Agenda of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 August 2024

Draft submission on New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan

File No.: CP2024/11071

Te take mō te pūrongoPurpose of the report

1. To delegate the final approval of council’s submission on Tā Aotearoa mahere whakaheke tukunga tuarua - New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 17 July 2024, the Ministry for the Environment publicly released the second emissions reduction plan (ERP2). The deadline for submissions is 21 August 2024.

3. Staff have prepared a draft council submission (refer Attachment A).

4. Staff from across the Auckland Council Group have helped develop the content. Houkura- Independent Māori Statutory Board staff and local boards provided advice and views within the limited time available for lodging a submission.

5. The draft submission signals support for government in its effort to reduce emissions, and identifies key points of improvement:

· more urgency and effort are needed to reduce gross emissions with less reliance on carbon capture from forestry

· increase alignment and coherence across strategies, policy, and legislation for a unified and more effective approach to emissions reduction and climate resilience

· move from a focus on short-term measures to a long term more ambitious focus on systemic change to achieve the level of climate mitigation needed

· collaborate and support the climate mitigation action of local government, small -medium enterprises, community, and Māori so that climate mitigation action will have greater impact

· make sure the proposed approach is fair, equitable and sustainable for vulnerable populations

· include key sectors like building and construction in the proposed approach

· integrate climate mitigation and resilience and make measures robust and cost-efficient.

6. The draft submission requires refinement and final checking before being finalised, approved, and lodged by 21 August 2024. Some local board views still need to be added.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) kohuki / consider the draft Auckland Council submission on Tā Aotearoa mahere whakaheke tukunga tuarua - New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan, included as Attachment A of this agenda report.

b) tautapa / delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, and a member of Houkura - Independent Māori Statutory Board to finalise and lodge the Auckland Council submission by 21 August 2024.

Horopaki

Context

7. On 14 March 2024 the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approved (refer PEPCC/2024/17) that Auckland Council make a submission to the government’s Emission Reduction Plan 2: 2026-2030.

8. On 17 July 2024, the Ministry for the Environment opened public consultation on the ERP2 discussion document. Submissions close on 21 August 2024.

9. The Zero Carbon Framework established by the Climate Change Response Act 2002, requires government to reach net zero emissions from 2050.

10. This occurs through emissions budget periods that place limits on emissions.

11. By the end of 2024 the second emissions reduction plan must be published outlining actions that will be taken during the second emissions budget period, 2026 – 2030.

12. The ERP2 discussion document outlines government strategy and action. The development of the actions in the ERP2 have been guided by two principles:

· least-cost transition, to remove barriers to enable rapid investment in a climate response that also grows our economy and increases productivity

· net-based approach, to meet targets by a mixture of actions that reduce our overall emissions, alongside activities that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. A draft council submission (refer Attachment A) has been developed. It requires refinement and final checking before being finalised, approved, and lodged.

14. The key submission points focus on emission reduction improvements that could be made. These also draw from the sector specific feedback outlined in the draft submission, including initiatives we support, and where the council recommends improvement. Highlighted is some of the climate mitigation action we are taking that government could be better support.

15. The key sectors covered by the draft submission are:

· Energy

· Transport

· Primary Industries – Agriculture, forestry, and wood processing

· Sequestration and non-forestry removals

· Waste

· Integrating climate mitigation and adaptation.

16. Overall, the draft submission supports government in its efforts to reduce emissions including:

· the five pillars of a robust climate response as outlined in the Climate Change Strategy:

infrastructure is resilient and communities are well prepared

credible markets support the climate transition

clean energy is abundant and affordable

world-leading climate innovation is boosting the economy

nature-based solutions address climate change.

· collective action to reach net zero

· regular monitoring and adapting our approach to meet emission budgets

· restrictions on the development of new forests on productive farmland

· retaining action from the first emissions reductions plan, particularly those related to improving the acknowledged impact of climate change on, iwi hapu and whanau Māori as follows:

establish a platform for Māori climate action to be developed with Māori

embed Māori partnership and representation

support development of a Māori climate strategy

activate kaupapa Māori, tangata Māori solutions

develop an equitable transition strategy.

17. The draft submission identifies key points of improvement:

· more urgency and effort are needed to reduce gross emissions with less reliance on carbon capture from forestry

· increase alignment and coherence across strategies, policy, and legislation for a unified and more effective approach to emissions reduction and climate resilience

· move from a focus on short-term measures to a long term more ambitious focus on systemic change to achieve the level of climate mitigation needed

· collaborate and support the climate mitigation action of local government, small -medium enterprises, community, and Māori so that climate mitigation action will have greater impact

· make sure the proposed approach is fair, equitable and sustainable for vulnerable populations

· include key sectors like building and construction in the proposed approach

· integrate climate mitigation and resilience and make measures robust and cost-efficient.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. Climate mitigation and adaptation action is a key part of council’s strategic direction. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan includes regional emissions targets: 50 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. Staff note the key emission reduction impact of the proposed ERP2 as outlined in the discussion document are:

· first emission budget, 2022-2025, would be achieved (margin of 6 Mt CO2-e)

· second emission budget, 2026-2030, would be achieved (margin of 1.7 Mt CO2-e)

· third emission budget, 2031-2035, would not be achieved (by an extra 17.4 Mt CO2-e).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Relevant subject matter experts from across the council have contributed to developing the content of the draft submission.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. Eighteen local boards intend to provide their views for inclusion in the submission within the short consultation timeframe. Local board views to date, are in the draft submission.

21. They provide a local context for climate mitigation and adaptation action, outline what is locally supported, raise concerns, items of advocacy and questions about implementation in communities. Some local board views still need to be added to the submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. Houkura- Independent Māori Statutory Board staff were able to provide their advice to assist the development of a draft submission within the limited time available.

23. The ERP2 discussion document acknowledges that : “Māori households are expected to be more affected than non-Māori households”. The draft submission notes the lack of clarity to mitigate this and supports retaining action from the first emissions reductions plan to:

· establish a platform for Māori climate action to be developed with Māori

· embed Māori partnership and representation

· support development of a Māori climate strategy

· activate kaupapa Māori, tangata Māori solutions

· develop an equitable transition strategy.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. There are no financial implications from the decisions sought. Existing budgets such as the Storm Response Fund, climate action transport targeted rate and Making Space for Water support climate action. Additional future funding can be considered in Annual Plan and Long-term Plan process.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. There is a moderate to high risk that the Auckland Council submission may not lead to improvements in the national approach to emissions reduction. This is partially mitigated by providing Auckland specific examples of regional and local climate action and the request for collaboration across level of government, community and iwi, hapū, whānau.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. Staff will work with the delegated group to finalise and lodge the submission by 21 August 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft submission-second emissions reduction plan

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Kataraina Maki - Chief Sustainability Officer
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 August 2024

Allocation of the Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant, FY25-FY27

File No.: CP2024/00393

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To allocate the Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant funding for financial years 2024/2025, 2025/2026 and 2026/2027.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant was established to support sub-regional or regional, non-council operated sport and recreation facilities that help increase Aucklanders’ participation in sport and recreation.

3. Grant criteria is aligned with the ‘Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039’. The plan outlines council’s approach to sport investment over the next 20 years.

4. On 27 June 2024, the Governing Body adopted the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2024-2034 (10-year Budget). The LTP includes a budget of $3,208,126 over the next three years (financial years 2024/2025; 2025/2026; 2026/2027) for the Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant funding.

5. In the current funding round, 37 applications were received. The applications requested a total of $10,336,919 from the available funding pool of $3,208,126 (three years’ total).

6. An independent assessment panel assessed the applications and recommended that 13 facilities receive an operating grant. These grants will expend the full $3,208,126, over three years.

7. A drop-in session was held on 22 July 2024, to provide committee members with information about the applications, assessment process and funding allocation recommendations.

8. Successful applicants will enter into funding agreements with the council that will include agreed outcomes and reporting requirements.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant funding allocation for the financial years 2024/2025, 2025/2026, and 2026/2027 as follows:

No.	Organisation	2024/2025	2025/2026	2026/2027	Total
i)	Auckland Hockey Association Incorporated/ North Harbour Hockey Association Incorporated/ Counties Manukau Hockey Association Incorporated	$105,000	$105,000	$105,000	$315,000
ii)	Auckland Netball Centre Incorporated	$155,000	$145,000	$143,126	$443,126
iii)	AUT Millennium Trust	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$150,000
iv)	Avondale College	$40,000	$40,000	$40,000	$120,000
v)	Badminton North Harbour Incorporated	$80,000	$35,000	$35,000	$150,000
vi)	East Skate Club Incorporated	$30,000	$30,000	$0	$60,000
vii)	Kolmar Charitable Trust	$185,000	$185,000	$185,000	$555,000
viii)	Netball North Harbour Incorporated	$40,000	$40,000	$40,000	$120,000
ix)	North Harbour Softball Association Incorporated	$20,000	$20,000	$20,000	$60,000
x)	Te Puru Community Charitable Trust	$177,698	$155,000	$147,302	$480,000
xi)	The Bruce Pulman Park Trust	$100,000	$200,000	$200,000	$500,000
xii)	The Otara Rugby League Football Club Incorporated	$25,000	$25,000	$25,000	$75,000
xiii)	The Waiheke Recreation Centre Trust	$60,000	$60,000	$60,000	$180,000
	Total allocated	$1,067,698	$1,090,000	$1,050,428	$3,208,126

b) tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the General Manager Community Wellbeing to prepare and execute funding agreements for all above grant recipients.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant (the operating grant) was established to support sub-regional or regional, non-council operated, sport and recreation facilities that help increase Aucklanders’ participation in sport and recreation.

10. The operating grant is a contestable fund that focuses primarily on facilities that fill network gaps and provide easy and affordable community access for population groups with low participation rates in sports and recreation. The operating grant supports facilities that require an operational subsidy to sustain and improve ongoing operations.

11. Low participant/inactive communities include, but are not limited to:

· high-deprivation communities

· females

· tamariki

· rangatahi

· disability groups

12. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant guidelines outline key information about the grant and funding priorities (Attachment A).

13. Decision-making for this contestable operating grant sits with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

14. On 22 July 2024, a drop-in session was held to provide committee members with information about the applications, assessment process, and funding allocation recommendations.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 which was adopted on 27 June 2024, includes a budget, subject to annual confirmation, for the operating grant as follows:

· Financial year 2024/2025 - $1,067,698

· Financial year 2025/2026 - $1,069,356

· Financial year 2026/2027 - $1,071,072

16. The 2025-2027 funding round will allocate budget for financial years 2024/2025, 2025/2026, and 2026/2027. The funds are allocated for up to three years, to give recipients financial certainty for business planning purposes.

17. The total three-year funding pool is $3,208,126. Funds will be distributed to recipients as they become available in the applicable financial year (subject to reporting requirements).

18. Applications for the round opened on 12 February 2024 and closed on 24 March 2024.

19. A total of 37 applications were received, requesting a total of $10,336,919 from the available funding pool of $3,208,126.

20. Staff reviewed the applications for eligibility to ensure alignment with the Community Grants Policy and Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039. The plan outlines council’s approach to sport investment over the next 20 years.

21. An independent assessment panel (IAP) was selected to assess the applications, based on their knowledge, expertise, and experience in the sport and recreation sector:

Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant FY25-27 Independent Assessment Panel:
Jo Wiggins	Spaces and Places Consultant, Sport New Zealand
Mathew Walsh	Spaces and Places Advisor, Aktive
Sharon Rimmer	Senior Partnerships Specialist, Group Strategy and Chief Executive Office, Auckland Council

22. The IAP met in June 2024 to consider all applications and make funding recommendations.

23. The IAP used the assessment criteria (Attachment B) from the guidelines to review applications and shortlist recommended recipients.

24. The IAP grouped applications into three categories:

· High-priority applications showed clear and significant sector impact aligned with the policy outcomes.

· Medium-priority applications were less strongly aligned to the policy outcomes, and in most cases did not demonstrate a significant sector impact.

· Low-priority or ineligible applications were not aligned with the policy outcomes, were not considered to have a significant impact, or did not meet eligibility criteria.

25. Operating grant applications and recommendations, found in Attachment C, provide a summary of:

· funding application requests

· assessment panel alignment category

· funding recommendations for financial years 2024/2025, 2025/2026 and 2026/2027

· previous years' operating grant investment.

26. The IAP recommended providing an operating grant to 13 facilities totalling $3,208,126 over three years.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. As a part of successful recipients' funding agreements, reporting requirements will include climate impact mitigation at the facilities.

28. A number of grant recipients are exploring or have implemented waste minimisation, rain-water capture, LED lighting and other more environmentally sustainable building operating practices.

29. Environmental impact of the existing facilities was considered for all applicants. This was one of the funding criteria used to determine high, medium and low priorities during the assessment process.

Table 1: Environmental infrastructure priorities

1. Infrastructure Priorities

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

Sustainable and low impact facility

The facility has put in place several ambitious measures to prevent or reduce impacts on climate and the environment across the whole lifecycle of the facility. The potential adverse effects of the facility are likely to be mostly mitigated.

Sustainability of the facility could be improved

Measures to prevent or reduce impacts on climate and the environment do not cover all key areas of impact (or are not proportionate to the size of the impact) and the facility still results in adverse effects on the environment.

Poor environmental performance

The facility has not considered their impact on climate and the environment or, there are limited or no mitigations in place.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. Non-council owned facilities are crucial to Auckland’s sport and recreation facility network as they meet the evolving demand for sporting opportunities.

31. By supporting non-council owned facilities, the Fund aligns with key shifts in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034. The direction to focus on “delivering differently” identifies a need for council to find alternative approaches to facility provision such as partnerships and grants.

32. As a grant to a non-council-owned facilities, the operating grant has minimal impact on core activities of the council group.

33. The independent assessment panel included a staff member from council’s Customer and Community Partnership team. This representation brought an insightful perspective on how Auckland Council partners with non-council operated facilities.

34. Council’s Finance department was consulted on matters relating to budgets, cashflows and taxation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. The operating grant prioritises regional and sub-regional facilities delivering services that align with several local board plan outcomes and objectives that promote healthy active lifestyles, improve the health and well-being of the community and support community-led delivery.

36. The recommended recipients positively impact local communities by offering affordable community access to sport and recreation facilities which enable diverse physical activity opportunities.

37. Specific local board views were not sought on the recommendations presented in this report. Local boards will however be informed of the funding allocation decision by memo and media release via Our Auckland.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. Sport and recreation participation contributes directly to the following Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome in the Auckland Plan 2050:

Māori Identity and Wellbeing

· Direction 1 – Advance Māori wellbeing

· Focus area 1 – Meet the needs and support the aspirations of tamariki and their whānau

39. Māori outcomes were considered in all applications, and was one of the funding criteria used to determine high, medium, and low priorities during the assessment process:

Table 2: Māori outcomes prioritisation framework

2. People and Community Priorities

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

Strong Benefit to Māori

Facilities led by Māori, strongly supported by Māori that will help Māori be more active.

Some Māori outcomes

Facilities that help Māori be more active.

No specific benefit to Māori

Facilities that deliver no specific benefit to Māori activity levels.

40. The IAP considered the Māori outcomes of all 37 applications before making their recommendations. All 13 of the recommended organisations had identified at least some Māori outcomes that help Māori be more active.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. The operating grant is a regional budget allocated through the LTP 2024-2034. The operating grant is budgeted at:

· Financial year 2024/2025 - $1,067,698

· Financial year 2025/2026 - $1,069,356

· Financial year 2026/2027 - $1,071,072

42. The funding amount recommended for allocation in this report is the full budget for three years, totaling $3,208,126.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. Staff identified risks with the assessment process and recommendations, in the themes of reputational, operational, and financial and deliverables. These are shown below:

Table 3: Thematic risks in assessment process and recommendations

Type	Risk – pre mitigation	Mitigation
Reputational	Moderate risk – Actual or perceived conflict of interest of the independent assessment panel.	· All assessors declared any conflict of interest before the assessment process to ensure objectivity, integrity, and transparency.
Reputational	Moderate risk – Assessment panel members may have an actual or perceived conflict of interest that unduly influences the funding recommendations.	· Declared conflicts of interest did not influence or interfere with organisations recommended for funding.
Operational	Moderate risk – the assessment process and funding recommendations are unfair.	· Staff ensure the assessment process is fair, transparent and rigorous by adhering to a robust process that uses criteria aligned to Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039.
Operational	Moderate risk – Administration and assessment of applications may not be impartial, resulting in unfair funding allocations.	· The assessment process is strengthened and regulated by having an independent assessment panel that bring an objective view. The IAP were all from outside of the council’s Sport and Recreation team to prevent any conflict with the administration of the grant.
Financial and deliverables	Moderate risk – Recommended organisations are unable to fulfil commitments made in their applications.	· The funding agreements allow council to withhold any payments if the terms and conditions are not met. · Grant payments are made in annual or bi-annual instalments subject to recipients meeting reporting requirements. · Payment can also be withheld if the organisation’s performance is poor, if facilities are closed for extended periods, or in the event of organisation failure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. Staff will notify all applicants about the funding allocation decisions made by the committee.

45. Staff will work with the successful applicants to discuss reporting requirements payment scheduling and to prepare funding agreements.

46. Staff will provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants.

47. Subject to budget confirmation, the next operating grant round is expected to open in 2027.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant guidelines
b ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant eligibility criteria, funding priorities, and Investment Principles
c ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Operating Grant Applications and Recommendations

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shaun Watkins - Grant Portfolio Lead

Authorisers

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Community Wellbeing

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 August 2024

Allocation of the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund, FY25

File No.: CP2024/00391

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To allocate the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund for financial year 2024/2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund (the Fund) is a regional contestable grant that supports the development of sport and recreation facilities.

3. The current funding round (‘Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2024’) will allocate the 2024/2025 financial year budget of up to $13,636,178.

4. Applications to the Fund were open from 13 November 2023 to 29 January 2024, with 55 applications received, requesting over $40.7 million.

5. Twenty-four applications were shortlisted and presented to an independent assessment panel (IAP).

6. The IAP recommended that 18 of the 24 shortlisted applications receive grants. These grants will expend the full $13,636,178 amount.

7. A drop-in session was held for councillors on 23 July 2024 to provide information about the applications, assessment process and IAP funding allocation recommendations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund grant allocations for the 2024/2025 financial year, totalling $13,636,178 as follows:

No.	Recipient	Project title	Funding up to:
i)	Auckland Central Volleyball Club, Incorporated	Auckland Central Volleyball Club Sand Volleyball Facility at Onehunga High School	$250,000
ii)	Auckland City Football Club Incorporated	Mount Roskill Community Turf	$150,000
iii)	Auckland Hockey Association Incorporated	Lloyd Elsmore Park Hockey Stadium - Turf 2 renewal and LED Floodlight upgrade	$350,000
iv)	Glen Eden Tennis Club Incorporated	LED Floodlighting and 4 Court turfing and Building Drainage work	$170,000
v)	Helensville District Rugby Football Club Incorporated	Shower and changing room facility upgrades	$188,239
No.	Recipient	Project title	Funding up to:
vi)	Highbrook Regional Watersports Centre Trust	Stage One: Main Building Ground Floor ‘Table Top’	$3,100,000
vii)	Karaka Sports Ground Society Incorporated	Tennis and Netball Courts	$150,000
viii)	Mahurangi East Bowling Club Incorporated	Resurfacing 'B' Green	$70,000
ix)	Netball North Harbour Incorporated	NNH Building Upgrade	$1,650,000
x)	Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust	Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Sport, Recreation, and Hauora Centre	$150,000
xi)	North Shore Rowing Club Incorporated	North Harbour Rowing Centre - Rame Road, Greenhithe	$500,000
xii)	Northcote and Birkenhead Tigers Rugby League and Sports Club Incorporated	Northcote and Birkenhead Tigers Rugby League and Sports Club	$500,000
xiii)	Pakuranga United Rugby Club Incorporated	Howick Pakuranga Community Sports Centre Gymnasium Expansion	$2,423,939
xiv)	Papakura Tennis and Squash Club Incorporated	Papakura Tennis and Squash Club Refurbishment	$345,000
xv)	Te Pou Herenga Waka Waka Ama Club Incorporated	Te Whare Herenga Waka	$239,000
xvi)	The Colin Dale Park KartSport Development Charitable Trust	Colin Dale Park KartSport Development	$2,500,000
xvii)	The Tennis Charitable Trust	Albany Sports Park	$600,000
xviii)	Uni-Mount Bohemian Association Football Club Incorporated	Bill McKinlay Park Turf Upgrade	$300,000
			$13,636,178

b) tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the General Manager Community Wellbeing to prepare and execute funding agreements for the above grant recipients.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund (the Fund) was established through the 10-year Budget 2018-2028. The fund was set aside to support the development of sport and recreation facilities in the Auckland region.

9. The Fund will invest up to $185 million over the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 to:

· address sport and recreation infrastructure shortfalls

· respond to changing participation preferences

· deliver value for money by leveraging third-party investment

· get more Aucklanders more active more often.

10. The Fund is contestable. Applications are sought from organisations for significant facility development proposals to enable increased participation in sport and recreation.

11. Grants made through the Fund will deliver value for money by leveraging external investment into these non-council facilities.

12. Non-council owned facilities are crucial to Auckland’s sport and recreation facility network as they meet the evolving demand for sporting opportunities.

13. By supporting non-council owned facilities, the Fund aligns with key shifts in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034. The key shifts identify a need for council to find alternative approaches to facility provision such as partnerships and grants.

14. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 also identifies a need to provide for communities with the greatest need. Assessment criteria for the Fund prioritise projects that will serve these communities.

15. Decision-making for allocation of the Fund sits with the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

16. Detailed information on the Fund is contained in the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund Guidelines which is included in this report as Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. The current funding round titled ‘Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2024’ will allocate the 2024/2025 financial year budget.

18. There is $13,636,178 available in the current funding round.

19. Applications for the round opened on 13 November 2023 and closed 29 January 2024.

20. A total of 55 applications were received, with a total of over $40.7 million of funding requested.

21. In March 2024, all 55 applications were assessed for eligibility and alignment with funding priorities. 24 applications were shortlisted for further consideration.

22. An independent assessment panel was selected for their knowledge and experience in sport and recreation, grant making and Māori outcomes:

Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2024 Independent Assessment Panel:
Glenn McGovern	Spaces and Places Manager, Sport New Zealand
Jamie Archibald	Spaces and Places Advisor, Aktive
Leigh Redshaw	Investment Specialist, Active Communities, Auckland Council
Karla Matua	General Manager, Netball Manurewa

23. The IAP met in June 2024 to consider the shortlisted applications and make funding recommendations.

24. The IAP funding recommendations and additional details can be found in Attachment B of the report.

25. An analysis of shortlisted applications by local board distribution, sports code distribution and applications, versus IAP recommendations, is provided at Attachment C.

26. On 23 July 2024, a drop-in session was held to provide councillors with information about the applications, assessment process and IAP funding allocation recommendations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. Te Tāruke ā Tāwhiri is Auckland’s Climate Plan, and Action Area B8 directly refers to the response for Sport and Recreation:

“Explore initiatives to reduce travel needs and adapt locations and scheduling for more local community events such as sporting events.”

28. Applications to the Fund are for facilities distributed across the region. The funding supports a network of facilities serving local catchments, which may enable a reduction in travel emissions.

29. Repair, maintenance and the upgrading of existing facilities are also recognised as having less climate impact than that of new building developments. This is due to the reuse of the embodied carbon in the original construction, and avoiding the embodied emissions created during new construction. Of the 24 shortlisted applications, 14 are for repair, maintenance and/or upgrade of existing facilities.

30. Staff consulted with the Auckland Council’s climate mitigation kaimahi in the Chief Sustainability Office to assist in updating the guidelines and application form. This was done to ensure the full climate impact of each application was considered.

31. The application form included an ‘Environmental Sustainability’ section. The section requested information from all applicants regarding waste, water, transport, energy, climate mitigation, climate resilience and any other environment sustainability mitigations of their project.

32. Climate impact was one of the funding criteria used to determine high, medium and low priorities during the assessment process:

Infrastructure Priorities

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

Sustainable and low impact project

Project has put in place several ambitious measures to prevent or reduce impacts on climate and the environment across the whole lifecycle of the project. The potential adverse effects of the project are likely to be mostly mitigated.

Sustainability of the project could be improved

Measures to prevent or reduce impacts on climate and the environment do not cover all key areas of impact (or are not proportionate to the size of the impact) and the project would still result in potential adverse effects on the environment.

Poor environmental performance

Project has not considered their impact on climate and the environment, or there are limited or no mitigations in place.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. Council departments provided input to the development of this report; key stakeholder relationships and input are shown below:

Department	Input
Finance	Consulted on matters relating to budgets, cashflows and taxation.
Leasing	Consulted on all shortlisted projects relating to leasing concerns.
Sustainability	Input into the guidelines and application questions regarding the climate impact of projects.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. Applicants were asked to provide evidence of landowner support for their projects.

35. Where the landowner is a local board, the local board’s support was inferred from evidence of previous local board decisions directly relevant to the project. Inferred evidence included:

· landowner approvals

· lease or agreement to lease

· identification in a local board sport and active recreation facilities plan

· project identified in a local park management plan or park master plan.

36. An opt-in approach to seeking local board views was implemented in the previous funding round (financial year 2023/2024) to remove duplication of effort, reduce unnecessary burden on elected member and staff time. This approach also assists with streamlining the administration and assessment of applications, and encourages applicants to engage with their local boards early in their project development.

37. A memo with the list of the 24 shortlisted applications was sent to all local boards in April 2024. The memo requested that if the local boards did not support any of the shortlisted applications, or identify any concerns or issues, to advise the Sport and Recreation team in writing.

38. One concern was raised by the chair of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board regarding the Colin Dale Park KartSport Development project. The chair noted that that while Colin Dale Park is located within Ōtara-Papatoetoe, the KartSport facility will be a regional facility with minimal local participation or impact. Therefore, the concern was that the KartSport project should not be viewed as a facility that will benefit the Ōtara-Papatoetoe area.

39. In 2021, Auckland Council transferred decision-making on Colin Dale Park from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to the Governing Body, and added Colin Dale Park to Schedule 1 of the LTP [PAC/2021/4].

40. The chair’s concerns are mitigated by staff ensuring that the KartSport Development is not presented or scored as a project benefitting local Ōtara-Papatoetoe communities. Staff ensured that the KartSport project was labelled as a regional/Governing Body project, and presented to the IAP and committee as such.

41. No other local boards raised concerns with staff at the time of writing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. Māori outcomes were one of the funding criteria used to determine high, medium, and low priorities during the assessment process:

People and Community Priorities

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

Strong Benefit to Māori

Projects led by Māori, strongly supported by Māori and/or develop facilities that will help Māori be more active.

Some Māori outcomes

Projects that develop facilities that will help Māori be more active.

No specific benefit to Maori

Projects that develop facilities that deliver no specific benefit to Māori activity levels.

43. All applicants were required to complete a Māori Outcomes assessment as part of their application. Information was requested regarding:

· mana whenua/iwi engagement

· improving sport and recreation opportunities for Māori

· Māori governance and operations of the organisation

· any existing meaningful relationship with Māori outside of participants.

44. Two recommended projects are led by Māori:

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust – led by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (NWO), with extensive involvement by NWO governance members, senior staff, and multiple members of the hapū. Māori outcomes play a significant part of NWO’s Objectives and Values/Guiding Principles.

· Te Pou Herenga Waka Waka Ama Club Incorporated – the Executive Committee and coaching volunteers of this club are all whakapapa Māori. This extends through to the club membership which is 90% Māori. The organisation also has a longstanding relationship with Manurewa Marae.

45. Many applications have strong participation outcomes for Māori. The IAP considered the Māori outcomes of all 24 shortlisted applications before making their recommendations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. The Fund is a regional budget allocated through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (10-year Budget).

47. There is $13,636,178 available in the current funding round.

48. The Fund is currently budgeted as follows for the next three years:

· $13.86 million in financial year 2025/2026

· $14.12 million in financial year 2026/2027

· $14.38 million in financial year 2027/2028

49. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 also included a $35 million increase over three years for more indoor sports facilities.

50. The additional funding from the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 is indicatively scheduled as:

· $10 million in financial year 2025/2026

· $10 million in financial year 2026/2027

· $15 million in financial year 2027/2028

51. The guidelines and procedures for administering the core and additional budgets are currently under development.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52. When considering the applications, staff mitigate risks associated with funding applicants by carrying out an assessment process that uses criteria aligned to Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039.

53. Third party investment (e.g. class four gaming, philanthropic, commercial, central government, etc.) plays a significant role in the development of sport and recreation facilities. This can create a risk of delay to project delivery where additional fundraising is required over and above council’s investment.

54. Two key mitigations have been taken with respect to project delivery risk.

55. Firstly, the deliverability of projects is a key weighting of the criteria used to determine funding recommendations. This includes:

· having an achievable funding plan in place

· having the necessary skills and expertise (in-house or procured) to deliver the project

· completion of relevant project milestones such as securing site tenure, consents, etc.

56. Secondly, staff meet regularly with other sport sector funding organisations to discuss funding availability and grant round timing. Whilst each funder has their own funding priorities and decision-making processes to follow, recommendations are aligned where possible.

57. Council also mitigates this risk through funding agreements which stipulate that funds will not be released until conditions are met, to give sufficient confidence that the project has evidence of adequate budget, and can be completed.

58. Funds are then released in part-payments as invoices become available.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

59. Staff will notify all applicants about the funding allocation decisions made by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee.

60. Following a resolution by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee to allocate the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2024 for financial year 2024/2025, staff will prepare and execute funding agreements for each successful grant recipient.

61. Staff will offer support to unsuccessful applicants by referring them to other funds or providing advice for future funding applications.

62. Indicatively, the next funding round for financial year 2025/2026, will begin in late 2024/early 2025, with an allocation decision in August/September 2025.

63. Work is ongoing to develop an effective funding model for the Fund, and to determine how to best incorporate the additional budgets added from the Long-term Plan. Elected member engagement is anticipated before the end of the calendar year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund 2024 Guidelines
b ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment 2024 Independent Assessment Panel Funding Recommendations
c ⇨	Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment 2024 Recommended allocation analysis

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shaun Watkins - Grant Portfolio Lead

Authorisers

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Community Wellbeing

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 August 2024

Priority submissions for Auckland Council Group

File No.: CP2024/09450

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for staff to prepare submissions to priority government consultations.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The government’s reform programme is significant and requires substantial resource from the Auckland Council Group.

3. In early 2023 staff developed a process for identifying and prioritising government consultations. All upcoming submission opportunities are assessed against a set of criteria and a recommendation made to this committee on the priority consultations relating to policy and legislative proposals.

4. This report seeks approval to prepare submissions on the following consultations: smoking and vaping legislation, resource management amendments, and water services.

5. Staff will prepare these submissions when consultations open and follow the usual committee procedures for approval.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Auckland Council Group to prepare submissions to the following consultations: Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act amendment (vape regulations); Resource Management Act (RMA) Amendment Bill(s), and Local Government Water Services Bill.

Horopaki

Context

6. Responding to central government consultations is one important route for communicating the issues, risks, and opportunities of proposed policy and legislative changes on Auckland and Auckland Council Group functions and services.

7. Consultations take significant resource for the council to respond to and are not always equal in importance. The time taken to respond can distract from other priorities.

8. In early 2023, a process was developed (with input from staff across the council group) for identifying and prioritising government consultations. All upcoming submission opportunities are assessed against a set of criteria and a recommendation made to this committee on priority consultations which relate to political or legislative proposals.

9. Staff applied this process to consultations expected in 2023 and for the first half of 2024, and this committee approved submissions in the following areas: emergency management, climate change, transport, planning, waste, fishing regulations, fast track consenting, resource management amendments, and rate payer roll amendments - resolutions PEPCC/2023/33, PEPCC/2023/73) and PEPCC/2024/17.

10. In the current legislative environment responding to consultations efficiently and effectively is more challenging than usual due to short notice periods for release of proposals and short timeframes for providing feedback. As a result, a number of submissions have been prepared and approved by the relevant committee since the last priority submissions report in March 2024.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The criteria have now been applied to consultations expected in the second half of 2024. Those consultations relate to smoking and vaping legislation, resource management amendments, and water services.

12. The findings of the assessment on the policy related consultations are provided in full in Attachment A. This also includes an update on previous consultations approved as priority by this committee.

13. It is expected that other policy and legislative change will arise that the council group may want to respond to some of which has been signalled in the Coalition Government’s Q3 Action Plan for New Zealand. There is no detail available on the proposals or timeframes for consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. No adverse impact identified by using these criteria or approving priority submissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. Staff have engaged with CCO/External Partnerships staff to bring the list of submissions to this committee for approval.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. Staff have engaged with Operations and Policy to bring the list of submissions to this committee for approval.

17. Staff will engage with local boards when developing submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. Many government consultations will be of interest to and/or have an impact on Māori. This was considered in the development of the criteria, with assistance from Ngā Mātārae. Input from iwi will be sought on all submissions made as timeframes allow. A copy of this report will be provided to iwi so they are aware of upcoming opportunities,

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19. Prioritisation of government consultations expected in 2024 will enable submission work to be done within existing budget provision and as part of business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20. Government priorities change from time to time and there are unexpected consultations. To mitigate this risk, in these cases the decision to prepare a policy related submission is delegated to the Chair and Deputy Chair of this Committee (resolution PEPCC/2023/33). This is because short consultation timelines often do not allow for committee meeting dates and approval.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21. Prepare priority submissions when consultations open and follow the normal political procedures for approval with the relevant committee.

22. Continue to review and assess the central government work programme and consultations.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Priority submissions

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Adam Morris - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 August 2024

Auckland Unitary Plan - Making operative Private Plan Change 86 - 41-43 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai

File No.: CP2024/11074

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Plan Change 86: 41-43 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai (PPC86) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. PPC 86 is a private plan change request from 41-43 Brigham Creek Joint Venture Limited to rezone approximately 5.2 hectares of land in Whenuapai from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone (MHU). The plan change also applies a new Precinct to the site along with the Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 (SMAF1) Control.

3. PPC 86 was publicly notified on 22 September 2022 and 23 submissions and six further submissions were received. The hearing was held on 31 October 2023. The decision by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners to approve PPC 86 (the Decision) with modifications, was notified on 10 May 2024 (Attachment A). The commissioners were delegated authority to make this decision.

4. The appeal period closed on 24 June 2024 and one appeal was received from Watercare Services Limited (Watercare). Watercare appealed the decision in full unless a proposed amendment was made to Standard IXXX.6.1 as requested in Watercare’s submission on the basis that the PPC86 area was not currently serviced by a reticulated water supply and wastewater network. While a technically feasible solution to service the PPC86 area from a water supply network perspective was proposed by the PPC86 applicant, Watercare’s submission was that development triggers and staging was required, or the appropriate servicing of development with bulk wastewater services.

5. Broadly, the Appeal raised issues relating to the timing of bulk infrastructure being completed and commissioned, relative to the construction of dwellings and residential activities in the PPC86 area. The parties to the appeal are Watercare (the appellant), 41-43 Brigham Creek Joint Venture Limited (the PPC86 requestor), and Auckland Council (as Respondent). The parties have agreed that the PPC86 provisions should be amended as set out in Watercare’s Appeal, and consent documentation was lodged with the Environment Court. The Court issued the consent order resolving the Watercare appeal in full on 31 July 2024. The agreed amendment to Standard IXXX.6.1 requires bulk infrastructure, for both water and wastewater, to be completed and commissioned prior to the construction of any dwelling(s) or residential activities, rather than prior to the occupation of dwellings (which was what the Decision enabled).

6. As the only appeal on the Council’s decision on PPC86 has been resolved, the Committee is now able to approve PPC 86, and direct staff to take the necessary steps to make PPC 86 operative in accordance with the Decision, as amended by the consent order (and as shown in Attachments A and B of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 86 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as set out in Attachments A and B to the agenda report

b) tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Private Plan Change 86 becomes operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of Plan Change 86

7. Plan Change 86 to the AUP is a private plan change request from 41-43 Brigham Creek Joint Venture Limited (the requestor) which relates to approximately 5.2 hectares of FUZ land in Whenuapai. The land surrounding the plan change area is zoned Future Urban zone.

8. PPC 86 sought to rezone the land from FUZ to MHU, and to apply a precinct and the SMAF1 Control to the whole site.

9. PPC 86 was publicly notified on 22 September 2022. A total of 23 submissions and six further submissions were received. The hearing was held on 31 October 2023. The decision by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners to approve PPC 86 (the Decision) with modifications, was notified on 10 May 2024. The commissioners were delegated authority to make this decision. Watercare submitted on the plan change, and appealed the council’s decision on PPC 86.

10. The Decision on the plan change amends the AUP by:

· rezoning land from FUZ to MHU Zone

· applying a new AUP Precinct – Whenuapai 3

· applying the SMAF1 Control.

11. These amendments only apply to the PPC 86 area at 41-43 Brigham Creek Road. Maps showing the area to be rezoned and the new SMAF Control are in Attachment A of this report.

12. The appeal period for the plan change Decision closed on 24 June 2024, and one appeal was received. 41-43 Brigham Creek Joint Venture Limited (the PPC86 requestor), Watercare (the appellant) and the Council (as respondent) have agreed to amend Standard IXXX.6.1 as requested by Watercare’s appeal. The Environment Court issued a consent order (Decision [2024]NZEnvC181) on 31 July 2024 approving the amendment to Standard IXXX.6.1).

13. Therefore, PPC86 can now be approved and staff can be directed to undertake the necessary steps to make PPC86 operative in accordance with the Decision (Attachment A) and the Environment Court Consent Order (Attachment B) of this report.

Medium Density Residential Standards and National Policy Statement on Urban Development

14. Sections 77G(1)of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires that every relevant residential zone of a specified territorial authority must have the MDRS incorporated into that zone.

15. When Plan Change 78 was notified the area within PPC86 was zoned FUZ, therefore the area was not included in PC78. The provisions of the precinct provide for the MHU rules to apply for activities listed as permitted or restricted discretionary activities in Table H5.4.1 Activity Table in the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone. The Commissioners’ decision addressed this noting that Plan Change 78 and the MDRS and NPS-UD requirements do not affect PPC 86 and the MHU applied.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes. Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’. Decisions were made on all submissions and one appeal was received, which has now been approved by way of a consent order – Decision [2024]NZEnvC181. On this basis the plan change can now be approved.

17. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Planning and Resource Consents staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

19. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change were considered through the hearing process. It is noted that the plan change area has already been identified as an area suitable for intensification through the application of FUZ to the site in the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2016.

20. PPC 86 applies a new Precinct – Whenuapai 3 to apply bespoke planning provisions to the site, along with provisions to manage stormwater, including stormwater quality and attenuation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. As the approval of PPC86 under clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the RMA is a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of PPC 86. Therefore, no views from the council group were sought in relation to making the plan change operative.

22. It is noted that through the plan change process input from Parks and Community Facilities and Healthy Waters was sought. Watercare and Auckland Transport both submitted on the plan change.

23. The views of Parks and Community Facilities, Watercare and Auckland Transport were considered as part of the hearing and are reflected in the Decision on the plan change. Watercare lodged an appeal in relation to the Council’s decision, which has now been resolved by agreement between the parties.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. As the approval of PPC86 under clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the RMA is a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of PPC 86. While this report is procedural only, it is noted that the Upper Harbour Local Board provided its views on the proposed plan change at the PPC 86 hearing.

25. The local board view was that PPC 86 should be declined as the proposal involved out of sequence development and lacked the supporting infrastructure. The local board view was included in the council’s hearing report and the Chair of the Upper Harbour Local Board spoke to the board’s views at the hearing.

26. The independent hearing commissioners agreed that the principal issue in contention at the commencement of the hearing related to whether the proposed rezoning would accommodate urban growth in a way that integrates with the provision of infrastructure. Of particular concern were the transport upgrades, bulk water infrastructure along with the management of stormwater.

27. The commissioners reached the conclusion that PPC 86 is consistent with the statutory framework including the NPS-UD and the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and will assist the council in achieving the purpose of the RMA. The commissioners were satisfied that the operative provisions in the AUP, when combined with the new precinct provisions that apply to the site will address the matters raised by the board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The Applicant advised they contacted a number of iwi (Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Paoa Trust Board, Ngāti Te Ata, Kaipara Moana, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Aki Tai, Te Kawerau a Maki) prior to PPC86 being notified but did not receive a response.

29. No submissions were received from any iwi following public notification of PPC 86.

30. The limited scale (5.2 hectares) and limited potential impacts of PPC86^{^[1]}, combined with knowledge gained from engagement with iwi during the preparation of the Whenuapai Structure Plan 2016, were such that no further steps were taken to engage with Māori.

31. The forthcoming update to the Whenuapai Structure Plan 2016 will include engagement with iwi to update any matters that have been identified since 2016.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Planning and Resource Consents Department. As a private plan change costs associated with processing the plan change, including making it operative, are cost recoverable from the applicant who requested the private plan change.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. There are no risks associated with making PPC 86 operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. The final step in making PPC 86 operative is to publicly notify the date on which the plan change will become operative, and to update the AUP. Planning and Resource Consent Department staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make PPC 86 operative, including the public notice and seals.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	PPC 86 Decision of Independent Hearings Commissioners
b ⇨	Environment Court Decision 2024 NZEnvC 181 - PPC 86

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader - Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Resolution Number	Item	Status
PEPCC/2024/66	Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Deed of Acknowledgement – progress update and initial advice	Staff will continue to engage with Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua, and liaise with Cr Turner, Cr Henderson and Houkura.
PEPCC/2024/67	Cultural Initiatives Funding 2024/2025 Marae and Papakāinga Development	All applicants have been notified of the decisions and staff will have funding agreements in place by end of August. Ngā Mātārae has started work to scope the review of the Māori Outcomes Fund. This is expected to be finalised by early September.
PEPCC/2024/68	Parks and Community Regional Capital Investment Work Programme 2024/2025	Staff will now implement the RWP over the coming year, with iwi engagement beginning when general managers attend the first mana whenua forum and then follow-up attendance by RWP leads.
PEPCC/2024/69	Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Funding Model Options	Staff are preparing the new three-year funding agreement with ACABx, based on the regional funding model. The agreement includes new outcome measures, customer satisfaction metrics, and reporting on cash reserves management policies.
PEPCC/2024/71	Auckland Council feedback on Making it Easier to Build Granny Flats	Staff will finalise Auckland Council’s feedback and send to elected members with delegated authority to approve (before feedback is lodged on 12 August).
PEPCC/2024/72	Auckland Unitary Plan – Making operative Private Plan Change 89 – Clevedon Quarry	Now that PC89 has been made operative, the Auckland Unitary Plan will be updated on 9 August 2024.
PEPCC/2024/73	Auckland Unitary Plan – Making operative Private Plan Change 91 – 80 McLarin Road, Glenbrook Beach	Now that PC91 has been made operative, the Auckland Unitary Plan will be updated on 9 August 2024.
PEPCC/2024/77	CONFIDENTIAL: Auckland Unitary Plan - Plan Change 80 - Amendments to the Regional Policy Statement - Environment Court Appeal	The Environment Court hearing is set down for 15 October 2024.

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 August 2024

Summary of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 15 August 2024

File No.: CP2024/11119

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

2. To whiwhi / receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda, workshop and briefing papers that may have been held or been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memoranda/workshops and briefings or other means, where no decisions are required.

4. As noted previously decisions on the Annual Budget may well affect the forward work programme. The work programme underpinning the long-term scope of work as a result of the flooding events will also mean that this work programme will need to be reprioritised and updated. Items raised at committee where work continues, as well as items from departmental work programmes, are being worked through and in coming iterations will be highlighted on the forward work programme as appropriate.

5. The following memoranda/information have been sent:

Date	Subject
5/8/2024	Memorandum - Ko Aotearoa me ōna toi - New Zealanders and the Arts Survey: Auckland Report 2024
8/8/2024	Woodhill Sands Trust, status of Loan and Guarantee – Confidential, no attachment
12/8/2024	Memorandum - Kai / Food Systems Equity and Resilience

6. The following workshops/briefings have taken place for the committee:

Date	Subject
24/7/2024	Strengthening the Unitary Plan in relation to natural hazards - Confidential Workshop, no attachment Reasons for confidentiality s7(2)(f)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of such members, officers, employees and persons from improper pressure or harassment. s7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. s7(2)(j) The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage. In particular, the workshop material contains discussion of the possible content of the natural hazards plan change and may include feedback from iwi that has been provided in confidence.
24/7/2024	Integrated Planning for Intensification - Confidential Workshop – no attachment Reasons for confidentiality s7(2)(j) The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage. In particular, the workshop will include discussions about the proposed future land-use zoning and proposed land-use controls for land within the Auckland Light Rail Corridor, and on land that is affected by natural hazards.
29/7/2024	National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Working Group – agenda and minutes
31/7/2024	Workshop – Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 Submissions
31/7/2024	Workshop – Draft open space sport and recreation framework – options for open space provision and case for investment
8/8/2024	Questions and answers from the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee Workshop on the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Policy Framework held on 31 July 2024

7. These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top left of the page, select meeting/te hui “Planning, Environment and Parks Committee” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

o under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

8. Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Members should direct any questions to the authors.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report

b) whiwhi / receive the Summary of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings – 15 August 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Planning, Environment and Parks Committee - Forward Work Programme
b ⇨	Memorandum - Ko Aotearoa me ōna toi - New Zealanders and the Arts Survey: Auckland Report 2024, 5 August 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Memorandum - Kai / Food Systems Equity and Resilience (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Working Group – agenda and minutes, 29 July 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Workshop – Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 Submissions (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Workshop – Draft open space sport and recreation framework – options for open space provision and case for investment, 31 July 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Questions and answers from the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee Workshop on the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Policy Framework held on 31 July 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

[1] It is noted that 41-43 Brigham Creek Road does not contain any streams, council-recorded sites of cultural or historic heritage significance, or areas of ecological significance, and is not in a coastal location.

Chairperson	Cr Richard Hills
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Angela Dalton
Members	Houkura Member Edward Ashby	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Andrew Baker	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Mayor Wayne Brown	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Chris Darby	Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Julie Fairey	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM	Cr Ken Turner
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Lotu Fuli	Cr John Watson
	Houkura Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr Maurice Williamson
	Cr Shane Henderson