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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 28 March 2024

9:30am

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
6-8 Munroe Lane
Albany
Auckland 0632 and Via Microsoft Teams

 

Upper Harbour Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Anna Atkinson

 

Deputy Chairperson

Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP

 

Members

Callum Blair

Kyle Parker

 

John Mclean

Sylvia Yang

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Max Wilde

Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

 

20 March 2024

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 4142684

Email: Max.Wilde@AucklandCouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 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     Upper Waitematā Ecology Network - Introduction                                           5

8.2     Greenhithe Ecology Network and Greenhithe Community Trust - Annual update.                                                                                                                   6

8.3     Habitat Hobsonville and Living Whenuapai - Annual update.                        6

8.4     Te Hōnonga a Iwi - Annual update.                                                                    7

8.5     Hobsonville Community Trust - Proposal for a Community Facility Whenuapai                                                                                                                                7

8.6     Asian Family Services - Redefining Inclusivity: Empowering Diverse Leadership and Community Engagement in Upper Harbour                          8

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                                                      8

9.1     Jason Lister - Advocating for Homeless at Hooton Reserve                          9

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business                                                              9

11        Project Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement                                                                                                                  11

12        Representation review and local board reorganisation                                          19

13        Representation project - issues specific to the Upper Harbour Local Board      35

14        Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards                                                        45

15        Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland                                                                                                                                       53

16        Local board input to Auckland Council Submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-34                                                                      65

17        Update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan - Mar 2024) and CCO Engagement Plans                                                                    67

18        Hōtaka Kaupapa / Governance forward work calendar                                          77

19        Workshop records                                                                                                       81

20        Auckland Transport - West Hub Bulletin                                                                  89

21        Local Board Members' Reports - March 2024                                                        121

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

 

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

The Chairperson will open the meeting with a Karakia.

 

 

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 22 February 2024, 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 Upper Harbour 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       Upper Waitematā Ecology Network - Introduction

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an introduction from the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Tim Johnson, representing the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network, will be in attendance to provide an introduction to the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network .

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the deputation from Tim Johnson, on behalf of the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network and thank him for his attendance and presentation.

 

Attachments

a          Upper Waitematā Ecology Network presentation........................................ 127

 

 

8.2       Greenhithe Ecology Network and Greenhithe Community Trust - Annual update.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update from the Greenhithe Ecology Network and Greenhithe Community Trust.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Nicola Robertson, representing the Greenhithe Ecology Network and Greenhithe Community Trust, will be in attendance to provide an update on the Greenhithe Ecological Network and Greenhithe Community Trust. .

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the deputation from Nicola Robertson, representing Greenhithe Ecology Network and Greenhithe Community Trust and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

 

Attachments

a          Greenhithe Ecology Network presentation.................................................. 129

 

 

8.3       Habitat Hobsonville and Living Whenuapai - Annual update.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update from Habitat Hobsonville and Living Whenuapai. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Annette Mitchell, representing Habitat Hobsonville and Living Whenuapai, will be in attendance to provide an update on Living Whenuapai.

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the deputation from Annette Mitchell, representing Habitat Hobsonville and Living Whenuapai and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

 

Attachments

a          Habitat Hobsonville and Living Whenuapai presentation............................ 137

 

 

8.4       Te Hōnonga a Iwi - Annual update.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update from Te Hōnonga a Iwi.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Nicky Shave, representing Te Hōnonga a Iwi will be in attendance to provide an update on Te Hōnonga a Iwi.

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the deputation from Nicky Shave, representing Te Hōnonga a Iwi and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

 

Attachments

a          Te Hōnonga a Iwi presentation.................................................................... 145

 

 

8.5       Hobsonville Community Trust - Proposal for a Community Facility Whenuapai

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update from the Hobsonville Community Trust on a proposal for developing a Hobsonville Community Trust owned and managed facility in Whenuapai.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Gavin Gunston, Organisational Leader Hobsonville Community Trust and Ian Dalziell, Chairperson Hobsonville Community Trust, representing the Hobsonville Community Trust, will be in attendance to provide an update on a proposal for developing a Hobsonville Community Trust owned and managed facility in Whenuapai. 

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the deputation from Gavin Gunston, Organisational Leader Hobsonville Community Trust and Ian Dalziell, Chairperson Hobsonville Community Trust, representing the Hobsonville Community Trust, and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

 

 

 

8.6       Asian Family Services - Redefining Inclusivity: Empowering Diverse Leadership and Community Engagement in Upper Harbour

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update from Asian Family Services highlighting the importance of making inclusivity a guiding principle in our policies and practices. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Ivan Yeo, Deputy Director, Asian Family Services, representing Asian Family Services, will be in attendance to provide an update highlighting the importance of making inclusivity a guiding principle in our policies and practices. This involves ensuring that our local leadership reflects our community's diversity, enhancing strategies for inclusive community engagement, and taking proactive steps to redefine inclusivity in Upper Harbour. These actions will empower diverse leadership, support new migrants, and foster meaningful dialogue, creating a more vibrant and inclusive community for all.

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the deputation from Ivan Yeo, Deputy Director, Asian Family Services, representing Asian Family Services and thank him for his attendance and presentation.

 

Attachments

a          Asian Family Services - Redefining Inclusivity presentation....................... 151

 

 

 

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.

 

9.1       Jason Lister - Advocating for Homeless at Hooton Reserve

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Jason Lister will be in attendance to address the board advocating for homeless at Hooton Reserve.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the presentation from Jason Lister and thank him for his attendance.

 

Attachments

a          Hooton Reserve presentation....................................................................... 165

 

 

 

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.”

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Project Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement

File No.: CP2024/01196

 

  

 

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 Project 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 2 November 2023 and 7 March 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

i)        collaborate

ii)       consult

iii)      inform. 

b)      whakarite / provide any projects or programmes for Auckland Transport to consider for inclusion in future work programmes

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

6.       In mid-2023, Project 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 Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) Engagement Plan reporting.

9.       AT 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 advice on the forward works programme at a workshop on 2 November 2023. The workshop presentation is attached (Attachment A to the agenda report).

13.     The local board has continued to workshop the forward works programme with their Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Partner on 7 March 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 AT.

15.     AT 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.     AT 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 or providing formal feedback, i.e. feedback about a project or programme requires a report to be submitted and a resolution made at a public meeting.

18.     AT 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.

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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21.     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. 

22.     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

23.     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.”

24.     AT’s ‘2023-2026 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.”

25.     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.

26.     Project Kōkiri was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance Division and it has also been reported generally monthly to the Local Board Chair’s Forum.

27.     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

28.     The local board had a forward works programme briefing on 2 November 2023 to receive advice on the programme.

29.     The AT Elected Member Relationship Partner delivered a workshop to the local board on 7 March 2024, offering insights on the three levels of engagement: collaborate, consult, and inform.

30.     During the 7 March 2024 workshop the relationship partner presented a preliminary list of projects and programs from the forward works programme, tailored to each level of engagement. The local board had the opportunity to prioritise, add, or remove items from this draft list.

31.     There is an advocacy section where the local board could identify and include projects that are not currently part of the AT Forward Work Programme. The local board have actively engaged in identifying these additional initiatives.

32.     The local board expressed the need for a separate session to deliberate on the proposed program and discuss their priorities which was held on 12 March 2024 and the following list of local board priorities was discussed:

·    projects on the proposed Auckland Transport Forward Work Programme which the local board request collaboration:

Stage 1 Oteha Valley Road Shared Path Cycleway and connection/crossing

Stage 3 (southern side) of Oteha Valley Road Shared Path Cycleway and connection/crossing

Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project

·    projects on the proposed Auckland Transport Forward Work Programme which the local board request consultation:

Katoa, Ka Ora implementation (speed management plan)

Hobsonville Road cycleway connection

Albany Highway cycleway connection

Park and Ride bookable spaces

Oteha Valley Road footpath renewal

Upper Harbour Drive footpath renewal

·    the local board request that they are kept informed on all projects being planned or delivered in the Upper Harbour Local Board that are in the Auckland Transport Forward Work Programme

·    projects or programmes currently not on the proposed Auckland Transport Forward Work Programme for AT to consider for inclusion in future work programmes as follows:

Community Initiated Engineering Programme

Pedestrian crossings

§ Kauri Road to Puriri Road, Whenuapai

§ Clark Road Scott Point - judder bar upgrade to existing pedestrian crossing

§ Launch Road, Hobsonville

Footpaths

§ Puriri Road foot path renewal

§ new footpath on Kauri Road

Installation of a shared path on the eastern part of Oteha Valley Road

Installation of safety barriers along Kyle Road, Greenhithe

Road Safety Programme

addressing the following dangerous intersections

§ Wiseley Road and Hobsonville Road

§ Albany Highway and Upper Harbour Drive

§ The Avenue and Dairy Flat Highway 

§ Brigham Creek Road and Hobsonville Road

§ Kauri Road and Brigham Creek Road

§ Te Rito Road and Clark Road

§ Scott road and Clark Road

§ Unsworth Drive and Albany Highway

addressing the following dangerous road corridor

§ Albany Highway from State Highway 18 to Sunset Road

Road Corridor Renewals

renewal of the eroded section of Greenhithe Road from the on ramp to the first roundabout with asphalt

Capital Projects

Gills Link Road project

Public Transport Minor Projects

public transport services

§ Public Transport service for Gills Road/Albany Heights

§ Public Transport service for Scott Point

§ Improvements to the network for Whenuapai Buses

§ bus route 883 service to be rerouted to stop and pick up Kyle Road residents

Bus shelters

§ Totara Road Bus stop 5928 and 5929

§ Puriri Road Bus stop

§ Bus stop 4361 on Oteha Valley Road

Parking

Yellow no parking lines in the following locations

§ Lucia Place in Unsworth Heights

§ Scott Point School

Sustainable Mobility

request for increased motor bike parking at Park and rides in local board area

Other

advocate for planting of more road corridors

33.     Some projects on the proposed Auckland Transport Forward Work Programme will be impacted from the disestablishment of the regional fuel tax. AT is currently working through the projects and will not be able to release those findings until they have been assessed against the draft Regional Land Transport Plan.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.     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.

35.     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 mātāwaka 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

36.     This decision has no financial implications for the Upper Harbour Local Board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes.

37.     Local boards do have a transport budget through the local board transport capital 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

38.     The proposed decision does carry some risk. 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

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

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

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

42.     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

Upper Harbour Forward Work Programme Briefing presentation. (Under Separate Cover)

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Partner

Ben Stallworthy – Principal Advisor, Stakeholder Relations

Robert Marshall - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Representation review and local board reorganisation

File No.: CP2024/02580

 

  

 

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 reorganisation.

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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation plan.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour 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 reorganisation plan noting that Governing Body has supported the development of a 15 local board model as described in this report.

c)      tautoko / support a reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation plan, the Local Government Commission will consider the approval of the reorganisation plan parallel with any appeals and objections to the council’s proposal for representation arrangements for the 2025 elections. If it approves the reorganisation plan then the contents of the Order in Council relating to the reorganisation 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.

Reorganisation plan

Legislative requirements

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

21.     The process involves a unitary authority adopting a reorganisation 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 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 Subdivision

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 LB, requiring two different reserve management plans

Investigated. Problem is due to a large mesh-block. Solution is to split the mesh-block 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. 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 reorganisation: 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 board on 28 February 2024.

Upper-Harbour

Create subdivisions

Investigated possible subdivisions for compliance and seems ok.

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 ward. This was corrected by shrinking the Waitematā and Gulf ward 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.

Reorganisation 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 6 “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 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 boards that are not affected are:

·        The 2 island boards: Aotea / Gt Barrier, Waiheke

·        The 2 rural boards: Rodney, Franklin

·        Some isthmus 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 boards that are affected (amalgamated) or not affected.


40.     There are sound arguments that rural boards should not amalgamate (they already have very large geographic areas and their communities have different issues to urban communities). The island boards are geographically separate. The Howick Local Board is already one large board in a two-councillor ward. All the remaining 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 board that reflect the contributing 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 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 reorganisation 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 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.

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 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 board will align with the community of interest of the corresponding ward.  There will be a one-to-one alignment between all boards and wards (apart from the island 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 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 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 reorganisation affect local boards – for some boards the affect of the local board reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 reprioritisation 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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 reorganisation 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

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard – General Manager Governance Services

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Representation project - issues specific to the Upper Harbour Local Board

File No.: CP2024/02110

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on the representation project issues that are specific to the Upper Harbour 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 local board 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. This current report deals only with those matters that are specific to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

4.       The Local Electoral Act 2001 was amended in 2023 to provide for minor changes to local board boundaries when a representation review is undertaken. This makes it possible, for example, to adjust boundaries to align with ward boundaries or address anomalies along the border. A boundary change cannot result in more than 2,000 people being transferred.

5.       The Kaipātiki Local Board is considering a couple of minor boundary changes during the representation review in which the Upper Harbour Local Board will have an interest:

(i)         for the boundary that currently runs along the back of houses to the north of Sunset Road, rather than along a road, move the boundary further north to Goldfinch Rise, noting that this would lessen confusion for residents and would be consistent with how the rest of the boundary of the Kaipātiki Local Board area is defined by roads (except for an area next to the Kereru Reserve and where the coast is a boundary)

(ii)        there is an area within the Kaipātiki Local Board boundary which is part of the Kereru Reserve. The vast majority of Kereru Reserve lies within the Upper Harbour Local Board area; the boundary could be changed such that all areas in the Kereru Reserve are in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

6.       The Kaipātiki Local Board is also considering recommending a more significant boundary change should a local board reorganisation plan proceed, based on the model of 15 local boards:

(i)         A new amalgamated local board, which would include the areas of the current Kaipātiki and Devonport-Takapuna local boards, should include an area known as Unsworth Heights which is currently in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

7.       The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board wishes to align its common boundary with Upper Harbour

8.       The local board might wish to record its feedback on these proposals.

9.       The Upper Harbour Local Board does not currently have subdivisions. The possibility of creating subdivisions has been raised in the past but the current local board does not have a formal position. Should the local board wish to pursue subdivisions for Upper Harbour, the report presents an option for subdivisions that complies with the requirements in the Local Electoral Act 2001 for population to member to not vary by more than 10 percent from the average across the whole local board area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      kohuki / consider its feedback on whether it should be divided into two subdivisions.

b)      kohuki / consider its feedback on the proposals for boundary adjustments being considered by the Kaipātiki Local Board.

 

Horopaki

Context

Representation review

Subdivisions

10.     When conducting a review of representation arrangements a council must review certain arrangements for local boards, including the number of members, whether they are elected at large or by subdivision and if by subdivision then the names and boundaries of those subdivisions and how many members are elected in each.

11.     For subdivisions a council must ensure that the population per member does not vary by more than 10 percent from the average population per member across the whole local board area. A council may decide to not comply with this requirement if compliance would split communities of interests or join disparate communities. If a council decides to not comply, then the Local Government Commission makes the determination.

12.     A council must also ensure subdivisions provide for effective representation of communities of interest. The Local Electoral Act 2001 does not define the meaning of community of interest. The Local Government Commission has published guidance on the concept of “community of interest”. Essentially a community of interest has three dimensions:

(i)         A perceptual dimension – do people feel they belong to the area?

(ii)        A functional dimension – do people use the services in the area?

(iii)       A political dimension – will people in the area, and their needs and issues, be effectively represented at the decision-making table if representatives are elected by electors of this subdivision?

Local board minor boundary changes

13.     The Local Electoral Act 2001 was amended in 2023 to include the ability to make minor local board boundary changes during a representation review:

“19JAA Review of local board area boundaries by unitary authority

(1)     A unitary authority may, when it passes a resolution under section 19H, determine by that resolution not only the matters referred to in that section but also new proposed boundaries of local board areas in the district of the unitary authority.

(2)     In determining new proposed boundaries of local board areas, the unitary authority must ensure that—

(a)     the population affected by the new proposed boundaries will not exceed the population transfer limit prescribed by regulations made under this Act; and

(b)     the boundaries of the local board areas will—

(i)      enable democratic local decision making by, and on behalf of, communities of interest throughout the district; and

(ii)      enable equitable provision to be made for the current and future well-being of all communities of interest within the affected area; and

(c)     the boundaries of local board areas coincide with boundaries of the current statistical mesh block areas determined by Statistics New Zealand and used for parliamentary electoral purposes; and

(d)     so far as is practicable, local board area boundaries coincide with ward boundaries.”

14.     The limits to the affected population as currently described in regulations are 2.5% of the population of the affected local board with the smaller population or 2,000 people, whichever is the lower.

Local board reorganisation plan

15.     The adoption of a local board reorganisation plan is a separate exercise to the review of representation arrangements.

16.     The current development of a reorganisation is based on 15 local boards where those local boards contained within a ward are amalgamated. Discussion to date has been at a high level and no positions have been stated in terms of the detail of boundaries. There have been some suggestions from different areas in Auckland to make changes to boundaries, if appropriate, as part of this exercise.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Representation review

Subdivisions

17.     Following suggestions arising from the 2019 review of representation arrangements, that the Upper Harbour Local Board should have subdivisions, staff have looked at whether dividing Upper Harbour into two subdivisions would comply with the 10 percent rule.

18.     A map of possible subdivisions is as follows:

 

19.     The population table is:

Possible subdivisions

Pop

(2023)

Mbrs

Pop per mbr

Diff from quota

% diff

Upper Harbour Local Board Area

Eastern Subdivision

50,750

4

12,688

284

2.3%

Western Subdivision

23,670

2

11,835

-568

-4.6%

Total

74,420

6

12,403

 

 

 

20.     As can be seen, the subdivisions comply.

21.     In 2019 the reason for suggesting subdivisions was simply to ensure the Western subdivision had representation. If this is not seen to be a current issue, then the local board’s feedback might be to recommend that no subdivisions are created.

Local board minor boundary changes

22.     The Kaipātiki Local Board is considering two proposals for boundary changes under the review of representation arrangements for the 2025 elections which affects the Upper Harbour Local Board:

(i)         for the boundary that currently runs along the back of houses to the north of Sunset Road, rather than along a road, move the boundary further north to Goldfinch Rise, noting that this would lessen confusion for residents and would be consistent with how the rest of the boundary of the Kaipātiki Local Board area is defined by roads (except for an area next to the Kereru Reserve and where the coast is a boundary)

(ii)        there is an area within the Kaipātiki Local Board boundary which is part of the Kereru Reserve. The vast majority of Kereru Reserve lies within the Upper Harbour Local Board area; the boundary could be changed such that all areas in the Kereru Reserve are in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

23.     A map showing the Upper Harbour Local Board and Kaipātiki Local Board’s current common boundary is as follows:

 

24.     The first proposal is to move the boundary to Goldfinch Rise so that the boards have a boundary that runs along roads.  This would move some residences that are currently in the Upper Harbour Local Board area to the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

25.     The second proposal is to make a small adjustment in the vicinity of Kereru Reserve so that Upper Harbour Local Board has full decision-making for all of Kereru Reserve.

26.    

A map of this area is as follows:

27.     The boundary (red) runs along the back of residential properties adjacent to Glendhu Road. There is a parcel (green highlight), 14 Kereru Grove, which is not in private ownership but is part of the Kereru Reserve. It is proposed that this parcel becomes part of the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The properties to the left and right of the highlighted properties are not part of the reserve.

28.     No people would be transferred from one local board area to another. It would enable democratic decision-making by ensuring Upper Harbour Local Board has decision-making responsibility for all of Keruru Reserve.

29.     In order to achieve a boundary change there would need to be a mesh-block adjustment. Staff have made contact with Statistics NZ to alert them to the pending request.

30.     The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board wishes to make a small boundary change so that all of Saunders Reserve will be in Upper Harbour Local Board. Currently some of the reserve is in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board due to the size of mesh-blocks. A mesh-block will need to be adjusted through Stats NZ.

31.     A map of the affected area is as follows. The red line is the local board boundary and the green line outlines the reserve. Boundaries must follow mesh-blocks. A mesh-block needs adjusting to allow the boundary to align with the reserve.

 

Local board reorganisation

Unsworth Heights

32.     Should a local board reorganisation proceed whereby Kaipātiki Local Board amalgamates with Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and Upper Harbour Local Board amalgamates with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, the Kaipātiki Local Board is considering a recommendation to make a more significant change to boundaries.

33.     Specifically, it is considering a proposal that the whole of Unsworth Heights should be in the Kaipātiki / Devonport-Takapuna combined local board area due to it being a contiguous community of interest.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34.     None of the proposals discussed in this report have an impact on climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35.     There are no impacts on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36.     This report provides the local board with the opportunity to provide feedback to the Governing Body, through the Joint Governance Working Party, in terms of specific issues relating to the review of representation arrangements and a potential local board reorganisation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37.     The proposals discussed in this report do not impact on Māori differently to others in the community.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38.     There will be costs associated with Land Information New Zealand producing official maps of boundary changes. For the 2019 review this was around $12,000 total for all changes. These costs will be met from the representation review project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39.     In terms of the representation review there is the risk that members of public will appeal the council’s final proposal with the Local Government Commission making the final determination after hearing submissions.

40.     With the local board reorganisation there is the risk of community opposition, which would lead the Local Government Commission to not approve a reorganisation plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41.     Proposals that impact the Upper Harbour Local Board will be reported to that local board. All local board feedback will be reported to the Joint Governance Working Party.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Proposals for More Empowered Local Boards

File No.: CP2024/02582

 

  

 

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 Upper Harbour 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 2024 – 2034 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 Mātāwaka.  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.

38.     March local board business meeting feedback will be reported to the April JGWP.

39.     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

Authors

John Nash – Principal Advisor – Local Board Services

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Rose Leonard – General Manager Governance Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Local board feedback on freshwater management in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland

File No.: CP2024/02196

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback on the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report provides an overview of the feedback received through the second phase of public consultation to inform how freshwater should be managed in Auckland.

3.       This work is part of the programme to implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020, which provides national direction for freshwater management to all councils in New Zealand, and applies to rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, aquifers (groundwater), and springs.

4.       Consultation questions related to a wide range of matters, not limited to the proposed long-term vision for freshwater in Auckland, freshwater values and outcomes, how to look after ‘outstanding’ waterbodies, how to protect and improve habitats, and how to manage the increasing demand for water. There were 3,899 submissions. Responses by local board area are included in relevant tables throughout the summary of feedback.

5.       When the consultation was held (from 3 November 2023 to 4 December 2023), the Resource Management Act 1991 statutory deadline for council to notify a freshwater plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan was 31 December 2024. The government has since signalled an intent to amend the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 and has moved the plan change deadline to December 2027. A revised National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 is anticipated by the end of 2025.

6.       While there may be a longer-term impact on the council’s implementation programme, at this stage consultation feedback remains relevant and will inform any future work.

7.       Local boards have been provided with the consultation questions (Attachment A to the agenda report), a summary of feedback (Attachment B to the agenda report) and a local board members’ briefing that was held on Monday 19 February 2024. Additionally, the HaveYourSay website contains the consultation document, an online mapping tool, and a “state and trend” dashboard for the health of Auckland’s waterbodies.

8.       There is a separate and ongoing programme of engagement with mana whenua.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      kohuki / consider feedback received from their communities in the second phase of public consultation to inform implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland as outlined in Attachment B of this agenda report.

b)      whakarite / provide feedback on the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

 

Horopaki

Context

Why consult

9.       The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) directs the council to develop a plan to maintain or improve the state of freshwater in Auckland. In developing that plan, the council is required to actively involve tangata whenua (to the extent they wish to be involved) and to engage with communities.

About the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

10.     National policy statements are issued under the Resource Management Act (RMA). They allow central government to state objectives and policies for matters of national significance, which support the sustainable management purposes of the Act.

11.     Regional councils and unitary authorities are required to change regional policy statements and regional plans to give effect to the requirements of the NPS-FM. This applies to all freshwater bodies, including rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, aquifers (groundwater), and springs.

12.     At the time of consultation, the NPS-FM required that all freshwater outcomes must be driven by ‘Te Mana o te Wai.’ This describes the vital importance of water and establishes a priority order to support decision making, called the hierarchy of obligations:

·        First, the health and wellbeing of waterbodies and freshwater ecosystems

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

·        Third, the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, now and in the future.

13.     Auckland Council is required to set ‘ambitious but reasonable’ goals to improve the health of freshwater within a generation. Any further loss or degradation of wetlands and streams is to be avoided; restoration is to be encouraged. National bottom lines for freshwater health must be met, and a ‘baseline state’ for freshwater improvements has to be set, from 2017 if possible.

14.     While primarily concerned with the management of freshwater, the NPS-FM also requires an integrated management approach called ‘ki uta ki tai’, including consideration of the relationship of freshwater and freshwater management to the coastal receiving environment as well as the foreseeable impacts of climate change.

15.     The National Objectives Framework’ (NOF) contains a series of related requirements for the plan change process, such as setting a long-term vision, and identifying values. Each stage sets the foundation for the next. See Figure 1 below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.     The council needs to set objectives and specific, measurable targets to maintain and / or improve water quality and ecosystem health. Once a vision, values, and environmental outcomes for Auckland are decided, a baseline state, or benchmark in time, can be established for the attributes of Auckland’s freshwater systems. From there, appropriate targets can be set. Compulsory ‘attributes’ (essentially something that can be measured and monitored) relate to water quality, ecosystem health and human contact.

Impact of signalled changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

17.     When the consultation was held, the council needed to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) by 31 December 2024 and develop non-regulatory action plans to support improvement of regional freshwater resources, as soon as possible.

18.     In December 2023, the government signalled its intent to amend the NPS-FM and moved the RMA deadline for the plan change to December 2027, to allow councils time to implement the amended NPS-FM.

19.     The government has indicated that the process to complete a revised NPS-FM will take between 18 to 24 months and will include a robust and full consultation process with all stakeholders, including iwi and the public.

20.     While there may be a longer-term impact, the consultation results remain largely relevant and will inform any future work. Staff are currently assessing the potential impact of the changes on council’s planning and implementation approach, in order to report to the programme steering committee, the NPS-FM political working group, and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

21.     Since the consultation, the Court of Appeal has also quashed the NPS-FM exemptions for what were the Pukekohe and Horowhenua Specified Vegetable Growing Areas, due to inadequate consultation by Ministry for the Environment staff when the exemptions were inserted in the NPS-FM. The exemptions allowed for regional councils to set targets below national bottom lines in areas where vegetable production could be compromised. It is likely that the government will address this matter when developing revisions to the NPS-FM.

22.     High levels of contaminants in the Pukekohe area continue to be a concern and will need to be addressed in the NPS-FM programme.

How freshwater farm plans fit in

23.     Changes to the NPS-FM do not affect Freshwater Farm Plans, the scope of which is outside this consultation. Freshwater Farm Plans are a practical way for farmers and growers to demonstrate how they are managing the impact of their operations on the freshwater environment. They will be gradually phased in across Auckland from late 2024 and will be a key method for implementing the NPS-FM in rural areas, along with rules in the AUP, and non-regulatory action plans.

24.     Many farmers already have a farm environment plan or are part of an industry programme. Freshwater Farm Plans will build on that work.

How we consulted

25.     This is the second of two planned public consultations to inform implementation of the NPS-FM in Auckland. In the first, (June / July 2023) the council sought feedback to develop a vision and values for freshwater in Auckland.

26.     This time (3 November 2023 to 4 December 2023), the council checked back in with the community to get their views of proposed measures to protect, use, and allocate freshwater. There were 3,899 submissions.

27.     Respondents could comment on one or more of the consultation questions. Feedback was sought on a wide range of matters, not limited to; the proposed long-term vision for freshwater in Auckland, freshwater values and outcomes, how to look after ‘outstanding’ waterbodies, how to protect and improve habitats, and how to manage the increasing demand for water.

28.     Detailed background information was available for those who wanted it in:

·        ‘Setting our Direction’ – the consultation document

·        A geographic information system (GIS) online mapping tool

·        A state and trend dashboard about the health of Auckland’s waterbodies.

29.     The feedback form was translated into Te Reo, Hindi, Korean, Samoan, Chinese (simplified and traditional) and Tongan. Some information was available in New Zealand Sign Language on AKHaveyoursay/freshwaterakl

30.     Supporting communications began appearing in the week before the start date and ran throughout, utilising a variety of communication platforms – Our Auckland, mailing lists, radio advertising, local board Facebook pages, notifications on Linked In, etc. Feedback was submitted online through AKHaveyoursay/freshwaterakl, or collected by email, post, Auckland libraries, community partners, and the People’s Panel.

31.     Several events and activities were undertaken to encourage the public to have their say. These included:

·        Face to face interactions / ‘community drop ins’ at Auckland Diwali Festival (Saturday 4th / Sunday 5th November 2023), Clevedon A&P Show (Saturday 4th / Sunday 5th November 2023), Auckland Regional Waka Ama Regatta (Saturday 18 November 2023) and Grey Lynn Park Festival (Saturday 18 November 2023).

·        An online information webinar presented by subject matter experts (Wednesday 15th November 2023), available on AKHaveyoursay/freshwaterakl.

·        A community partner-led engagement programme reaching out to Auckland’s Indian, Samoan, Asian and Pasifika communities.

Local board feedback

32.     To conclude the consultation, local board feedback will be incorporated into the summary of feedback for consideration by the programme steering committee, the NPS-FM political working group and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee. The results of the consultation will also be reported back to mana whenua.

Other engagement

33.     The NPS-FM programme includes two separate and complementary streams of planned engagement:

34.     ‘In partnership’ with 19 mana whenua groups across Auckland, a series of hui have been held with mana whenua since 2021. Maintaining the current state of freshwater where it can be further improved is insufficient for mana whenua; degradation needs to be halted, and mauri enhanced.

35.     ‘Involving’ stakeholders with a high level of interest across industrial, farming, environmental, and commercial sectors, to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. Workshops with stakeholders began in 2023. Further input will be sought as the plan change is developed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

How freshwater health is monitored

36.     The AUP has a comprehensive range of provisions that aim to protect Auckland’s water resources, including objectives, policies, rules and other methods. In 2022 staff assessed the effectiveness of AUP provisions in meeting its stated freshwater objectives and concluded that while these address all the relevant matters, waterways are still degrading. This means improvements are needed[1].

37.     Regular freshwater monitoring is conducted as part of the State of the Environment monitoring programme. This includes monitoring rainfall, river flows, groundwater levels, water quality in rivers and streams, lakes and groundwater, and aquatic life and habitats in rivers, lakes and wetlands.

38.     Staff are working to improve monitoring coverage of waterbodies over time and have recently increased the regional lakes monitoring programme from five to 15 lakes. The river and stream monitoring network has also been expanded. The monitoring work will provide information to understand the current state (at any point in time) and long-term trends – both positive and negative – in freshwater bodies and in the ecosystems they support.

39.     The NPS-FM utilises this monitoring for grading state via bands, with A being very good and D (or E) being poor. The best monitoring information available is used, and several modelling tools are used to extrapolate results for the region. These tools help council and communities to better understand the extent of issues facing the region’s freshwater bodies.

40.     Water quality and ecosystem health is generally good at the top of river catchments, where the land cover is mainly native forest. As rivers and streams flow down from the hills, the surrounding land use changes, with less vegetation and more rural and urban activity. Water quality and ecosystem health is much poorer in these areas.

41.     Figure 2 is an overview of the causes of degradation in Auckland’s waterways. All of these pressures have impacts on what Aucklanders individually and collectively value about fresh water, such as being able to use waterways for swimming and recreation, harvesting mahinga kai, and protecting threatened species.

 

 

Known state of freshwater in Auckland

42.     Council is required to set a ‘baseline state’ for freshwater improvements. This is a starting point from which to measure river and lake health and assess improvements over time.

43.     Baselines are being measured for a range of water quality and ecosystem health attributes (the characteristics we measure). The baseline is usually set in 2017 to protect against any degradation since that time.

44.     Further information about the range of attributes to be measured is available in the consultation document.

Potential management approaches

45.     Council is aiming for one set of rules for Auckland, with integrated and consistent planning provisions. Bespoke and/or targeted management responses, processes, and provisions will be used where needed, to protect special sites and features.

46.     To achieve freshwater targets, council needs to improve how the activities that impact water in both Auckland’s rural and urban areas are managed. This will require a combination of both regulatory tools (rules in the AUP), and non-regulatory tools such as council strategies, action plans, asset management, monitoring, support for community work, incentives, and training.

47.     Management tools may include regulatory limits on resource use (land use controls, input controls and output controls in the AUP), as well as non-regulatory action plans and other voluntary measures (i.e. investment programmes, and actions by council). There may be some changes to the limits set on certain activities, and how progress is monitored.

48.     Several methods could be utilised, including:

a)      Stock exclusion / keeping stock away from waterways, wetlands, and off highly erodible land. This is one of the most effective tools for improving water quality and habitats. AUP rules and national regulations already in place for keeping stock out of waterways, do not cover many small streams in steeper areas, which contribute a lot of sediment and E. coli.

b)      Discharges to freshwater include stormwater runoff and dairy farm effluent. Council can put greater controls on discharges, to avoid them altogether or to ensure any discharges get the best treatment possible before they reach waterways.

c)      Riparian vegetation (the plants and trees along the water margins and banks) is essential for healthy water. It provides the cool, shady habitats freshwater ecosystems need. The existing rules may not be providing enough space for riparian vegetation to establish and thrive around waterways.

d)      On-site wastewater provisions in the AUP may need to be strengthened to be consistent with the performance standards in the council’s updated guidance document for on-site wastewater and address some of the consenting barriers to upgrading onsite systems.

e)      The existing approach to sediment-generating activities may also need to be changed, to prefer those that minimise land disturbance and have a greater soil conservation focus.

Proposed vison

49.     Council is required to have a vision for freshwater management in Auckland. The vision will become an objective in the AUP. This means that it will need to be applied in the policies and rules of the AUP, and to resource consent decisions.

50.     The overarching vision has been developed with mana whenua. It is ‘To protect and enhance Te Mauri o te Wai – the life-sustaining capacity of water.’ This aligns with the Auckland Water Strategy and responds to the feedback already received from mana whenua and the community about freshwater values.

 

51.     After community consultation in 2022, three Freshwater Management Units (FMU) were identified. They are the Kaipara FMU, the Manukau FMU and the Hauraki FMU (i.e. the combined catchment areas that drain to each harbour). Based on the characteristics, state and environmental pressures on freshwater in each FMU, council is also proposing specific local vision statements.

Proposed values

52.     The NPS-FM lists several values that apply everywhere and other values that council must consider for each FMU. Two additional values have been proposed, with reference to the first consultation on how to manage freshwater in Auckland. These are:

·     the importance of resilience for our freshwater and freshwater bodies, and

·     the value that Aucklanders place on amenity - that is, enjoying being near rivers, lakes and waterfalls without necessarily going into the water.

Proposed environmental outcomes

53.     For each freshwater values that will apply in Auckland, there are specified environmental outcome/s. The outcomes describe what we want to achieve for each of the values. There are particular outcomes for the Pukekohe Specified Vegetable Growing Area, the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area and the Hunua Ranges.

Criteria for ‘outstanding waterbodies’

54.     Outstanding waterbodies are the rivers, lakes and wetlands that are the ‘best of the best’ in the region. Staff are developing relevant criteria for these and for assessing available information relating to Māori cultural values and ecological, landscape and recreational values. The consultation document includes a list of proposed outstanding waterbodies.

Identifying primary contact sites

55.     Primary contact sites are freshwater sites that are known to be regularly used for recreational activities where people make contact with water, like swimming, waka ama and kayaking.

56.     Sites will be identified in partnership with Auckland’s Safeswim programme. Although Safeswim has historically focused on Auckland’s beaches, it now includes nine freshwater sites. There are 14 other potential freshwater sites that might be included, subject to further analysis and evaluation. Particular attention will be paid to human health risks at these sites. Stricter standards may be needed to reduce sources of contamination in these catchments, such as keeping stock out of waterways and upgrading wastewater systems.

Setting targets for improvement

57.     The targets which need to be set to improve freshwater [attributes] need to be set above national bottom lines. This is ambitious for some attributes, such as E. coli in freshwater.

58.     At this stage the approach will be to set long-term targets to improve all attribute states across the region where they are poor (C or D band). Where waterbody health is already good (A or B band), the approach will be to at least maintain the baseline state.

59.     Staff are working with vegetable growers to ensure that they are using best management practices as they produce vegetables. Other actions could include requirements to limit expansion of the area and have a cap on fertiliser application.

Fish passage action plan

60.     A fish passage action plan is being prepared to ensure that in-stream structures enable the passage of fish.

61.     Many native fish species need to migrate between fresh and salt water to complete their life cycle. Culverts and other barriers in streams can impede fish passage. New culverts need to meet fish passage standards.

 

62.     There are more than 4,000 existing barriers to fish passage in the Auckland region. Most of these are on private land. Staff are drafting an action plan to remediate these barriers, but realistically it will take time to replace these barriers with fish-friendly designs.

63.     Considerations include how to prioritise remediating existing barriers, catchments based on factors such as mana whenua engagement and initiatives, how to maintain existing high-quality habitat catchments, and how to support threatened species management. This will factor in a cost-benefit analysis, the presence of community groups who can contribute, and connectivity to the coast.

Avoiding the loss of wetlands, rivers and streams

64.     Only around four per cent of Auckland’s freshwater wetland ecosystems remain. Urban and rural streams and wetlands are at risk from reclamation, drainage, vegetation clearance and piping. The NPS-FM directs that council needs to avoid the loss of wetland areas, rivers and streams, and their values.

65.     In some cases, the council proposes to retain stricter rules in the AUP than those required under national regulations. For example, council could keep the 20-metre (AUP) setback for vegetation removal around wetlands instead of the 10-metre national standard. For rivers and streams, staff are looking at keeping the current non-complying activity status for river reclamation, which is more restrictive than the discretionary activity status set in the national regulations.

Water quantity and phasing out over allocation

66.     Existing water take allocations may also need to be reviewed. There are some over-allocations of water already occurring in the region’s aquifers. Revised flows, levels and take limits will need to ensure that water is available to reliably meet reasonable irrigation, pastoral farming, food processing, commercial and industrial needs.

67.     Under the NPS-FM, freshwater flows and levels in rivers and lakes must be high enough to support the health of aquatic life and ecosystems, even in times of drought. Currently, the AUP prioritises domestic needs, municipal water supply, and animal drinking water above other water uses. It could be more specific, for example making location-specific priorities for agriculture or horticulture where there is highly productive land.

68.     Demand for water is high in some parts of the Auckland region, and this demand is only likely to increase as the population grows and the climate changes. Managing the taking and use of water is especially important when water levels are low, as in times of drought, and in areas where the amount of water that can be taken out of waterbodies has been overallocated. Best available information suggests around 10 per cent of the region’s aquifers are over allocated. This may increase as flows, levels and take limits are revised.

69.     Work is underway to develop an approach for phasing out over-allocation, and to determine the time in which it will take place. When the plan change is notified, it will include further information about how and when this will take place.

Common themes of consultation feedback

70.     See Attachment B for a comprehensive feedback summary. The feedback form for this consultation asked people 22 questions, spread across six sections:

a)      Long-term vision

b)      Values and environmental outcomes

c)      Waterbodies where special management is required

d)      Achieving the vision and environmental outcomes for freshwater

e)      Habitat protection and improvement

f)       Water quantity

g)      Other feedback.

 

71.     There were 3,873 from individuals and 36 from organisations.

72.     In general, there was widespread support for all proposals, with the majority receiving at least 70 per cent support.

73.     The one exception was the approach to identify outstanding waterbodies, with criteria for Māori cultural values, ecological, landscape and recreational values. This proposal received 50 per cent support, while 38 per cent did not support it. Common themes in the responses included:

·     of those that supported the proposal, and provided comments, most commonly said they thought mana whenua should be involved as we should acknowledge Māori cultural values or agreed with the approach to address water quality issues

·     of those that did not support the proposal most commonly felt the plan focuses too heavily on Māori values, and/or were opposed to co-governance arrangements with Māori entities in general. A significant number of submissions received that expressed these views coincided with an external campaign by ‘Hobson’s Pledge’ These are reported on within the ‘individual’ submissions category.

74.     Common themes in the responses to each question are covered in the body of the report. However, below are some general themes found across all questions.

75.     Those that were supportive of the proposals most commonly addressed:

·     concerns for the health, quality, and sustainability of water resources

·     the importance of sustainable practices, climate change mitigation, and protecting our waterways for future generations

·     a desire to have improved plans and management of waterways

·     the importance of prioritising healthy waterways to support water consumption for people.

76.     Those that were not supportive of the proposals most commonly addressed:

·        concerns that the plan focuses too heavily on Māori values, and/or were opposed to co-governance arrangements with Māori entities in general

·        that certain aspects of the plan were unnecessary and/or a waste of time and/or money.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

81.     Subject matter experts from across the council prepared and peer reviewed consultation questions and supporting material, which was approved by the NPS-FM political working group.

82.     A memo to members dated 14 August 2023 set out the process for local board input. Members had the opportunity to attend briefings on the consultation content on 30 October 2023, and on the consultation feedback on 19 February 2024.

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

Local impacts and local board views

83.     Feedback received from local boards will be incorporated into the summary of feedback for consideration by the programme steering committee, the political working group and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

85.     Partnership with 19 mana whenua entities in Auckland is being undertaken through an on-going, jointly agreed engagement process, and is separate to this consultation. This process began in mid-2021 and is a core part of work for the NPS-FM. An important direction by mana whenua entities has been their exercise of mana whakahaere and rangatiratanga. The summary of feedback, including local board views will be shared with mana whenua.

86.     A range of mataawaka groups from across the rohe were invited to share their views through the consultation.

87.     Five per cent of respondents identified as Māori in the feedback received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

88.     There are no direct financial implications associated with receiving this report. The freshwater implementation programme, including the consultation, are factored into council’s usual budgeting procedures.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

89.     There are no direct risks associated with receiving this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

90.     Local board feedback will be included in a consultation summary for the Political Working Group and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation questions (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Summary of consultation feedback, including feedback by local board area (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Curran - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/02520

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide 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 on Land Transport 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 the 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide 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

Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024-34 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

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

 

c

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

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/02063

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the local board with an update on Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for Quarter Three (Jan-Mar 2024) as well as a general update on the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) Local Board Engagement Plans.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The 2022/2023 CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans were adopted in June 2022. These plans record council-controlled organisation responsibilities and local board commitments with Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland and Watercare.

3.       Council-controlled organisations provide local boards with the council-controlled organisation’s work programme in their area. Each work programme item lists the engagement approach with the local board, activity status, updates and milestones anticipated for the next quarter.

4.       The engagement plans expired in June 2023 and have not been updated since June 2022.

5.       The plans have not been updated due to:

·    impacts from the Annual Budget 2023/2024

·    disruptions from the Water Services Reform Programme

·    Auckland Transport’s work on local transport plans (Kōkiri)

·    lack of dedicated support from Tātaki Auckland Unlimited to support local board engagement and liaison following Annual Budget 2023/2024 impacts.

6.       The 2022/2023 CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans will be reviewed mid-2024.

7.       This report does not include work programme updates from Tātaki Auckland Unlimited or Auckland Transport.

8.       Auckland Transport will provide their work programme updates through the Kōkiri reporting in March and April 2024.

9.       This report provides an update on Eke Panuku and Watercare work programme items from January to March 2024.  

10.     The next council-controlled organisation quarterly report will be provided in June 2024.  

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the update on the 2022/2023 Council Controlled Organisation Local Board Joint Engagement Plans and Watercare and Eke Panuku work programmes for quarter three (Jan-Mar 2024).

Horopaki

Context

What are CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans?

11.     The 2020 Review of Auckland Council’s council-controlled organisations recommended that council-controlled organisations and local boards adopt an engagement plan to:

·    help cement council-controlled organisation (CCO) and local board relations

·    agree on a common understanding of accountability between CCOs and local boards

·    coordinate CCO actions better at the local level.

12.     These plans record the commitment between Auckland Transport, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, Watercare and the local boards to work together.

13.     Each local board adopted their 2022/2023 CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans in June 2022. These plans include CCO responsibilities and local board commitments.

CCO work programme items

14.     CCOs provide local boards with a work programme that lists the different CCO projects happening in the local board area.

15.     The work programme is not a full list of projects in the local board area. It includes work programme items for engagement purposes.

16.     The engagement approach is based on the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) standards which are provided in Table 1 below. Note that the “involve” and “empower” categories are not included in the CCO reporting as decided when the joint engagement plans were adopted.

Table 1: International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Engagement Approach Levels

CCO engagement approach

Commitment to local boards

Inform

CCOs will keep local boards informed.

Consult

CCOs will keep local boards informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how local board input influenced the decision. CCOs will seek local board feedback on drafts and proposals.

Collaborate

CCOs will work together with local boards to formulate solutions and incorporate their advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

 

17.     Local boards received the last update to the CCO work programme and engagement approach in October 2023.

CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans will be reviewed mid 2024

18.     The CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans expired in June 2023. The plans have not been updated since June 2022.

19.     The plans have not been updated due to:

·    impacts from the Annual Budget 2023/2024

·    disruptions from the Water Services Reform Programme

·    lack of dedicated support from Tātaki Auckland Unlimited to support local board engagement and liaison following Annual Budget 2023/2024 impacts.

20.     Auckland Transport is currently rolling out work which future engagement plans would need to consider, such as:

·    Forward Works Programme (full list of Auckland Transport projects in the local board area)

·    Local Board Transport Capital Fund

·    Regional Land Transport Plan

·    Local Board Transport Plans (Kōkiri).

21.     The CCO Accountability Policy will be updated as part of the next Long-term Plan which the CCO engagement plans would need to align. 

What are the next steps?

22.     The CCO quarterly reporting will continue to provide work programme updates from Watercare and Eke Panuku with the next report in June 2024.

23.     Local board staff will continue to liaise with Tātaki Auckland Unlimited on what engagement and reporting resource they are able to provide to local boards following their restructure.

24.     Auckland Transport will provide updates on their work programme through the Kōkiri reporting in March and April 2024. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

25.     The following sections provide an update on work programme items for Eke Panuku and Watercare. 

26.     More detailed updates to the CCO work programme are provided in Attachments A-B.

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

27.     Lot 6 and part of lot 5 - Hobsonville Point: Lot 5B - entered into an unconditional sale and purchase agreement with a development partner in January 2024.

28.     Eke Panuku’s work programme items are provided in Attachment A.

Watercare

29.     Whenuapai and Redhills – new gravity tunnel: Package 3 has not started and is currently delayed with updates on a revised timeline expected to follow.

30.     Watercare’s work programme items are provided in Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31.     This report does not have a direct impact on climate, however the projects it refers to may.

32.     Each CCO must work within Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework. Information on climate impacts will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33.     Local boards advise CCOs of issues or projects of significance, communicate the interests and preferences of their communities and allow for flexibility in terms of engagement, recognising differing levels of interest.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34.     This report on the CCO work programme items provides the communication of up-to-date information from CCOs to local boards on projects in their area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35.     This report does not have a direct impact on Māori, however the projects it refers to will.

36.     Local boards and CCOs provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to their decision-making processes. These opportunities will be worked on a project or programme basis. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37.     This report does not have financial impacts on local boards.

38.     Any financial implications or opportunities will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39.     Some local boards expressed concern over the quality of CCO work programme reporting in April and July 2023, in particular with Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport is currently working on a relationship project which has objectives to deliver:

·    an enhanced process to develop transport plans that reflect local board input and priorities

·    more consistent and timely reporting, updates and analysis on local projects and issues

·    improved support for communication and engagement with local communities.

40.     Auckland Transport will be reporting to local boards in March and April 2024 on priorities for local transport plans (Kōkiri).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41.     The local board will receive the next Watercare and Eke Panuku work programme report in June 2024.

42.     The 2022/2023 CCO Local Board Joint Engagement Plans will be reviewed in mid-2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Eke Panuku Development Auckland work programme update

73

b

Watercare work programme update

75

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Robert Marshall - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Hōtaka Kaupapa / Governance forward work calendar

File No.: CP2024/00177

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the updated Hōtaka Kaupapa / governance forward work calendar for March 2024 – May 2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Hōtaka Kaupapa / governance forward work calendar for the Upper Harbour Local Board is in Attachment A to the agenda report. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings, and distributed to council staff.

3.       The Hōtaka Kaupapa / governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:

·     ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities

·     clarifying what advice is expected and when

·     clarifying the rationale for reports.

4.       The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the Upper Harbour Local Board Hōtaka Kaupapa / governance forward work calendar for March 2024 – May 2024 (refer to attachment A).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hōtaka Kaupapa / governance forward work calendar for March 2024 – May 2024.

79

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Workshop records

File No.: CP2024/00179

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the records of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 8 February 2024 and Thursday 7 March 2024. A copy of the workshop records is attached (refer to attachments A and B).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the records of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on Thursday 8 February 2024 and Thursday 7 March 2024 (refer to attachments A and B).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board - record of workshop 8 February 2024.

83

b

Upper Harbour Local Board - record of workshop 7 March 2024.

87

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 





Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Auckland Transport - West Hub Bulletin

File No.: CP2024/00180

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Auckland Transport West Hub Bulletin for March 2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Transport West Hub Bulletin for March 2024 for the Upper Harbour Local Board is in Attachment A of the agenda report.

3.       The Auckland Transport West Hub Bulletin is a monthly update to keep the local board informed about what is happening in the local board area during the previous month and about plans in the future. It includes:

·     information about current projects being undertaken in the local board area.

·     a list of projects that are being consulted on.

·     other transport related information about the local board area.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the Auckland Transport West Hub Bulletin for March 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport West Hub Bulletin - March 2024.

91

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 






























Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

Local Board Members' Reports - March 2024

File No.: CP2024/00181

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for members to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on matters they have been involved in over the last month.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       An opportunity for members of the Upper Harbour Local Board to provide a report on their activities for the month.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive the verbal and written local board members reports.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 8.1      Attachment a    Upper Waitematā Ecology Network presentation. Page 127

Item 8.2      Attachment a    Greenhithe Ecology Network presentation.  Page 129

Item 8.3      Attachment a    Habitat Hobsonville and Living Whenuapai presentation.                                                  Page 137

Item 8.4      Attachment a    Te Hōnonga a Iwi presentation.                    Page 145

Item 8.6      Attachment a    Asian Family Services - Redefining Inclusivity presentation.                                                  Page 151

Item 9.1      Attachment a    Hooton Reserve presentation                        Page 165


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 








Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 









Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 







Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 














Upper Harbour Local Board

28 March 2024

 

 





[1] See AUP ‘effectiveness and efficiency monitoring reports’ at Auckland Unitary Plan monitoring