Agenda of Papakura Local Board - Wednesday, 24 April 2024

1 Nau mai | Welcome

A board member will lead the meeting in prayer.

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 Papakura Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 27 March 2024, as true and correct.

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 Papakura 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.

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

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport Update for the Papakura Local Board – April 2024	13

Papakura Local Board

24 April 2024

Review of the allocation table recording the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities

File No.: CP2024/04140

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board input into the current review of the allocation table, which records the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The “Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards” document (Attachment A) records the allocation of decision-making responsibilities for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council, as determined by the Governing Body. This document is also sometimes referred to as the “allocation table”.

3. The allocation table is being routinely reviewed as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process. In 2022, the allocation table was substantially reviewed to give local boards increased decision-making powers.

4. There does not appear to be any need for substantive changes to the allocation table at this time. Feedback suggests that some parts of the current allocations are not clear, and minor amendments can be made to support a better understanding of the respective governance roles and responsibilities between the Governing Body and local boards.

5. However, there is work needed on implementation actions to support the organisation to give better effect to the shared governance model. This is being advanced through the Joint Governance Working Party’s (JGWP) enquiry into the Mayor’s proposal for more empowered local boards.

6. Local boards are being asked to provide feedback on the review of the allocation table that will go to the Governing Body for consideration, prior to being adopted for inclusion in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) provide its input into the current review of the allocation table, recording the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) provides that both the Governing Body and local boards are responsible and democratically accountable for the decision-making of Auckland Council, and that where responsibility rests depends on the nature of the decision being made.

8. Section 15 of LGACA sets out the classes of decisions that the Governing Body make, and section 16 sets out the classes of decisions that local boards make. Both sections include a class of decisions in respect of non-regulatory activities of the council. LGACA requires that the Governing Body allocate decision-making responsibility for these non-regulatory decisions to either itself or local boards in accordance with the principles set out in section 17.

9. The “Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards” (also known as the “allocation table”) records the allocation of decision-making responsibilities for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council, as determined by the Governing Body. The allocation table is included in the long-term plan and each year’s annual plan. The current allocation table is attached at Attachment A.

10. The overarching intent of the document is to empower local boards to make decisions that reflect the needs and preferences of diverse local communities while ensuring that the Governing Body is able to fulfil its statutory decision-making responsibilities and make decisions regionally, where to do so will better promote the well-being of communities across Auckland.

11. The allocation table is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all allocated decision-making because of the broad range of Auckland Council’s activities and the nuances within those. Allocation of decision-making is therefore applied on a case-by-case basis, with the allocation table used as a starting point.

12. The allocation table was last reviewed in 2022 where substantial updates were made to provide local boards with increased decision-making powers, in alignment with the Governance Framework Review work.

13. The allocation table is routinely reviewed as part of every long-term plan process and included in the final long-term plan. However, changes to decision-making responsibilities can be made at any time via a new allocation decision (by the Governing Body) or a delegation.

Empowering Local Boards

14. Consequently, allocated decision-making will continue to be considered in the context of the “More Empowered Local Boards” workstream, which is being led by the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) and reported recently to local boards. This recognises that empowerment includes allocated decision-making, but that there are other levers to consider, including:

· delegated and statutory decision-making powers

· how well information and advice enable governors to utilise their powers

· the skills and knowledge staff need to give effect to the governance model

· whether updates are required to other policies, systems and processes to reflect more empowered local boards.

15. Local boards resolved their feedback related to empowerment at their March business meetings and this will be reported to the JGWP’s 6 May meeting. Feedback related to the allocation of decision-making responsibility will be considered within the scope of this current review.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Informal feedback on the current allocation table from elected members and relevant business units was used to identify the scope of the review. Feedback suggests that the allocation table is still leading to confusion around governance roles and responsibilities. In practice many activities require both regional and local decisions, and there is actual and perceived complexity in giving effect to allocated decision-making.

17. Aside from an anomaly related to disposal decisions, the current review does not recommend any substantive changes to decision-making allocation. Some amendments are proposed to the text to help aid interpretation and flow. These include:

· refining the introductory text

· minor wording amendments to help make more explicit the governance roles and responsibilities

· closely aligning activity descriptions to the Groups of Activities in the long-term plan.

18. A key focus is on implementing the allocation table to help the organisation give better effect to allocated decision-making in practice. This includes:

· reviewing other relevant documents that may require updates

· considering training and guidance needs for staff

· awareness raising through communications and engagement.

19. Local board delegations are also scheduled to be reviewed separately.

Further consideration is required for some parks disposals

20. An issue has been raised with decision-making around some parks disposals. Table 1 shows the current position in terms of decision-making around different types of parks-related decisions.

Table 1: Decision-making responsibility for asset acquisitions and disposals

Type of decision	Current decision-maker	Basis for decision-making	Current constraints / process
Acquisition
Acquisition of local community assets (e.g. local parks, local community facilities)	Local boards	Allocation	Subject to budget parameters agreed with Governing Body
Acquisition of regional assets (e.g. stormwater assets, regional parks, regional facilities)	Governing Body	Allocation	Decisions made by relevant committee (as per GB terms of reference)
Disposal
Disposal as part of land exchange	Needs to be clarified
Disposal of service properties	Local boards	Delegation (from GB – statutory responsibility)	Service property optimisation framework
Disposal of non-service properties	Governing Body	Statutory responsibility	Asset recycling programme

21. The report to the Governing Body in 2021 [GB/2021/67] provided the policy intent of the changes to the current allocation table which was to allow local boards to make decisions relating to acquisition of new assets.

22. Historically, disposal decisions have been treated as sitting with the Governing Body (as a statutory responsibility). But this is difficult in practice where local boards make acquisition decisions as part of a land exchange, but not the related disposal decision.

23. Work is underway to consider whether, from a policy perspective, local boards should be able to make both the acquisition and disposal decision as part of land exchanges, and whether this should be allocated or delegated.

Clarifying decision-making over stormwater activities in relation to local parks activities

24. Current landowner approvals processes for council-led stormwater activities do not align with the existing allocation table and the LGACA. This has contributed to inefficiencies where a part of council wants to undertake a stormwater activity on council land.

25. Council’s stormwater, flood resilience and water quality activities are generally regional in nature. As per the current allocation table, decision-making for all these activities sits with the Governing Body to ensure a coordinated, consistent approach across the network and integration with other regulatory related decisions. This position remains the same regardless of how the land is held – whether as a regional or local asset.

26. Under the allocation table, local boards are allocated decision-making responsibilities for local parks. Staff are not proposing any changes to the allocated responsibilities of local boards and consider that the explanatory note in the allocation table adequately explains how the overlap in responsibilities will be managed. This states “[t]he decision-making of local boards in relation to local parks may be constrained where decisions relate to council stormwater management activities, including the stormwater network”.

27. Under the local board delegation protocols, Land Advisory staff have been delegated responsibility for land use consents. Staff have interpreted this mandate to be broad, because of the broad responsibilities of local boards for determining ‘use of and activities within local parks’. The delegation protocols require that staff consult with local boards before making these decisions and refer the matter to them if the local board calls the delegation in as the “landowner”.

28. However, this is contrary to the LGACA, where decision-making responsibilities are allocated for particular activities (as opposed to categories of land) and the land remains owned by Auckland Council.

29. Therefore, in line with the allocation table, Healthy Waters, instead of Land Advisory, will now seek the views of local boards before taking a decision on whether to proceed with the proposed stormwater works. The experience of local boards should not be different to consultations over landowner approval applications. The only difference will be the local board’s ability to ‘call in’ a decision.

30. This revised process is consistent with the allocation of decision-making responsibility for stormwater activities to the Governing Body (and Healthy Waters under delegation).

31. When a stormwater activity is proposed to occur on a local park, staff will carefully consider the views and preferences of local boards and will be mindful of other local activities on parks when making decisions, consistent with the process previously undertaken by Land Advisory. Similarly, there is still potential for escalation of decision-making where the proposal is not supported by the relevant local board. Diagram 1 outlines this process.

Diagram 1: Decision-making process for stormwater activities

32. Staff recommend that this process be reviewed with local boards in six months’ time. Any issues arising will be considered through the next annual review of the allocation table or, through the local board delegation protocols which are due to be reviewed later this year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. There are no climate impacts associated with local boards providing their feedback.

34. Climate impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. Feedback was sought from relevant business units who give effect to the allocation of non-regulatory activities through provision of advice.

36. Key themes from their feedback are as follows:

· The need to be more explicit on the extent of the local board / Governing Body role, where there are overlaps and limitations are not made clear.

· Some activities could be further specified e.g. priority locations for development, place-shaping vs place-making etc.

· Work to ensure staff understand where decision-making responsibility sits, and how best to give effect to the shared governance principles in practice.

· More guidance and definitions would help to understand the nature of decision-making.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. Local board views are being sought through this report.

38. Local impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. There are no Māori impacts associated with local boards providing their feedback.

40. Māori impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. There are no financial implications associated with local boards providing their feedback.

42. Financial implications for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. There are limited risks associated with local boards providing their feedback. The main risks are outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Risk identification and mitigation

Main risks	Consequence	Likelihood	Comments and risks management strategies
Delay in adoption of the refreshed allocation table	Medium	Low	The allocation table must be adopted by the Governing Body by the end of May to meet the LTP timeframes. Careful project management is in place to ensure milestones are met.
Local boards are not satisfied with the scope of their decision-making powers	Medium	Medium	Local board views will continue to be considered as part of the “Empowering Local Boards” workstream. A range of levers will be considered as to how to empower local boards. This includes, but is not limited to, allocated decision-making.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. Local board feedback will be assessed to inform final recommendations on the review of the allocation table.

45. All feedback will be reported to the Governing Body for their consideration, before the Governing Body is asked to adopt the refreshed allocation table at their meeting on 30 May.

46. The allocation table will be included in volume two of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

47. Staff will implement activities that support the organisation to give effect to the allocation table. These activities include developing guidance, considering learning and development needs, and outreach to relevant business units via communications and engagement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council's Governing Body and local boards	27

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Christie McFadyen - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Papakura Local Board

24 April 2024

Local Board Views on Proposed Plan Change 96 - Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024)

File No.: CP2024/03756

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on the Council initiated Proposed Plan Change 96 – Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The Plan and Places Department prepare open space plan changes every two to three years to update the zoning of open space in the AUP. Proposed Plan Change 96 – Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024) (PC96) is the latest such plan change.

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

i) Rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space

ii) Rezoning to correct zoning errors or anomalies

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

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

5. PC96 involves 32 changes/groups of changes in 13 Local Board areas. A copy of the proposed plan change is in Attachment A. The change on Map 28 is relevant to the Papakura Local Board.

6. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board. This report is the mechanism for the local board to resolve and provide its views on Proposed Plan Change 96. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) provide local board views on Proposed Plan Change 96 – Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024)

b) appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on Proposed Plan Change 96 – Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024)

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

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

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

8. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views at the hearing on proposed plan changes.

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

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

11. This report provides an overview of the plan change, and a summary of submissions’ key themes relevant to the Papakura Local Board.

12. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board expresses its views on Proposed Plan Change 96 – Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024). The planner must include any local board views verbatim in the evaluation of the private plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

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

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

i) Rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space

ii) Rezoning to correct zoning errors or anomalies

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

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

15. Proposed Plan Change 96 involves 32 land parcels or groups of land parcels from across the region. Thirteen local boards are affected. A copy of Proposed Plan Change 96 is in Attachment A.

16. The proposed changes that have received submissions are outlined below, along with the relevant local boards.

Table 1- Proposed changes in PC96 that have received submissions & local boards

Submissions Received on PC96 Maps/Topics	Local Board
Map 1	Franklin
Map 2	Franklin
Map 3	Hibiscus and Bays
Map 4	Puketapapa
Map 5	Waitemata
Map 7	Maungakiekie – Tamaki
Map 8	Kaipatiki
Map 9	Mangere – Otahuhu
Map 10	Mangere – Otahuhu
Map 11	Maungakiekie – Tamaki
Map 12	Puketapapa
Map 14	Maungakiekie – Tamaki
Map 15	Upper Harbour
Map 18	Howick
Map 19	Howick
Map 21	Rodney
Map 22	Rodney
Map 23	Albert – Eden
Map 25	Maungakiekie – Tamaki
Map 28	Papakura
Map 29	Albert – Eden
Map 30	Maungakiekie – Tamaki
Map 31	Henderson – Massey
Map 32	Franklin

17. No submissions were received for Maps 6, 13, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26, & 27.

18. The proposed changes relevant to the Papakura Local Board are:

Map 28 – rezone 133R Settlement Road, Red Hill from Road to Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone

Figure 1 – Map 28

19. In the Section 42A Hearing Report, the Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· Submissions and further submissions

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

Themes from submissions received

20. Key submission themes are listed below.

Map 28 - as depicted in Figure 1 of the submission, Kāinga Ora seeks that the parcels of land at 133R Settlement Road, 11R Fulmen Place, 8R Redcrest Avenue, 16R Redcrest Avenue, Papakura be rezoned to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban, and that these changes are accepted and implemented in their entirety.

21. The submissions was made by:

Map 28 - Kāinga Ora

Table 2: submissions received on plan change 96 for Map 28

Submissions	Number of submissions
In support	Map 28 – nil
In support, if modifications are made	Map 28 – 1
In opposition	Map 28 – nil
Neutral	Map 28 – nil

22. Information on the summary of all decisions requested by the submitter is in Attachment 2.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

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

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

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

24. The rezoning of land at 133R Settlement Road, Red Hill has minor beneficial effects (i.e. it will replace road reserve with open space) in terms of climate change.

Implications for local board views

25. Table 2 provides guidance as to what the local board may wish to consider in forming any view.

Table 2 Relevance of climate change to RMA decision-making

In scope for RMA decision-making	Out of scope for RMA decision-making
Climate adaption issues such as: How should land be allocated to different activities when considering how climate change may affect our environment? How and where should physical resources be constructed? For example: · will sea-level rise cause inundation of land where development is proposed? · is the land in an area susceptible to coastal instability or erosion? · will Auckland be less- or better-prepared for flooding, stress on infrastructure, coastal and storm inundation? · is ecosystem resilience improved through ecological restoration or reduced by the loss of indigenous habitats?	Climate mitigation issues such as: · release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere · increase in emissions from private car use, use of coal fired or natural gas burners

In scope for RMA decision-making

Out of scope for RMA decision-making

Climate adaption issues such as:

How should land be allocated to different activities when considering how climate change may affect our environment? How and where should physical resources be constructed?

For example:

· will sea-level rise cause inundation of land where development is proposed?

· is the land in an area susceptible to coastal instability or erosion?

· will Auckland be less- or better-prepared for flooding, stress on infrastructure, coastal and storm inundation?

· is ecosystem resilience improved through ecological restoration or reduced by the loss of indigenous habitats?

Climate mitigation issues such as:

· release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere

· increase in emissions from private car use, use of coal fired or natural gas burners

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

29. Healthy Waters (where they are not the requester of part of the plan change) and Parks will review relevant submissions and provide expert input to the hearing report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. The proposed change on Map 28 is within the Papakura Local Board area.

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

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

34. A draft copy of the plan change was sent to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities on 3 November 2023, as required under the Resource Management Act. No feedback was received from iwi.

35. In addition, no iwi authorities made a submission on the plan change.

36. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. In terms of land proposed to be rezoned from Road to Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone, this will have minimal financial benefits. It corrects a zoning anomaly.

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

39. The bundling together of several rezoning proposals (there are 32 separate changes in the plan change) assists in reducing the costs per land parcel of the plan change and hearing processes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

41. The local board however, may choose not to pass a resolution at this business meeting.

42. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s) (Local Government Act 2002, Sch 7, cls 36D(a)). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

44. A hearing date and the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioner’s has yet to occur.

45. The planner will advise the local board of the hearing date and the decision on the plan change by memorandum, once the decision has been released.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment 1 - Proposed Plan Change 96 - Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters (2024)	43
b ⇩	Attachment 2 - Information on the summary of all decisions requested by the submitters (Papakura Local Board)	75

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Papakura Local Board

24 April 2024

Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board Feedback on the Fast-track Approvals Bill

File No.: CP2024/04394

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note the urgent decision with the Papakura Local Board feedback on the Fast-track Approvals Bill provided in Attachment B.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The government introduced the Fast-track Approvals Bill under urgency on 7 March 2024. Submissions close on 19 April 2024. The can be found here: Fast-track Approvals Bill 31-1 (2024), Government Bill Contents – New Zealand Legislation.

3. In December, the government repealed all aspects of the previous government’s resource management legislation except the fast-track consenting regime in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 (NBEA). This Bill will repeal that fast-track consenting regime and replace it with a new regime in a standalone act that is broader, enabling approvals ordinarily considered in other legislation, plus consents and notices of requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). A broad range of activities will have access to the fast-track process, including infrastructure, renewable energy, housing and mining.

4. The Bill upholds existing Treaty settlements and other arrangements such as joint management agreements.

5. The purpose of the Bill takes precedence over considerations in other legislation. Projects that are inconsistent with RMA national direction can be approved under this Bill, likewise approvals on conservation land inconsistent with conservation strategies.

6. The Bill prevents fast-tracking of certain projects, or projects in certain areas, such as national parks.

7. Projects will become eligible for fast-tracking through one of two ways – either because they are listed in the legislation or by the joint decision of the Ministers of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Transport.

8. The Bill omits any listed projects but the government intends the Bill to pass into law with a list of projects that can go directly on the fast-track. The process to nominate projects for inclusion was announced on 3 April 2024. The government will establish a Fast-track Advisory Group to provide advice on what projects should be included in the legislation.

9. Once a project has been referred into the fast-track process, or it is automatically eligible because it is a listed project, it will be considered by an expert panel. Notification cannot occur although Ministers and panels must seek comments from entities listed in the Bill (e.g. local authorities and Māori groups). Hearings are optional. Each panel must write a recommendation report and recommend relevant conditions (if recommending approval) 25 working days after receiving comments.

10. The joint Ministers will either approve the project (with conditions) or decline the project. Ministers may refer a project back to a panel to clarify any recommendation. The Ministers may commission additional advice or seek further comments from any parties.

11. Appeals on Ministers’ decisions will be limited to points of law to the High Court.

12. Applicants (except for listed projects) will be required to engage with relevant local authorities and Māori groups prior to requesting a fast-track process.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the memo to local boards and the urgent decision of the Papakura Local Board providing feedback on the Fast-track Approvals Bill in Attachments A and B respectively.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Memo dated 9 April 2024 providing an overview of the proposed Fast-track Approvals Bill legislation	79
b ⇩	Urgent Decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on the Fast-track Approvals Bill	91

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Lee Manaia - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Brent Catchpole
Deputy Chairperson	Jan Robinson
Members	Felicity Auva'a
	George Hawkins
	Kelvin Hieatt
	Andrew Webster

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20 March 2024: Papakura Local Board Workshop Record	99
b ⇩	27 March 2024: Papakura Local Board Workshop Record	103
c ⇩	3 April 2024: Papakura Local Board Workshop Record	105
d ⇩	10 April 2024: Papakura Local Board Workshop Record	107

Author	Rohin Patel - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager