3.       Of the 27 footpath projects underway, two have material variations to plan. School Road, Kaipara Flats, will have a non-raised crossing. Coatesville-Riverhead Highway (intersection with Glenmore Road) may require speed changes to enable a pedestrian crossing to be installed.

4.       The new 999 Warkworth loop bus is being planned for a mid-2024 start, subject to operational constraints. New bus stops are being planned and will be consulted soon.

5.       Unsealed road improvements are being undertaken on seven roads, as instructed by Rodney Local Board on 29 November 2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)     tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the status and progress of the delivery of the projects being funded under the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

Horopaki

Context

6.       In May 2018, the Rodney Local Board (RLB) recommended that the Governing Body approve a targeted rate to accelerate investment in transport in the Rodney Local Board area. The recommendation was accepted, and the Rodney Local Board Transport Targted Rate (RLBTTR) is currently scheduled to run for 10 years (FY19–FY28). The Rodney Local Board is the decision-maker regarding funds raised through the targeted rate. Auckland Council (AC) receives the rates payments, and Auckland Transport (AT) provides technical advice and administers the funds on behalf of the local board.

7.       Rodney Local Board Targeted Transport Rate projects are focused on pedestrian/footpath improvements, public transport improvements and unsealed road improvements.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Funding & Allocations

8.       Table 1 indicates the revenue and expense actuals plus forecasts for financial years FY19-FY25. Revenue figures have been provided by AC and indicate the increase in SUIPs (eligible dwellings) over the term of the RLBTTR. Expense figures are calculated by AT.

Table 1: RLBTTR Revenue & Expense FY19-FY25, as at Feb 2024

9.       As expected, the cumulative spend is now exceeding the cumulative revenue collected. This will equalise over the life of the RLBTTR. To enable the allocation of funds ahead of revenue collection, AT Investment Committee approved the forward funding of the RLBTTR in February 2024, which will allow the Rodney Local Board approved projects to proceed as planned. AT will manage spending so there is no deficit in the fund at the end of FY28.

Footpath Programme

10.     AT is underway with design and/or construction on 27 footpath projects, as instructed by Rodney Local Board. The majority are running as planned, with exceptions detailed below.

11.     School Road, Kaipara Flats: A raised table was proposed for this location, however given feedback from the school and the low traffic volumes on this cul-de-sac, AT will construct a pedestrian crossing with no raised table.

12.     Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Coatesville: As instructed, AT aims to build a pedestrian crossing adjacent to the Glenmore Road intersection. However, vehicle speeds through this 60kph zone present a risk to pedestrians. To lessen this risk, AT is seeking to construct a raised table and to reduce the speed limit of this section to 50kph, however the latter change may be impacted by the upcoming Government Policy Statement on speed management. Resolution to this issue is subject to AT Board review.

13.     Wech Drive, Warkworth: No stopping/no parking lines were proposed for the southern end, however after feedback from residents, this is being reconsidered.

14.     Completed: AT has completed construction of footpaths across the Rodney Local Board area:

·        Riverhead: Matua Road, Tapu Road, York Terrace, Princes Street, George Street, Alice Street, King Street

·        Leigh: Pakiri Road, Leigh Road, Albert Street

·        Warkworth: Wech Drive

·        Wellsford: School Road, Olympus Road

·        Point Wells: Point Wells Road

·        Makarau: Ahuroa Road.

Unsealed Road Improvements Programme (URIP)

15.     Following instruction from Rodney Local Board (resolution RD 2023/1) and forward funding approval from AT Investment Committee, contractors have been instructed to undertake the URIP works on 9 unsealed roads, as per Table 2.

Table 2: URIP projects as instructed by RLB Nov 2023

Bus Improvements Programme

16.     Bus patronage in Rodney Local Board continues to grow significantly. Table 2 shows weekly patronage in February 2024, and Appendix 1 provides graphs of multi-year patronage.

Route

Origin-Destination

Weekly patronage as at Feb 2024 (approx.)

RLBTTR subsidy

126

Westgate – Albany

2,500 – 2,600

May 2019 – May 2022

128

Helensville – Hibiscus Coast Station

800

Feb 2019 – Oct 2022

998

Warkworth – Wellsford

600

Feb 2019 – May 2022

995

Warkworth – Hibiscus Coast Station

1,600 – 1,800

None

989

Milldale

1,100 – 1,200

None

17.     AT is progressing the planning for the new route 999 Warkworth loop bus ahead of passenger service starting in mid-2024.

18.     The locations of the new bus stops are being planned. These will then be subject to consultation with the local board and the public. Potential stop locations are shown in the map below.

Image 1: Map of Warkworth Loop Bus route with potential bus stops

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19.     The RLBTTR supports the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan, the Rodney Local Board Plan 2020 and AC priorities regarding mitigating the effects of climate change and reducing the council’s carbon emissions. The RLBTTR funds projects that enable better access to active and public transport, namely footpaths, bus services, bus infrastructure and community transport hub facilities.

20.     AT strives to provide attractive alternatives to private vehicle travel, reduce the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the contracted public transport network. Many of these projects support pedestrian and/or cyclist safety, therefore contributing to climate change actions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21.     AT has received updates from AC regarding the latest Targeted Rate revenue figures.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22.     The Rodney Local Board is the decision-maker for funds collected through the RLBTTR.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23.     This report has no identified impacts or opportunities for Māori. Engagement with Māori, giving consideration of impacts and opportunities for Māori has been progressed through AT’s Mana Whenua Northern Hui.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.     This report highlights the financial treatment of shortfall in funds, however this should not affect the financial position of RLBTTR, which will continue as planned.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25.     Any increases in the cost estimate in any projects agreed by the local board will need formal approval via resolution at a business meeting.

26.     The projects being developed under the RLBTTR Programme are subject to the usual project risks including scope changes and cost escalation associated with the development of detailed design plans.  To mitigate this risk AT will monitor, manage and report significant potential risks and seek approval from the local board on changes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27.     Auckland Transport will continue working on the programme elements previously resolved by the Rodney Local Board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Graeme Gunthorp – Programme Director – Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Beth Houlbrooke – Elected Member Relationship Partner (North)

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

 

Appendix 1: Bus Patronage

 

RLBTTR funded bus routes

 

Route 126 was introduced with funding from the RLBTTR in May 2019.

AT took over funding in May 2022.

 

Route 128 was introduced with funding from the RLBTTR in February 2019.

AT took over funding in October 2022 with the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR). 

Weekday frequency was increased in April 2021 from every 90 minutes to hourly.


Route 998 was introduced with funding from the RLBTTR in February 2019.

AT took over funding in May 2022.

Other Rodney bus services

 

Route 995 was introduced as part of the North new bus network in September 2018.


 

Route 989 was introduced to Milldale in November 2022. 

For the last three weeks this service has hit over 1,000 passenger boardings per week.

The 989 will be extended to serve more of the Milldale development from April 2024.

 

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement 

File No.: CP2024/02337

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on Auckland Transport’s proposed work programme for 2024-2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Transport is building a more structured and effective process for local boards to engage with and influence transport projects and programmes.

3.       At this stage of the Kōkiri (part of the Local Board Relationship Project), Auckland Transport is seeking formal views on the proposed work programme for 2024-2025.

4.       Auckland Transport workshopped the forward works programme with the local board on 22 November 2023 and 28 February 2024 to aid developing views on priorities.

5.       After the local board provides formal views, Auckland Transport will provide a response to the local board before delivering a draft local board transport agreement (Kōkiri) to June 2024 business meetings for adoption.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provides views on the proposed work programme on which projects the local board requests Auckland Transport to: 

i)        collaborate about the following programmes:

A)      Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects.

B)      Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate Funded projects.

 

ii)       consult about the following projects or programmes: 

 

A)      Unsealed Road Improvements Programme.

B)      Matakana Road pedestrian improvements project.

C)     Rautawhiri Road pedestrian improvements project.

D)     Warkworth Town Centre safety improvements project.

E)      Warkworth and Kumeu town centre parking reviews.

F)      changes and development of asset management policy or strategy.

 

iii)      Inform the local board about these projects or programmes:

A)      South Cove Wharf, Kawau Island deck, joists and piles replacement project.

B)      Schoolhouse Bay Wharf, Kawau Island piles replacement project.

b)      whakarite / provides the following projects or programmes for Auckland Transport to consider for inclusion in future work programmes: 

i)        Mahurangi East Road pedestrian crossing between Iris Street and Dalton Road.

ii)       replace Wellsford Town centre pavers with exposed aggregate concrete.

iii)      ​development and adoption of a Rural Roads design guide.

iv)      increased bus services and infrastructure throughout the local board area.

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

6.       In mid-2023, Kōkiri was initiated to build a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport (AT).

7.       The project was in part a response to the 2020 Review of Auckland Council’s Council-controlled Organisations which highlighted the need for local boards and Auckland Transport to work more meaningfully and collaboratively.

8.       AT has taken steps to improve information flow and local board decision-making, including:

·        instituting an annual forward works programme briefing for all local boards

·        increasing the number of updates sent to local boards

·        providing local board insights in all project engagement

·        participating in Auckland Council’s CCO Engagement Plan reporting.

9.       Auckland Transport aims to provide a better basis for communication and understanding of roles, responsibilities, limitations, and opportunities. 

10.     The overall purpose of this process is to identify local board interest in AT projects and programmes and to clearly express the preferred levels of local board engagement.

11.     The levels of engagement are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) doctrine; and are as follows:

Collaboration

AT and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible

Consultation

AT leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, AT incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; and if it is not able to provides clear reasons for that decision

Informing

AT leads the project or programme informing the local board about progress. Local board members may be asked to provide their local knowledge and insight by AT, however there is no expectation that the project must be modified based on that input

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     AT first provided quality advice on the forward works programme at a workshop on 22 November 2023.

13.     The local board has continued to workshop the forward works programme with their Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Partner on 28 February 2024.

14.     This report seeks to confirm local board feedback on the proposed work programme and seek views on how the local board wants to work together with Auckland Transport.

15.     Auckland Transport recommends that the local board prioritises work programme items aligned to transport goals stated in their local board plan.

16.     The local board should prioritise a list of projects and programmes for each of the three levels of engagement (collaborate, consult and inform).

17.     Auckland Transport resource is limited. Projects in the collaborate and consult require significant staff and elected member time such as:

·        providing quality advice, including technical advice on options and their costs as well as benefit analysis. Often this advice involves written advice and the opportunity to ask experts questions at a workshop

·        considering the advice, time is required for members to process and understand the advice provided

·        making a formal decision, i.e. feedback about a project or programme requires a report to be submitted and a resolution made at a public meeting.

18.     Auckland Transport recommends the local board reserves categorising projects in collaborate and consult for the projects of highest priority, such as local board transport capital fund projects.

19.     Other projects and programmes that may be at the ‘collaborate’ level include any projects which the local board has delegated financial control over either by AT, council or by another government agency like New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi.

20.     There may also be projects or programmes that a local board wants to deliver but is not currently identified in AT planning. Local boards may choose to advocate for these projects or programmes.

21.     There may be projects or programmes that the local board considers are not supported by the community it represents. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to express its community’s concerns about proposed work. AT will consider and may decide not to proceed with these projects based on the local board’s feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22.     AT engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities. 

23.     AT reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. AT’s work programme is influenced by council direction through Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.     In 2022, the mayor provided Auckland Transport with a Letter of Expectation which directed AT to improve the relationship with local boards, including providing more opportunity to influence decision-making. Specifically, that:

“The Statement of Intent 2023-2026 must set out how AT will achieve closer Local Board involvement in the design and planning stage of local transport projects that affect their communities.”

25.     AT’s ‘2023-26 Statement of Intent’ reflects this direction stating that:

“We (AT) will engage more meaningfully and transparently with local boards, recognising that they represent their communities, and that they should have greater involvement in local transport projects that affect those communities. This means a genuine partnership where we seek to understand the unique and diverse needs of each local board at a regional level, not just by project. We will work in partnership to integrate those needs into our planning. We will support local boards to communicate integrated local transport planning to their communities.”

26.     Project Kōkiri provides an annual process where local boards prioritise a group of key programmes or projects, identifying them to AT, and setting engagement levels that capture the local board’s expectations. This plan forms the basis for regular reporting on key programs and projects. Project Kōkiri will be supported by regular updates to provide transparency.

27.     Project Kōkiri was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance Division.  It has also been reported generally monthly to the local board Chair’s Forum and discussed with a reference group of local board chairs.

28.     Further, this work relies on historical engagement with both Auckland Council and with other CCOs.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29.     The local board had a forward works programme briefing on 22 November 2023 to receive quality advice on the programme. The response from both elected members and staff supporting local boards has been positive. They have been specifically supportive of the large amount and quality of information provided, the detailed discussion with subject matter experts, and attendance at workshops by AT executive leaders.

30.     There were additional workshops on 28 February with the AT Elected Member Relationship Manager to discuss the proposed programme and help support local boards to develop their views. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31.     Auckland Transport is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

32.     AT’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     This decision has no financial implications for Rodney Local Board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes.

34.     Local boards do have a transport budget through the local board transport funds, and these projects are included in this report. However, their financial implications are reported separately.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.     The proposed decision does carry some risk. First, the local board needs to be able to commit to the time required for the level of engagement requested. If decisions are not able to be made or are slowed down by local board decision-making, there can be significant financial costs to AT and therefore the ratepayer.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36.     After receiving this report, AT will review the formal feedback from all local boards.

37.     AT may engage with the local board directly after receiving their formal resolutions to clarify positions or to discuss the proposed levels of engagement.

38.     By mid-May 2024, AT will provide a memo outlining its response to this report. This memo will provide the basis for future engagement.

39.     In June 2024, AT will draft a report with an attached annual ‘Kōkiri’ (local board transport agreement) stating how AT and the local board will engage over the next 12 months. 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A -  Foward Works Programme brief (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Beth Houlbrooke – Elected Member Relationship North

Authorisers

Ben Stallworthy – Principal Advisor, Stakeholder Relations

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

 

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Local board input to Auckland Council Submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34

File No.: CP2024/02451

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To invite local boards to provide their views on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34 to inform an Auckland Council submission to the Ministry of Transport.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Ministry of Transport has released a new draft of the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 (Attachment A to the agenda report) for public consultation, replacing the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 released in August 2023. There are many significant differences between this version and the draft released last year which have been summarised in a memo to local boards circulated on 12 March 2024 (Attachment B to the agenda report).

3.       The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 sets out the government’s land transport strategy and priorities for the next decade and is updated every three years. It outlines what the government expects to achieve in land transport, along with how much funding will be provided and how this funding will be allocated across the different aspects of the land transport system.

4.       A key focus of the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 is the government’s direction on how $20 billion in funding from the National Land Transport Fund will be allocated over the next three years. Funding allocations are shaped by four proposed strategic priorities:

·        economic growth and productivity

·        increased maintenance and resilience

·        safety (particularly policing and enforcement)

·        value for money.

5.       The proposed funding allocations across the 12 activity classes in the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024, in combination with a much more directive approach to how funds in certain classes are to be used, will increase funding for the construction and maintenance of state highways and local roads, while potentially decreasing funding for several other aspects of the land transport system, including walking, cycling, public transport, rail services and infrastructure-based safety interventions.

6.       There are a range of significant implications for Auckland, both direct and indirect, along with the risk that some of the proposed changes may have unintended consequences. The proposal to require multi-modal projects to apply for funding from multiple activity classes is a reversal of the trend in recent Government Policy Statement towards more integrated transport planning, funding and delivery.

7.       Topics including equity, accessibility and Māori outcomes, which feature prominently in Auckland Council’s plans and strategies, are absent from the draft Government Policy Statement. The proposed approaches to transport emissions reduction and road safety also differ significantly from the previous edition of the Government Policy Statement as well as the Auckland Council group’s plans and strategies.

8.       Previous versions of the Government Policy Statement have included a commitment to a joint transport planning and prioritisation process with Auckland Council, such as the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. The draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024 does not include any mention of Auckland Transport Alignment Project or a potential Integrated Transport Plan for Auckland.

9.       A template for local board feedback has been provided (Attachment C to the agenda report).

10.     A summary of the key dates for preparing council’s submission is as follows:

Date

Action

11 March 2024

Memo circulated to elected members

20 March 2024

Transport and Infrastructure Committee Workshop on draft GSP 2024

22 March 2024

Staff complete draft submission and circulate to elected members

28 March 2024

Deadline for feedback from local boards

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      provide / whakarite local views on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34 discussion document as per the feedback template provided to inform the council’s submission.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Draft Government Policy Statement on land trasnport 2024-34 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Attachment B - Memo Consultation on the new draft GPS on Land Transport 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Attachment C - GPS Land Transport - Local Board Feedback template (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Rodney Local Board

20 March 2024

 

 

Local board Views on thirteen - Notices of Requirement from Auckland Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency for the Future Road Network in North Auckland

File No.: CP2024/02136

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To invite the Rodney Local Board’s views on thirteen Notices of Requirement lodged by Auckland Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency for the North Auckland Road Network. The Notices of Requirements seek to designate land for route protection.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       Each local board has a responsibility to communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area on Auckland Council policy documents, including Notices of Requirements. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board. [6]

4.       Under the Te Tupu Ngātahi Supporting Growth Programme, Auckland Transport, and the New Zealand Transport Agency has served thirteen Notices of Requirement on Auckland Council for the Road Network between Albany and Silverdale.  The Notices of Requirement projects include a new Rapid Transit corridor and 2 new stations (Milldale and Dairy Flat), upgrades to State Highway One, three new urban arterial corridors, and six upgrades to existing urban arterial corridors.

5.       The Notices of Requirements were publicly notified on 16 November 2023[7] and submissions closed on 14 December 2023. A total of 425 submissions were received across the thirteen Notices of Requirements, including from landowners, utility operators, and central government entities. The key themes arising from submissions include the Notices of Requirements timeframe for implementation, the Notices of Requirements extent, location and design, and construction effects.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide local board views on thirteen Notices of Requirement for the North Auckland Road Network.

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

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

Horopaki

Context

7.       Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on the content of these documents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents. [8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Notice of Requirement overview

14.     The Te Tupu Ngātahi Supporting Growth Alliance North NORs are a package of thirteen NoRs, lodged by Te Tupu Ngatahi Supporting Growth Alliance, on behalf of Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency. The thirteen NoRs seek to provide for future strategic transport corridors and associated infrastructure to support planned urban growth in North Auckland.

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


 

Table 1: Description of SG-North Package of NoRs

Notice of Requirement

Project Name

Description

Requiring Authority

NOR 1

New Rapid Transit Corridor North

New Rapid Transit Corridor between Albany Bus Station and Milldale, via Dairy Flat, including a cycleway and/or shared path

NZTA

NOR 2

New Milldale Station and Associated Facilities

New Rapid Transit Station in Milldale, including transport interchange facilities and active mode facilities 

NZTA

NOR 3

New Pine Valley East Station and Associated Facilities

New rapid transit station at Pine Valley Road, Dairy Flat, including transport interchange facilities, active mode facilities and park and ride facilities (NoR 3)

NZTA

NOR 4

State Highway 1 improvements

Alter Designations 6751 State Highway 1 - Albany, 6759 State Highway 1 – Silverdale, 6760 State Highway 1 – Redvale to Silverdale, and 6761 State Highway 1 – Silverdale to Puhoi for State Highway 1 improvements from Albany to Ōrewa

NZTA

NOR 5

New SH1 crossing at Dairy Stream

New urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities and State Highway 1 motorway overbridge in the vicinity of Dairy Stream, between Top Road in Dairy Flat and East Coast Road in Stillwater

Auckland Transport

NOR 6

New Connection between Milldale and Grand Drive

New urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities between Wainui Road in Milldale and Grand Drive in Upper Ōrewa

Auckland Transport

NOR 7

Upgrade to Pine Valley Road

Upgrade to Pine Valley Road in Dairy Flat to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities between Argent Lane and the rural-urban boundary

Auckland Transport

NOR 8

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Silverdale and Dairy Flat

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities between Silverdale Interchange and Durey Road in Dairy Flat 

Auckland Transport

NOR 9

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Dairy Flat and Albany

 

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Durey Road in Dairy Flat and Albany village, including active mode facilities and safety improvements

Auckland Transport

NOR 10

Upgrade to Wainui Road

 

Upgrade to Wainui Road to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities, between Lysnar Road in Wainui, and the State Highway 1 northbound Wainui Road offramp (NoR 10)

Auckland Transport

NOR 11

New connection between Dairy Flat Highway and Wilks Road

 

New urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities between Dairy Flat Highway (at the intersection of Kahikatea Flat Road) and Wilks Road in Dairy Flat

Auckland Transport

NOR 12

Upgrade and Extension to Bawden Road

 

Upgrade and extension to Bawden Road to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities between Dairy Flat Highway and SH1

Auckland Transport

NOR 13

Upgrade to East Coast Road between Silverdale/ Ō Mahurangi Penlink (Redvale) Interchange

 

Upgrade to East Coast Road to an urban arterial corridor with active mode facilities between Silverdale and Ō Mahurangi Penlink (Redvale) Interchange

Auckland Transport

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Figure 1:  SG-North NORs locations

17.     The proposed lapse periods reported by Auckland Transport, and New Zealand Transport Agency the Requiring Authority (respectively), for each project are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Proposed Lapse dates[9]

Notice of Requirement

Project Name

Recommended Lapse Date

NOR 1

New Rapid Transit Corridor North

30 years

NOR 2

New Milldale Station and Associated Facilities

30 years

NOR 3

New Pine Valley East Station and Associated Facilities

30 years

NOR 4

State Highway 1 improvements

N/A – Designations 6751, 6759, 6760 and 6761 have already been given effect to

 

NOR 5

New SH1 crossing at Dairy Stream

30 years

NOR 6

New Connection between Milldale and Grand Drive

30 years

NOR 7

Upgrade to Pine Valley Road

30 years

NOR 8

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Silverdale and Dairy Flat

20 years

NOR 9

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Dairy Flat and Albany

 

30 years

NOR 10

Upgrade to Wainui Road

 

20 years

NOR 11

New connection between Dairy Flat Highway and Wilks Road

 

25 years

NOR 12

Upgrade and Extension to Bawden Road

 

30 years

NOR 13

Upgrade to East Coast Road between Silverdale and

 Ō Mahurangi Penlink (Redvale) Interchange

30 years

 

18.     The NoRs include technical reports that evaluate:

·        landscape and visual effects

·        urban design

·        construction noise and vibration

·        operational traffic noise and vibration

·        transport effects

·        flooding effects

·        archaeological and heritage effects

·        arboricultural effects

·        ecological effects.

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

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

·     technical reports supplied by the applicant

·     submissions

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

21.     Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency requested that the NoRs be publicly notified. The NoRs were publicly notified on 16 November 2023 and submissions closed on 14 December 2023.

Themes from submissions received

22.     A total of 432 submissions were received as shown in Table 2. This includes four late submissions.

Table 2: Submissions received on NoRs

 

NoR Description

Number of Submissions

NOR 1

New Rapid Transit Corridor North

101

NOR 2

New Milldale Station and Associated Facilities

15

NOR 3

New Pine Valley East Station and Associated Facilities

15

NOR 4

State Highway 1 improvements

46

NOR 5

New SH1 crossing at Dairy Stream

21

NOR 6

New Connection between Milldale and Grand Drive

11

NOR 7

Upgrade to Pine Valley Road

17

NOR 8

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Silverdale and Dairy Flat

62

NOR 9

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Dairy Flat and Albany

 

29

NOR 10

Upgrade to Wainui Road

 

14

NOR 11

New connection between Dairy Flat Highway and Wilks Road

 

22

NOR 12

Upgrade and Extension to Bawden Road

 

43

NOR 13

Upgrade to East Coast Road between Silverdale/ Ō Mahurangi Penlink (Redvale) Interchange

 

36

 

TOTAL

432

 

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

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

NoR

Number of Submissions

Support / Support in part or with amendments

Neutral / Unclear

Oppose / Oppose in part

NOR 1

New Rapid Transit Corridor North

101

6

3

92

NOR 2

New Milldale Station and Associated Facilities

15

 

4

11

NOR 3

New Pine Valley East Station and Associated Facilities

15

 

3

12

NOR 4

State Highway 1 improvements

46

5

11

30

NOR 5

New SH1 crossing at Dairy Stream

21

1

2

18

NOR 6

New Connection between Milldale and Grand Drive

11

1

2

8

NOR 7

Upgrade to Pine Valley Road

17

3

2

12

NOR 8

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Silverdale and Dairy Flat

62

3

4

55

NOR 9

Upgrade to Dairy Flat Highway between Dairy Flat and Albany

 

29

3

7

19

NOR 10

Upgrade to Wainui Road

 

14

 

3

11

NOR 11

New connection between Dairy Flat Highway and Wilks Road

 

22

3

3

16

NOR 12

Upgrade and Extension to Bawden Road

 

43

2

2

39

NOR 13

Upgrade to East Coast Road between Silverdale/ Ō Mahurangi Penlink (Redvale) Interchange

 

36

5

11

20

TOTAL

432

32

57

343

 

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

·        the extent and alignment of the NoRs

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

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

·        questions over traffic modelling used

·        concerns about how properties will be accessed.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

27.     The local board could consider if the NoRs:

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28.     Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency are the requiring authorities that have lodged the NoRs.

29.     Watercare have submitted on the NoRs. Watercare neither supports or opposes these NoRs (i.e. it is neutral as to whether the NoRs are confirmed or not). Watercare seeks to ensure that any decisions made avoids, remedies, or mitigates potential adverse effects on Watercare’s ability to provide water and wastewater services now and in the future. Watercare seeks continued engagement with the Requiring Authorities on the NORs planning and supports a collaborative approach to delivery of assets in the shared utility corridors. The submission proposes amendments to the NOR conditions in regard to engagement with relevant stakeholders

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

31.     The council’s Plans and Places department have specialists and consultants within the project team for arboriculture, archaeology, built heritage, open space, landscape, urban design, ecology, noise, and transportation who will contribute to the reporting planner’s hearing report. Regarding open space, the council’s Parks and Community Facilities department have submitted on NOR1 (161 Ahutoetoe Road, Pine Valley). The matters raised will be addressed in the s42A report by council’s open space consultant.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

•          interests and preferences of people in local board area

•          well-being of communities within the local board area

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

•          responsibilities and operation of the local board.

34.     Te Tupu Ngātahi Supporting Growth Alliance have advised that they engaged with the Rodney Local Board on several occasions when developing the Detailed Business Case in 2022 and that they have provided regular updates to the local board on the NoR projects for North.  

35.     Feedback at that stage is informal.  Restrictions on delegations prevent informal feedback from being the views of the local board[10].