Agenda of Policy and Planning Committee - Tuesday, 10 December 2024

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill - Auckland Council's submission

File No.: CP2024/18851

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the preparation of an Auckland Council submission to the Justice Select Committee on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (the Bill).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At the Policy and Planning Committee meeting held on 14 November 2024, council staff were asked to investigate opportunities to develop a council submission on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.

3. The Bill was introduced to the House of Representatives on 7 November 2024 and completed its first reading on 14 November 2024. The Bill was referred to the Justice Select Committee for consideration.

4. The select committee called for submissions on 19 November 2024, with a submission deadline of 7 January 2025. The select committee expects to complete hearings on the Bill by the end of February 2025, with a select committee report to be reported back to the House by 14 May 2025.

5. The Bill's purpose is to set out the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation and to require that those principles be used when interpreting legislation.

6. The council’s strategic framework reflects a commitment to fulfilling Tiriti o Waitangi-based obligations. It recognises Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi as New Zealand’s founding document and values Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi as the bicultural foundation for an intercultural Auckland.

7. The submission would provide a high-level summary of council’s strategic commitments to fulfilling Tiriti o Waitangi-based obligations. The submission would outline the potential impact on the council and Aucklanders should the Bill be enacted and draw on relevant council feedback on the council’s Future for Local Government submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve staff drafting a submission on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, that includes the following high-level themes:

i) outline procedural issues including:

A) development of the Bill (lack of engagement with Māori)

B) timing of submission period

ii) the council’s strategic commitments to work in a manner that respects and recognises the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi

b) tautapa / delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Planning Committee to approve the final submission ahead of the 7 January 2025 deadline.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the final submission will be circulated to members following 7 January 2025.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill was introduced to the House of Representatives on 7 November 2024 and completed its First Reading on 14 November 2024. The Bill was referred to the Justice Select Committee for consideration.

9. The Justice Select Committee called for submissions on 19 November 2024, with submissions closing on 7 January 2025. The select committee expects to complete hearings on the Bill by the end of February 2025, with the select committee report due to be reported back to the House on 14 May 2025.

10. The Bill's purpose is to set out the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation and requires that those principles must be used when interpreting legislation. The Bill proposes the following principles:

· Principle 1: The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

· Principle 2: The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty/te Tiriti. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in Treaty settlements.

· Principle 3: Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.

11. If enacted, the Bill would not come into force until six months following the results of a referendum on the Bill if there was majority support for it.

12. Over the past five decades all three branches of government (the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive) have recognised Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi as a binding agreement between the Crown and Māori that is fundamental to New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.

13. The first statutory reference to Treaty principles was in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The principles are intended to reflect the spirit and intent of both texts (i.e. Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi) and the mutual obligations and responsibilities of the parties.

14. While the current list of principles are neither exhaustive nor comprehensive, there are three main existing interrelated Treaty principles recognised and applied by the Courts:

· Partnership: Mutual obligations between the Crown and Māori of reasonableness, good faith, honourable conduct, and co-operation. These mutual obligations are the core of what has been described as the Treaty partnership. It entails a duty of the Crown to make informed decisions when taking steps that affect Māori rights and interests.

· Active protection: The Crown’s obligation to take positive steps to ensure that Māori rights and interests are protected.

· Redress: The Crown’s obligations to provide redress for breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.

15. There are diverse views on the Bill, with considerable commentary from Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi experts and senior members of the legal profession that the Bill and the defined principles do not reflect the texts or meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi and the exchange of promises agreed to by the Crown and Rangatira.

16. Concerns have been expressed that the Bill in seeking to reinterpret a constitutional treaty retrospectively and unilaterally would offend the basic principles that underpin New Zealand’s representative democracy.

17. Legal commentary, including from Crown Law, has also noted the protections in our legal system of the rights of minorities (e.g. under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990) and that it would not appear the Courts could interpret the proposed principles in the broad way that appears intended. Concerns have also been expressed that the Bill would cause significant legal confusion and uncertainty.

18. There does, however, appear to be support for a constructive and good faith national conversation on Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi and this should be considered through a thorough and considered process involving engagement and consultation, including crucially with Māori, the other signatory to the Treaty, which has not occurred here.

19. Both the National and NZ First coalition partners have indicated they will not support the Bill past the First Reading.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Auckland Plan

20. Auckland Council’s relationship with and responsibilities to Māori are grounded and guided by law. Council’s policy and strategic framework guide how we act on these statutory obligations.

21. The council is committed to operating in a manner that recognises and respects the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi. This commitment is set out in the Auckland Plan.

22. The Auckland Plan is our long-term spatial plan for Tāmaki Makaurau (as required by the Local Government Auckland Council) Act 2009 to ensure Auckland grows in a way that will meet the opportunities and challenges of the future. Legislation requires it to contribute to Auckland’s social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being.

23. The Auckland Plan recognises the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi in the past, present and future of Tāmaki Makaurau. It confirms Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand and as the foundation on which local government in Tāmaki Makaurau works to deliver Māori aspirations.

24. The plan states that:

i) To achieve Te Tiriti o Waitangi outcomes first and foremost requires a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and strong support by everybody.

ii) Auckland Council is a delegate of the Crown exercising powers of local government in Auckland. It has statutory responsibilities to Māori in order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty.

25. The Auckland Plan consists of six outcome areas. The Māori identity and wellbeing outcome area seeks to enable greater social commitment towards Te Tiriti o Waitangi, support improved partnership outcomes with Māori (increasing reciprocal partnership, collaboration, and decision-making opportunities with mana whenua, public, private and community partners) and recognise (and protect) mana whenua interests across Auckland.

26. The belonging and participation outcome area includes specific direction to value and provide for Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi. It is supported by commitments to foster greater social engagement with Te Ao Māori, Māori Culture and Te Reo Māori.

Kia ora Tāmaki Makaurau – Māori Outcomes Framework

27. Kia ora Tāmaki Makaurau - The Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework guides the council's work. The framework includes ten outcome areas that align with what Māori have identified that matters most.

28. The Framework was developed with mana whenua and Māori communities and shares the outcomes that matter most to their whānau, marae, iwi and communities.

29. The Framework identifies where the council can best influence and improve Māori Outcomes delivery.

Houkura – Independent Māori Statutory Board

30. Auckland Council’s governance structure includes the Houkura – Independent Māori Statutory Board (The Board), which has specific responsibilities under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to promote issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau and to ensure that the council acts in accordance with provisions referring to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

31. Houkura – Independent Māori Statutory Board is developing an independent submission on the Bill.

Key themes for council’s submission on the Bill

32. Based on the council’s strategic framework, it is recommended that the council makes a submission on the Bill.

33. A council submission would affirm the council’s strategic commitments to work in a manner that respects and recognises the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi. It would also recognise that the National and NZ First coalition partners will not support the Bill past the first reading.

34. The submission would outline existing council views as outlined in the council’s submission on the Future for Local Government report that:

· outline council’s commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnership with Māori

· support a central government-led process to develop a new legislative framework for Tiriti-related provisions in the Local Government Act (developed in partnership with Māori)

· support stronger statutory requirements for councils to foster Māori capacity to participate in local government

· support additional resourcing to support local government and mana whenua partnership.

35. The submission would also support an ongoing national conversation on Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi.

36. The report recommends delegating the approval of the submission to a sub-group comprising the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Planning Committee.

37. Delegation is required as written submissions are due on 7 January 2025, before the first sitting of the Policy and Planning Committee in 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

38. Council decisions on a submission on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill do not impact council’s climate commitments.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39. If the committee approves the drafting of a submission on the Principles of The Treaty of Waitangi Bill, staff would work with subject matter experts across the council group to prepare the first draft of the submission.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40. Council staff attended a Local Board briefing on 2 December 2024 to outline the decision-making process for developing a council submission on The Bill.

41. Local Board feedback on the Bill is due on 12 December 2024. Staff will provide a verbal update on any feedback received at the committee meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. Auckland Council currently recognises the interests of 19 iwi authorities; Auckland Council also actively works with Māori organisations that advocate for and support the interests of Māori who are not in a mana whenua group (e.g. mataawaka).

43. In 2023, the Māori population of Aotearoa was 978,246 (an increase of 12.5% since the last census). Auckland has the largest population of people of Māori descent, accounting for 13.5 per cent of Auckland’s population.

44. The Waitangi Tribunal, in its report Ngā Mātāpono – The Principles, found that:

· the Crown had failed to engage with Māori on the Bill

· the Bill was based on flawed policy rationales

· was ‘novel’ in its Treaty interpretations

· was fashioned on a disingenuous historical narrative and

· distorted the text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi

45. The report notes that if the Bill was enacted, it would:

· reduce the constitutional importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi

· remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses

· limit Māori rights and Crown obligations

· undermine social cohesion.

46. The tribunal recommended that:

· the Treaty Principles Policy be abolished

· the Crown should constitute a Cabinet-Māori relations committee overseeing the Crown’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi policies

· the Crown should consider a process in partnership with Māori to undo the damage to the Māori-Crown relationship and restore confidence in the honour of the Crown.

47. If the Committee approves the drafting of a council submission on the Bill, council staff would engage with mana whenua and mataawaka to receive their views on the submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. Committee decisions on a council submission on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill do not have financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. Council staff have identified the following risks and mitigations of the decisions before the Committee.

Table 1

Risk

Mitigation

· If the Committee does not submit in opposition to the Bill, it may affect council’s relationships with mana whenua and mataawaka

· The Bill is unlikely to pass into law

· Council’s existing strategic commitments would remain in place.

· Auckland Council is currently refreshing its Māori engagement approach and developing tools and systems to strengthen Māori engagement with council. This provides an opportunity to reiterate council’s commitments to working with iwi and mataawaka.

· If the Committee approves the drafting of a submission on the Bill it would require staff resourcing on a matter that is unlikely to be passed into law.

· Any staff resourcing and duties required to support the drafting of a submission is included within existing FTE resource.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. If the committee approves staff drafting a council submission on the Bill, council staff would develop a submission for delegated approval of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Planning Committee to be provided to the Select Committee by 7 January 2024.

51. If the committee approves staff drafting a council submission on the Bill, the submission will incorporate Local Board feedback which is due 12 December 2024. Local Board feedback would be appended to the submission if approved.

52. If the committee approves staff drafting a council submission on the Bill council staff will inform mana whenua and mataawaka to receive their views on the submission.

53. If the committee approves staff drafting a council submission on the Bill the submission will be circulated to committee members following submission.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jett Sharp - Māori Outcome Lead

Authorisers

Nicholas Turoa - Tumuaki Huanga Māori

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

System	Infrastructure and energy	Farming and primary industries	Natural hazards and emergency response	Going for housing growth

Implementation of national direction Cost recovery by local authorities Compliance regime strengthened (example: increased penalties) Changes to further information requests Overlap between RMA and Fisheries Act 1996 reduced	Faster procesing requirements for renewable energy Extended consent duration for renewable energy and other long-lasting infrastructure (35 years). Infrastrucutre consents, renewable energy consents and designations all to have longer lapse dates	Changes to how marine farming consent conditions are reviewed Faster procesing requirements for wood processing facilities Revised legislation for farm plans	Ability to decline land use consents, or approve subject to conditions, where there are significant risks of natural hazards New natural hazard plan rules have immediate legal effect from notificaton Regulation-making power for emergency responses	Allowing councils to opt out of Medium Density Residential Standards provided 30 years’ housing growth is demonstrated Change to process for intensification plan changes (PC 78) Historic heritage: changed approach to schedule, or remove from schedule, in a plan.

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Thriving Rangatahi - council's plan to support thriving children and young people

File No.: CP2024/15881

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt Thriving Rangatahi, the council’s commitment and plan to support the wellbeing of children and young people.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In 2023 staff completed a comprehensive review of I Am Auckland, the council’s strategy for children and young people.

3. The review found the strategy was not adequately addressing the needs of children and young people and that council could better target support to those facing the greatest disparities in outcomes.

4. As the review findings aligned closely with the council’s community wellbeing strategy, Ngā Hapori Momoho / Thriving Communities, the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approved nesting priorities for children and young people under this strategy. This approach aligns with the council directive to consolidate strategies.

5. Thriving Rangatahi sets out the council’s commitment and plan to support the wellbeing of children and young people within this nested approach (Attachment A).

6. It has five focus areas based on the review findings and what children and young people told us was important to their wellbeing: civic participation, climate and the environment, connection and belonging, health and wellbeing, and access to opportunities.

7. It proposes new ways of working to improve wellbeing outcomes: working in partnership, targeting efforts to those who need it most, using mana-enhancing approaches, and ensuring there is a youth voice in decision-making.

8. Thriving Rangatahi recognises that while the council has important roles to play, it doesn’t hold all the levers in supporting child and youth wellbeing. Working in partnership with others, including government, iwi and community will be critical to achieving success.

9. The Youth Advisory Panel are supportive of Thriving Rangatahi and have been involved throughout its development.

10. All local boards have endorsed the plan although some expressed concerns over funding and ensuring the council does not stray into central government’s roles.

11. There is a perceived risk that some of the focus areas are outside of the council’s role or control. Focussing on the levers the council has that do contribute to wellbeing will be important, acknowledging the council is part of a wider ecosystem that supports children and young people.

12. Ngā Hapori Momoho and Thriving Rangatahi do not have specific funding; rather they provide direction and focus for the effective use of council’s existing resources to deliver more impact.

13. If adopted, staff will initiate the actions outlined in the next steps and implementation plan (Attachment B).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whai / adopt Thriving Rangatahi, council’s commitment and plan to support thriving children and young people.

Horopaki

Context

14. In 2022 / 2023 staff reviewed I Am Auckland, the council’s strategy for children and young people to take stock of progress and consider if the strategy was fit for the future.

15. The engagement methodology and findings are detailed in the Voices of Children and Young People report and the full review findings are in the I Am Auckland Review Report. These were reported to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in October 2023.

Most children and young people in Auckland are thriving, but some are being left behind

16. The review found that most children and young people in Auckland are doing well. They love being active and creative, and they value all the opportunities that come with living Tāmaki Makaurau.

17. But the review also found that some children and young people are facing persistent disadvantage across a range of outcomes.

18. Tamariki and rangatahi Māori, Pasifika children and young people, rainbow children and young people, and disabled children and young people are more likely to experience inequity across a range of measures than their peers.

The context for growing up in Auckland has changed for children and young people

19. The review found the context for children and young people has changed significantly since I Am Auckland was adopted in 2013.

20. Emerging scenarios such as climate disruption, declining mental health, growing wealth inequality and the changing nature of work and education all impact on the wellbeing of children and young people.

Review found opportunities for council to better support children and young people

21. A key finding was that the council could better target its support to those children and young people facing the greatest disparities in outcomes.

22. Other opportunities included partnering with others, working in effective, mana enhancing ways, and giving children and young people a voice in decisions. These have informed the development of Thriving Rangatahi and are set out in more detail in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Findings from the review and new opportunities for council

Council agrees to a new approach to support child and youth wellbeing

23. Many of the review findings and opportunities align closely with the council’s community wellbeing strategy, Ngā Hapori Momoho / Thriving Communities.

24. The review recommended to nest priorities for children and young people under Ngā Hapori Momoho as this enables the council to:

· respond to the changing context facing children and young people

· progress partnerships required when facing long-term and complex issues

· deliver on the request to consolidate council strategies without diminishing the commitment to improving child and youth wellbeing.

25. Nesting means that council’s priorities for children and young people are a subset of the outcomes and objectives of Ngā Hapori Momoho and provide a child and youth lens for implementation of the strategy. This recognises the wellbeing of children and young people is at the heart of thriving communities.

26. In October 2023, the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee received the three-year review of I Am Auckland and agreed to a new approach to nest council’s strategic priorities for children and young people under Ngā Hapori Momoho (PEPCC/2023/128).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Five focus areas can help council deliver outcomes for children and young people

27. Through engagement we heard what matters most to children and young people and their aspirations for the future. This has been organised into five themes or focus areas.

28. These areas are what we need to focus on to create positive outcomes for children and young people. The five focus areas are shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Thriving Rangatahi Five Focus Areas

29. These focus areas align to the objectives in Ngā Hapori Momoho and support delivery of its outcomes. Thriving Rangatahi provides a child and youth lens on the strategy’s vision: to create a fairer, more sustainable Tāmaki Makaurau where every Aucklander feels like they belong.

New ways of working to address the challenges facing children and young people

30. To deliver better outcomes for all children and young people the council also needs to change the way we work. Thriving Rangatahi proposes three ways of working that are based on the review findings, best practice evidence and the voices of children and young people set out in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Thriving Rangatahi ways of working

31. These closely align to the key shifts and investment principles outlined in Ngā Hapori Momoho and affirm the connection between the wellbeing of children and young people and the wellbeing of their whānau and wider communities.

32. More information on the focus areas and key ways of working can be found in Attachment A.

The council has six key roles that contribute to wellbeing outcomes

33. There are many ways Auckland Council can contribute to community wellbeing. The council doesn’t hold all the levers, but it has an important part to play. The different roles of council fit into the six broad categories listed below in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Six roles of council to support community wellbeing

Council has roles alongside others to support children and young people

34. Council is one of many contributors within a wider ecosystem that supports the wellbeing of children and young people, alongside whānau, communities, iwi, organisations and central government. Working in partnership with others in this wider ecosystem is therefore critical to success.

35. The council group already contributes significantly to many of the five focus areas. Aligned to the six broad levers, Thriving Rangatahi identifies some more specific roles council plays that support the wellbeing of children and young people and their whānau.

36. For example, through:

· the provision of parks and community facilities council supports children and young people to be active and make social connections that support their physical and mental wellbeing

· providing safe, accessible transport council enables children and young people to get around their city to access and participate in a wide range of recreational, learning and employment opportunities

· providing grants and funding that support a wide range of activities and groups that support children and young people’s wellbeing

· the delivery of services and programmes for children and young people enables social connections, supports learning, leadership and skill development and provide a sense of identity and belonging.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37. Children and young people told us about their love for Auckland’s environment including the beaches, parks and open spaces. They want to be connected to nature and care for the environment.

38. Council kaimahi told us that children and young people are experiencing climate anxiety, and that climate disruption will have significant impacts on Auckland and in particular children and young people. The decisions we make today will have long-term and far-reaching impacts for generations to come.

39. One of the five focus areas in Thriving Rangatahi is climate and the environment. Through renewed commitment to the wellbeing of children and young people we can promote a strong child and youth voice in climate action and decision-making.

40. Through the civic voice focus area, we can help to build the leadership and capability of our young people to enable them to be involved in leading climate change action and being part of the change they want to see in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41. Council’s commitment to children and young people through Thriving Rangatahi sits under Ngā Hapori Momoho / Thriving Communities which is a core strategy for the whole council group.

42. Council staff and the Youth Advisory Panel have participated in the development of the focus areas and helped identify the roles and activities we do that support the wellbeing of children and young people.

43. The Youth Advisory Panel has reviewed the draft plan and given their support for its adoption.

44. We will continue to work with council staff to develop tools and build capability to implement the new ways of working and ensure children and young people have a voice in decision-making.

45. We are working to build relationships with council-controlled organisations to create a joined-up response across the council group and embed the focus areas, ways of working (key shifts, investment principles), and youth voice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

46. Local boards play a pivotal role in understanding and responding to the needs of children and young people and their whānau in their communities.

47. Thriving Rangatahi recognises that the needs of children and young people vary across communities. This means shifting from one-size-fits all to targeted approaches that respond to local needs and enable community-led solutions.

48. Staff held workshops with 21 local boards during July and August to introduce the new approach of nesting strategic priorities for children and young people under Ngā Hapori Momoho.

49. In September, local boards received the draft plan at their business meetings and provided feedback via resolution.

50. All local boards supported Thriving Rangatahi as detailed below:

· Twenty local boards endorsed or supported Thriving Rangatahi:

o twelve local boards endorsed and provided some feedback

o eight endorsed without feedback

· One local board received Thriving Rangatahi.

51. One local board shared a concern about the council’s role in some of the focus areas while two local boards gave feedback that this plan should inform council core business practices and not new activities appropriate for central government.

52. One local board noted a burden on local boards to deliver from restrained budgets and another local board noted that budget clarity is crucial for effective implementation of Thriving Rangatahi.

53. A full summary of local board feedback and staff responses are set out in Attachment C.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Tamariki and rangatahi are taonga, treasured members of Māori communities and whānau. Half of the Māori population (50.1 per cent) in Auckland is under 25 years old.

55. Thriving Communities, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board Māori Plan all emphasise whānau and youth wellbeing as an issue of significance.

56. Tamariki and rangatahi Māori are more likely than the rest of the Auckland population to face disparities across multiple outcomes, including many measures in health and wellbeing.

57. The voices of tamariki and rangatahi Māori provided valuable insights for the development of the Thriving Rangatahi focus areas and the ways of working.

58. Te ao Māori, in alignment with evidence and best practice, tells us that the wellbeing of children and young people is interconnected to the wellbeing of whānau.

59. Applying a whānau lens to services and programmes allows council to uplift the wellbeing of children and young people through achieving positive outcomes for their whānau.

60. Prioritising the needs and aspirations of tamariki and rangatahi Māori and being guided by their voices in the design of spaces and programmes will create a welcoming and safe environment for all whānau.

61. Thriving Rangatahi is a commitment by council to work differently. Targeting resources to achieve more equitable outcomes, partnering with others; and working in ways that are mana-enhancing and culturally appropriate will support improved outcomes for tamariki, rangatahi and whānau Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

62. Thriving Rangatahi is nested under the Ngā Hapori Momoho / Thriving Communities strategy which does not have specific budget attached to it. Rather, it provides direction and focus for the effective use of the council’s existing resources to ensure it delivers more impact.

63. To help achieve this, the plan directs council to target its limited funds to the children and young people who are experiencing the greatest disparities in outcomes. It also requires us to focus on what we can deliver well (using our roles and levers) and work with others to leverage investment and create more joined-up support that achieves better outcomes.

64. Through the Empowered Local Boards Fairer Funding initiative, local boards will have greater decision-making over local community services and budgets. This means they will have scope to choose how and where to target resources to the needs of their communities including for children and young people in their area. This might look different in different parts of Auckland depending on local needs.

65. Any additional investment to support new or more activities for children and young people will be required to go through long-term and annual planning budget processes.

66. The policy work to develop Thriving Rangatahi has been delivered through existing resources (approximately 1.5 FTE of staff time for nine months). Ongoing costs associated with policy monitoring can be undertaken within these same resources and it is estimated this will require 0.5 FTE per annum.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

67. The table below presents the key risks to council through this work and associated mitigations.

Table 1 Risks and mitigations for Thriving Rangatahi

Then

Possible mitigations

The “nested” approach results in a real or perceived loss of focus on the needs of children and young people in Auckland.

Trust and relationships between council and stakeholders (children and young people, partners, for example) could weaken.

Council’s reputation is challenged because it is not seen to be prioritising a critical population group.

Strategic investment decisions directed at child and youth wellbeing do not improve outcomes.

A low reputational, strategic, and delivery risk.

Thriving Rangatahi includes a clear mandate to focus on children and young people, which clarifies council’s role and commitment.

Socialise with staff and leverage off current traction with the implementation of Ngā Hapori Momoho.

A monitoring and evaluation framework will be developed aligned to Ngā Hapori Momoho to hold the council group accountable for its commitment to child and youth wellbeing.

Staff are involved in the creation of implementation tools and frameworks.

There is a perceived risk that council does not have a role in some of the focus areas.

There might be confusion about what council can do and create expectations that we deliver services we do not.

Thriving Rangatahi clearly outlines the roles of local government, and the ways council can support children and young people within these roles and levers.

Thriving Rangatahi also acknowledges the need for partnership and working together on long-term and complex problems.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

68. Thriving Rangatahi is supported by an implementation plan outlined in Appendix B.

69. The implementation plan has three workstreams and is aligned to the Ngā Hapori Momoho / Thriving Communities implementation plan and change programme:

· socialising and raising awareness to drive alignment and delivery to the focus areas and ways of working

· building capability to support the changes and ways of working

· monitoring and evaluating impact to keep track of progress and understand the impact the council is making.

70. Thriving Rangatahi can leverage off work already underway in Ngā Hapori Momoho.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Thriving Rangatahi
b ⇨	Thriving Rangatahi Implementation Plan
c ⇨	Summary of feedback from local boards on Thriving Rangatahi

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Caroline Stephens - Senior Policy Advisor

Mackenzie Blucher - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Liz Civil - Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Deed of Acknowledgement with Te Kawerau ā Maki: Agreement in principle on key elements

File No.: CP2024/18891

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To agree in principle on the key elements of a deed of acknowledgement (Deed) with Te Kawerau ā Maki under the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (the Act), and approval to conduct public engagement on those key elements.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Act provides for the Crown or Auckland Council to enter into Deeds with ‘tangata whenua’ of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area, who are specified in the Act as Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua.

3. Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua are each at different stages in the process to agree a Deed. It is proposed that Auckland Council proceed with agreeing in principle the key elements of a Deed for Te Kawerau ā Maki (who are furthest along the process), and continuing to engage with the Ngāti Whātua entities to ensure a coherent approach across all eventual Deeds.

4. The key objectives that Te Kawerau ā Maki want to achieve from a Deed are:

a) to participate in decision-making in relation to the Heritage Area (see section 33 of the Act in relation to council decision-making)

b) more effective implementation of the Act, including its objectives for integrated management and enhancing the values of the Heritage Area (section 8)

c) to elevate the national significance of the Heritage Area (section 7).

5. It is proposed that the key elements of the Deed involve the parties:

a) jointly developing a Heritage Area strategic plan

b) agreeing work programmes to implement the outcomes set out in the strategic plan

c) jointly monitoring the achievement of outcomes

d) implementing these above three initiatives through one of two mechanisms:

· Option 1 (recommended option): establish a joint committee with Te Kawerau ā Maki and the Crown, supported by the community. Subject to the progression of discussions with other tangata whenua, this option may need to provide for the later participation of those tangata whenua.

· Option 2: make improvements to existing structures/processes to facilitate Te Kawerau ā Maki participation.

6. It is proposed that public engagement would commence around February 2025 on the statutory requirement for a Deed and the key elements of the Deed that have been agreed in principle.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / agree in principle the following key elements of a deed of acknowledgment (Deed) under the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (the Act), to be entered into by Te Kawerau ā Maki, Auckland Council and the Crown (through the Department of Conservation):

i) an overarching strategic plan for the Heritage Area

ii) work programmes to achieve the outcomes set out in the strategic plan

iii) monitoring of the strategic plan outcomes, and

iv) a joint committee of council established to undertake the elements set out in recommendations a) i, ii and iii.

b) whakaae / approve staff to engage with the public, particularly key Waitākere Ranges stakeholder groups, on the key elements of the Deed agreed in principle under recommendation a), to inform future Auckland Council decisions on the Deed.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that discussions are continuing between Auckland Council, the Crown and Ngāti Whātua (also recognised as tangata whenua in the Act) on a Deed, and that the position of Ngāti Whātua to participate in the arrangements under this Deed will be preserved.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Act provides for the Crown or Auckland Council to enter into Deed(s) with ‘tangata whenua’ of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area, who are specified in the Act as Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua.

8. The Deed(s) are to have two main components:

a) acknowledge the particular historical, traditional, cultural or spiritual relationships of Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua with land in the Heritage Area (section 29(1)).

b) identify opportunities for Te Kawerau ā Maki to contribute to the management of that land (section 30(1)). This is the compnent on which this report will focus.

9. On 7 November 2024, at a confidential joint workshop, the Waitākere Ranges and Whau Local Boards discussed potential elements of the Deed. The same matter was discussed by the Policy and Planning Committee at a confidential workshop on 13 November.

Progress update

10. Tangata whenua are each at different stages in the process to complete a Deed:

a) Te Kawerau ā Maki presented a draft Deed to Auckland Council staff in November 2022. Staff have been working with Te Kawerau ā Maki to further understand their aspirations, explore the feasibility of the elements proposed in their draft Deed, and identify any other opportunities. Elected members have not made any decisions on the draft Deed.

b) The reference to ‘Ngāti Whātua’ in the Act encompasses different entities that were involved during the development of the Act. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei has indicated their desire to participate, with Te Kawerau ā Maki to take a lead role. Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust has also indicated their desire to participate. However, staff are waiting for the Trust’s governance mandate to be confirmed before progressing further in substantive discussions. Staff are continuing to follow up with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, who have recently elected new trustees.

11. It has been 16 years since the Act (and the legislative commitment to enter into a Deed) came into force. Therefore, it is proposed that Auckland Council proceed with agreeing in principle the key elements of a Deed for Te Kawerau ā Maki, and continuing to engage with the Ngāti Whātua entities to ensure a coherent approach across all eventual Deeds.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Key objectives sought by Kawerau ā Maki

12. The key objectives that Te Kawerau ā Maki want to achieve from a Deed are:

a) to participate in decision-making in relation to the Heritage Area (see section 33 of the Act in relation to council decision-making)

b) more effective implementation of the Act, including its objectives for integrated management and enhancing the values of the Heritage Area (section 8)

c) to elevate the national significance of the Heritage Area (section 7).

13. Section 29(5)(b) of the Act provides that the Deed(s) must identify the land to which it relates. Te Kawerau ā Maki have asked that their Deed apply to all lands within the Heritage Area that are owned in fee simple by Auckland Council or the Crown, and exclude water and private land. This scope is in accordance with section 29(4).

Key elements of a Deed with Te Kawerau ā Maki

14. Based on discussions with Te Kawerau ā Maki, it is proposed that the Deed focuses on how the parties will work together (principles, processes, quality and extent of engagement, etc) in key subject areas, rather than attempting to identify a definitive list of opportunities. This is because projects, workstreams and issues can change over time, and the Deed needs to be enduring.

15. From May to June 2024, staff took stock of the workstreams within the Heritage Area in which Te Kawerau ā Maki (and Ngāti Whātua) are currently engaged or have aspirations. Building on that stocktake, staff and Te Kawerau ā Maki have identified the key areas in which Te Kawerau ā Maki wish to contribute to decision-making in the Heritage Area:

a) Planning, monitoring and reporting — the Act requires a five-yearly monitoring report on the Heritage Area. There are various planning instruments and strategies that apply to the Heritage Area, but none that are specific to the whole Heritage Area.

b) Natural environment — the Act requires heritage features to be protected. The ecological health of the Heritage Area is currently facing threats from kauri dieback disease, climate change, fragmentation, pest plants and pest animals. In response to kauri dieback disease, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Auckland Council and the Crown have implemented various initiatives to restrict disease spread and enable safe access.

c) Maintenance and land management — the public lands and assets in the Heritage Area are managed and maintained through capital and operational work programmes, consent applications, reserve management plans, the Regional Park Management Plan, occupancy agreements, concessions, permits, etc.

d) Cultural heritage — the heritage features enshrined in the Act include the relationship of tangata whenua with the Heritage Area. The Auckland Plan 2050 recognises that a thriving Māori identity is Auckland’s point of difference in the world.

16. To focus on how these opportunities might be progressed, and as key elements to the Deed, it is proposed that Te Kawerau ā Maki, Auckland Council and the Crown could:

a) jointly develop an overarching non-statutory strategic plan for the Heritage Area. The plan would bring together all the current strategy and planning instruments that apply wholly or in part to the Heritage Area, but consider the specific circumstances of the Heritage Area (for example, the legislative objectives for management). The plan would set out the desired outcomes for the Heritage Area, guide decision-making on public lands and support integrated management in accordance with the Act.

b) agree work programmes to implement the outcomes set out in the strategic plan

c) jointly monitor the achievement of the outcomes set out in the strategic plan.

17. Two options are proposed for how to implement this approach, noting the Act is silent on the mechanism by which to enable tangata whenua participation:

a) Option 1: establish a new joint committee with Te Kawerau ā Maki and the Crown (recommended option)

b) Option 2: make improvements to existing structures/processes.

18. Staff do not consider there to be a feasible third option of maintaining the status quo, which would be to develop the strategic plan, work programmes and joint monitoring with no changes to the current way in which Auckland Council and the Crown engage with Te Kawerau ā Maki. This is because Te Kawerau ā Maki, as the other party to the Deed, will not agree to a status quo option. If the proposed approach is to be effective and set up to succeed, there must be sufficient support for the parties’ capacities and ways of working together.

Option 1: Establish joint committee with Te Kawerau ā Maki and the Department of Conservation (recommended option)

19. The Deed could establish a joint committee of council under the Local Government Act 2002 that brings together Te Kawerau ā Maki, Auckland Council and the Crown, for the purpose of achieving the three elements set out in paragraph 0. This is the preferred option of Te Kawerau ā Maki. Staff consider that this option is the most effective means to achieve the proposed Deed objectives.

Potential membership and roles of parties

20. To represent the Treaty relationship that underpins the statutory obligation for a Deed, it is proposed that the joint body would have an equal number of appointees from tangata whenua and from Auckland Council/the Crown (i.e. appointed representatives from the local board(s), Governing Body and the Department of Conservation (DOC)). Having tangata whenua, Auckland Council and the Crown together can better promote the legislative objective of integrated management across the different landowners.

21. If, due to the current readiness of other tangata whenua to participate, a joint body is established with only Te Kawerau ā Maki at this stage, the terms of reference for the joint body could provide for Ngāti Whātua to join at a later point in time.

22. The community could contribute to the joint body through, for example, attending open meetings, raising issues for consideration, providing feedback or supporting the delivery of activities. In addition, they will continue to be represented on the joint body by the appointed representatives of the local boards and the Governing Body. It is, however, anticipated that the proposed engagement with key stakeholders may result in other alternatives being put forward for community involvement.

Potential responsibilities and functions of the joint body

23. Geographically, the joint body’s mandate would be restricted to matters that either occur within the Heritage Area or have an impact on the Heritage Area.

24. The key functions for the joint body could be as described in paragraph 0: to develop an overarching strategic plan for the Heritage Area and associated work programmes, and monitor the achievement of outcomes. The following are options for potential responsibilities that could be held by the joint body, to be finalised after public engagement, further negotiations with tangata whenua and final decisions by decision-makers.:

a) Coordination — the joint body could bring together and organise the various parties and stakeholders (e.g. tangata whenua, Auckland Council, central government, community) who conduct activities in the Heritage Area. This can improve communication, increase collaboration and reduce duplication.

b) Outcomes oversight — the joint body could monitor the achievement of outcomes set out in a strategic plan, and receive reports on work across all public lands in the Heritage Area.

c) Advocacy/advisory — having an overview of all Heritage Area activities means the joint body will have the most comprehensive information with which to make recommendations to decision-makers and advocate for the interests of the Heritage Area. The joint body’s advice can also coordinate input from tangata whenua and the community, to allow for more informed decision-making.

d) Decision-making — in addition to an advisory role, and/or alternatively, the Governing Body, local boards and/or the Crown could delegate some decision-making powers on specific matters to the joint body.

Potential legal structure

25. Te Kawerau ā Maki would prefer that the joint body be established by Parliament through legislation as a statutory entity. Examples of existing statutory entities include the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority and the Hauraki Gulf Forum. Te Kawerau ā Maki consider that this legal structure would give the joint body more mana (standing) due to having proposed permanent status under legislation.

26. However, and irrespective of Auckland Council decisions on this option, it is likely to be complex to progress a parliamentary amendment to the Act or to introduce a new bill to establish a statutory entity. Therefore, staff recommend that the joint body be established as a joint committee of council under the Local Government Act with another public body (being the Department of Conservation). An existing example to which Auckland Council is a party is the Kaipara Moana Remediation joint committee.

Option 2: Improve existing structures/processes

27. Alternatively, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Auckland Council and the Crown could still develop an overarching strategic plan and work programme and monitor the achievement of outcomes as described in paragraph 0 through mechanisms such as:

a) establishing a Heritage Area Coordinator role within Auckland Council and/or the Crown to have oversight of activities occurring within the Heritage Area and coordinate Te Kawerau ā Maki involvement.

b) providing funding for Te Kawerau ā Maki to establish an Auckland Council and/or Crown liaison officer, to streamline all engagements with Te Kawerau ā Maki specifically on Heritage Area matters.

28. This approach has the benefit of being easier and less resource-intensive to set up than a joint body. However, staff consider that Te Kawerau ā Maki is less likely to agree to this option because it may be less effective in achieving the objectives of the Act.

Public engagement

29. Given the community, particularly key stakeholders groups, play a valuable role in protecting and enhancing the Heritage Area, it is important that they understand and can contribute to the Deed process and the mechanisms that will arise from the Deed.

30. A draft communications plan for the Deed is being developed.

31. It is proposed that public engagement would commence around February 2025, including online materials, in-person meetings and targeted engagements with community groups that have particular interests in the Heritage Area. The purpose of the engagement would be to:

a) inform the community that tangata whenua, Auckland Council and the Crown are working together on the Deed for the benefit of the Heritage Area in accordance with our legal obligations

b) clarify what the Deed is, in accordance with the Act

c) understand their views and preferences on the option that decision-makers have agreed to in principle. This engagement would help inform future decisions on the Deed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan recognises that the wellbeing of Tāmaki Makaurau is dependent on the relationships between nature, people and place, and that iwi/hapū have a role in exercising their kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga responsibilities.

33. Greater involvement from tangata whenua in managing the Heritage Area will likely result in better climate outcomes for the Heritage Area. Te Kawerau ā Maki is already active in bringing their valuable mātauranga Māori and tikanga Māori in caring for the Heritage Area. The Deed would support those efforts to exercise kaitiakitanga for the benefit of the natural environment, which is an indicator of Kia Ora Te Taiao.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. While Ngā Mātārae has been leading the work to agree the Deeds, the implementation will sit largely with other parts of the Council Group, including:

a) the Policy, Planning and Governance directorate, who will lead the work to develop a Heritage Area strategic plan on the Auckland Council side. The Planning and Resource Consents department consider that the strategic plan will be fill a gap currently left by existing planning instruments and provide useful long-term direction for both staff and community groups in organising their activities in the Heritage Area.

b) the Environmental Services department, who already work with and are committed to further supporting Te Kawerau ā Maki on natural environment matters in the Heritage Area. Environmental Services also supports the advice set out in this report.

c) the Parks and Community Facilities department. The Regional Operations team manages the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park and the Area Operations team manage the local parks within the Heritage Area. Both support the advice set out in this report. If a joint body is agreed, Te Waka Tai-ranga-whenua (the specialist unit that supports the co-governance and co-management units to which Auckland Council is a party) can support its establishment and administration.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. Staff consider that the Deed, and in particular the recommended option of a new joint body, would be beneficial for the local communities that have interests in the Heritage Area. Currently, the community must navigate the various organisations that own the public lands in the Heritage Area. The Deed is an opportunity for the community to work across silos, contribute to public decision-making and gain more clarity on the future of the Heritage Area.

36. The Heritage Area sits mainly within the area of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, which aimed to progress the Deeds in its Local Board Plan 2023. The Heritage Area also sits partially within the areas of the Whau and Rodney Local Boards.

37. On 4 and 5 December 2024, staff presented these key elements to the Whau and Waitākere Ranges Local Boards, respectively, for agreement in principle. Their decisions will be tabled at this meeting.

38. On 11 December 2024, staff will update and seek a decision from the Rodney Local Board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its Te Tiriti o Waitangi-derived responsibilities and its broader obligations to Māori. These obligations and commitments are articulated in legislation, including the Local Government Act, and in Auckland Council’s key strategic documents, including the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, the Unitary Plan and the Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau performance management framework.

40. The Heritage Area is a taonga for tangata whenua and Tāmaki Makaurau, who already work together at various levels for the benefit of the Heritage Area. The recommended joint body option is an opportunity to formalise and strengthen this relationship.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. The resources required to implement the Deed will depend on the agreed elements of the Deed, including whether it includes:

a) development of a Heritage Area strategic plan

b) development of work programmes based on the strategic plan

c) establishment of either a joint body (option 1) or other mechanism such as a coordinator/liaison role (option 2), and supporting their continued operation.

42. To resource these items, it is proposed that the following avenues are explored:

a) current funding and resources within Auckland Council e.g. specialist staff.

b) local board funding

c) future Annual Plan budget bids

d) DOC resources, specifically human resource and an amount of operating expense that supports DOC’s land ownership and ongoing Treaty obligations. DOC has indicated that, while it currently has limited financial ability to resource the Deed as a unique piece of work, it is keen to support the aspirations of all iwi with interests in the Heritage Area.

43. There will also be costs to deliver the work programmes that are proposed to be agreed under the Deed. On the Auckland Council side, this work can bring together parts of the regional work programmes and the Waitākere Ranges Local Board’s local work programme, which currently fund activities in the Heritage Area.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. If decision-makers decide to pursue option 1 (new joint body), there is a risk that the expectations placed on the joint body may outweigh the resources available to support its operation. This risk can be mitigated by careful planning to focus only on initiatives that it can realistically deliver. The first years of operation can inform a business case for future funding.

45. If decision-makers decide to pursue option 2 (improvements to existing systems), there is a risk that Te Kawerau ā Maki may refuse to agree to the Deed as proposed, or that the improvements do not provide enough support for parties to undertake the planned activities. This risk can be mitigated by facilitating direct conversations between elected members and Te Kawerau ā Maki to consider alternative options.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

46. If all decision-makers (this committee and the three local boards) agree in principle to key elements of a Deed and approve the proposed public engagement, staff will prepare to commence engaging with the public in February 2025.

47. After public engagement, staff will report back on the engagement to the decision-makers.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michelle Chen - Principal Advisor - Practice

Authorisers

Nicholas Turoa - Tumuaki Huanga Māori

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Draft Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy - Part One

File No.: CP2024/18195

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to undertake public consultation on the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee directed staff to refresh and consolidate five regional strategies, policies and plans that guide Auckland Council’s planning and investment for open space, sport and recreation. In response, staff have drafted an open space, sport and recreation strategy (see Attachment A) that responds to the challenges and opportunities of a growing and changing Auckland (see background paper reported to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee in April 2024).

3. The work has been guided by the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group, an advisory and Māori rōpū and key council kaimahi, as well as targeted engagement with partners and key stakeholders. Two councillors, two local board members and one Houkura member are on the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group. Policy and Planning Committee members as well as local boards members have been kept up to date with the work through memos and workshops.

4. The draft strategy aims to provide open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to benefit all Aucklanders, now and in the future, to improve the health of Tāmaki Makaurau. It provides a refreshed and simplified approach to planning and investment and sets five strategic directions and four investment principles.

5. The draft strategy also contains three supporting policies that set expectations for delivery. They are presented in a separate report on this agenda for ease of understanding and to avoid lengthy reports.

6. The draft strategy reduces duplication and complexity and reflects the key challenges and opportunities Auckland faces, taking a holistic view to better support decision-makers to respond to the needs and preferences of communities.

7. Local boards provided feedback on the draft strategy at business meetings in November 2024. There is general support for the strategic directions and investment principles. However, views are mixed on whether the draft strategy should go for public consultation at this stage, with some local boards requesting more information on the local impacts of the draft strategy and how it aligns with the “More Empowered Local Boards” programme. Local boards have also requested better support and more resourcing to implement the strategy.

8. The draft strategy is a regional public policy and as such it sets a common roadmap for all decision makers and implementers. While it does not impact on local board decision-making over their local assets, services or budgets, the local boards will require local specialist advice to implement the strategy as part of the development of their local board plans and work programmes. Pending adoption of the strategy, staff will work with local boards to identify what advice is needed.

9. Staff recommend that consultation proceed as planned in early 2025, so that the Policy and Planning Committee can consider adopting the strategy before the local government elections next year.

10. Following consultation, the strategy would be refined and finalised before being presented again to local boards for feedback and to the Policy and Planning Committee for adoption.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve staff undertaking public consultation on the strategic directions and investment principles in the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy (at Attachment A of the agenda report)

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note local board feedback on the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau and that staff will work with local boards on the advice and support they need to implement the strategy.

Horopaki

Context

Open space, sport and recreation contribute to all six Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes

11. Open space, sport and recreation deliver a wide range of benefits, from enhancing the physical and mental health and wellbeing of Aucklanders to climate change mitigation and resilience. They contribute to all six Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes, with activities spanning across the council’s investment areas.

12. In addition to the council, many organisations contribute to providing open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities for Aucklanders. By enhancing collaboration and partnerships with other providers and having clear common directions for success we can focus our collective efforts to maximise benefits to Aucklanders.

Staff are delivering an approved programme of work

13. In August 2022, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee approved the development of a refreshed and consolidated open space, sport and recreation policy framework [PAC/2022/68], which currently consists of:

· Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan (2013)

· Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013)

· Open Space Provision Policy (2016)

· Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014-2024 (2014, refreshed 2017)

· Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-39 (2019).

14. The committee set clear expectations that the draft strategy:

· retain Auckland Council leadership

· enable collaboration with open space, sport and recreation interests and sectors

· enable integration using a te ao Māori framework

· reflect changes in Auckland Council’s legislative, strategic and fiscal environment

· align the five documents to achieve better coordination of long-term decision-making and forward planning.

Staff have drafted a strategy underpinned by evidence and guided by an advisory structure

15. Staff developed a strong evidence base to inform the drafting of the strategy. Evidence includes assessment of the existing policy framework, relevant legislative, strategic and fiscal documents, horizon scanning of current and future trends, relevant data, contemporary literature. Staff also undertook targeted engagement with partners and key stakeholders.

16. This evidence base is provided in a background paper that outlines eight key challenges and opportunities for the draft strategy to consider. It was reported to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and local board members in April 2024.

17. Three key themes cut across the challenges and opportunities presented:

· focus on wellbeing and resilience: we can increase Auckland’s and Aucklanders’ oranga (wellbeing) by encouraging our communities to be more active more often and taking an ecosystem approach in the face of climate change

· make the most of what we have: we can make better use of Auckland’s many assets to deliver multiple benefits for people and the environment

· work within budget constraints: this calls for different responses, such as relying less on assets to deliver services, working with partners and the community and prioritising our efforts where they deliver the most value.

18. An advisory structure made up of the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group, an advisory and Māori rōpū (with mana whenua, mataawaka and sector representatives) and council kaimahi has provided input and direction throughout work. Details of memberships and frequency of meetings are provided in Attachment B.

A regional policy is required but nuanced specialist advice will be needed to support local boards

19. The Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy is a regional public policy. As such it sets the strategic directions we seek to achieve for open space, sport and recreation in the region and against which we will monitor progress. It also sets the council’s regional expectations for delivery (such as open space provision standards) against which regional investment can be prioritised. It forms a unifying roadmap for the Auckland Council group (including council-controlled organisations) to deliver and for other non-council organisations and community groups to contribute.

20. A region-wide policy is consistent with S17 (2)(b) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and supports the Governing Body in its responsibility for the funding and allocation of organisational resources, including making decisions on the long-term plan and annual budgets and work programmes and setting and gathering development contributions.

21. Local boards have significant decision-making responsibilities with regards to implementing the strategy at the local level. This involves delivering open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to their communities in line with the strategy through development of their local board plans and work programmes.

22. Increased local board decision-making and budget allocation through the Fairer Funding model from FY2026 will empower local boards to prioritise investment and identify options for local targeted rates and other enabling funding levers so that they can deliver above regional provision standards and / or increase levels of service.

23. Staff also recognise that different local boards and / or clusters of local boards may require different and bespoke advice, and the organisation is pivoting to support this. Programmes such as the local board portfolio review and Delivering Differently will also support local boards in identifying opportunities to deliver improved outcomes for their communities.

24. Local boards will require nuanced specialist advice to carry out this role. For example, staff will investigate whether current advice (such as local boards’ open space network plans) is still relevant or needs adapting and / or replacing.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The draft strategy combines open space and sport and recreation, and consolidates existing policies into a single document

25. The draft strategy brings together the domains of open space and of sport and recreation. Combining these two domains reflects the significant contribution investment in open space makes in enabling Aucklanders to live healthy, active lives. Walking, running and playing are the most popular forms of physical activity among Aucklanders.

26. The draft strategy consolidates and simplifies all five existing strategies, policies and plans into a single document. It provides decision-makers and implementers with a single source of information and contains:

· five strategic directions and four investment principles that set out where we are heading and how we will get there

· supporting policies that set the council's expectations for delivery (this more technical information is presented in a separate report on this agenda).

The draft strategy connects and builds on key council strategies

27. The draft strategy takes a te ao Māori lens. It builds on and simplifies Te Ora ō Tāmaki Makaurau, the wellbeing framework developed with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in response to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

28. It speaks to the role that open space, sport and recreation play in contributing to four dimensions of wellbeing (oranga): tāngata, whānau, whenua and wai, all of which contribute to the health of Tamaki Makaurau.

29. It sets five holistic strategic directions, integrating the domains of open space and sport and recreation to better recognise their interrelated nature.

30. It also sets four investment principles to guide our investment approach. The investment principles are adapted from those adopted in Ngā Hapori Momoho: Thriving Communities Strategy 2022-32.

31. It is underpinned by a single value that will guide implementation: manaakitanga, a te ao Māori process of showing respect, generosity and care for resources and for others. Manaakitanga was chosen by the Māori rōpū for this kaupapa as it fosters community connection, supports caring for the land and each other and promotes a spirit of unity.

32. The draft strategy on a page is shown below.

Figure one: Strategy on a page

Five strategic directions outline where we are heading to contribute to te ora ō Tāmaki Makaurau – “Where we are heading”

33. The draft strategy aims to provide open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to benefit all Aucklanders, now and in the future, to improve the health of Tāmaki Makaurau.

34. It contains five strategic directions (listed below) that reflect the importance of Auckland’s green, blue and grey open spaces and places and take an ecosystem view of people, place and the environment:

· Make all of Tāmaki Makaurau our backyard

· Deliver innovative open spaces in high-density areas

· Enhance our response to climate disruption

· Protect and enhance our environment, biodiversity and heritage

· Support Aucklanders to live healthy, active lives.

35. Each strategic direction is presented on a page outlining: why it matters, how we manaaki (i.e. what we will do to make it happen) and our implementation focus.

36. They were developed in response to the challenges and opportunities articulated in the background paper. In addition to feedback received on the challenges and opportunities, the five strategic directions were refined iteratively based on input and direction from our advisory structure.

Four investment principles guide our approach to prioritising investment to deliver on the five strategic directions – “How we will get there”

37. The existing policy framework contains several different approaches to prioritising investment, with little guidance about how they relate to each other.

38. The refresh and consolidation of the existing framework provides an opportunity to design a more effective approach to investment, one that is:

· streamlined – to reduce complexity

· consistent – to provide a more robust approach to prioritisation and enable better comparison of options

· flexible – to reflect and adapt to differences across communities and changes in demand over time.

39. Staff considered a prescriptive ‘action plan’ approach to investment where specific detailed priorities are identified. However, this would maintain the risk of investment prioritisation being rigid and very ‘point in time’, failing to keep pace with change and new opportunities.

40. A principles-based approach was considered to better provide both the consistency and flexibility needed. It can be more easily applied across the entire scope of the draft strategy, allow for investment to be responsive to changing circumstances, and still ensure that investment is appropriately targeted.

41. Staff reviewed existing council policies for relevant investment principles in an effort to reduce duplication.

· The principles adopted as part of the Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-2039 were viewed as specific to that context, rather than to the broader scope of the draft strategy

· Those adopted as part of the council’s Ngā Hapori Momoho: Thriving Communities Strategy 2022-32 were regarded as well aligned to the strategic context and direction of the draft strategy. They have been slightly adapted to specifically respond to the unique open space, sport and recreation delivery and funding environment. They can support investment prioritisation for sports and recreation.

42. The four investment principles for the draft strategy (see Attachment A, pages 15-23) are:

· take a benefits-led approach to improve the holistic wellbeing of people, places and the environment

· invest based on evidence of need and the voices of Aucklanders

· honour our Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations

· work together towards a healthy future, using all our resources.

The draft strategy supports decision-makers and delivers for Aucklanders

43. When scoping this programme of work, two alternative approaches to refreshing and consolidating the five existing strategies, policies and plans that form the policy framework were considered: keeping the status quo or refreshing the individual documents without consolidating them. Those two options were discarded based on a technical assessment and feedback from stakeholders. The refresh and consolidation approach was approved by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee.

44. The option not to have any regional strategy for open space, sport and recreation was not included for the following reasons. Having a whole of region direction is valuable to support regional decision-making. While not having a regional strategy may provide more local flexibility, there is a risk of not delivering equitable outcomes for all Aucklanders as well as creating inefficiencies through a less integrated network. Providing regional direction also enables joint delivery with our partners and stakeholders.

45. The draft strategy better supports decision-makers to respond to the needs and preferences of their communities than existing plans and policies. This is because it reduces duplication and complexity across the five existing strategies, policies and plans. It is contemporary and reflects the key challenges and opportunities Auckland currently faces. It takes a holistic view: it reflects the interrelationship between open spaces and sport and recreation, encompasses green, blue and grey spaces, takes an ecosystem view, and has a strong focus on wellbeing, climate change, the environment and biodiversity.

46. Delivery of the strategy will be supported by an implementation and monitoring plan. The three-yearly plan will set out what we will deliver and track progress against the five strategic directions. A key consideration is how to best support local boards in making decisions and delivering the relevant priorities expressed in their local board plans.

The draft strategy will be refined based on the views of Aucklanders

47. Going for consultation will enable us to gather the views of Aucklanders, as well as our partners and stakeholders. This will add to the inputs from the previous targeted engagement and from our advisory structure and help to refine the draft strategy.

48. Consultation would involve running an online Have Your Say submissions campaign, a limited series of regional events, hui with partners and stakeholders, as well as a People’s Panel survey. We will work closely with local board engagement advisors to maximise our reach to local groups and residents.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

49. Auckland faces significant challenges from climate change, including rising temperatures, becoming more drought prone, higher probability of extreme weather events and threats from coastal erosion, storm surges and flooding.

50. These challenges will impact our open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities. Hotter temperatures and extreme weather events will disrupt the ability of Aucklanders to engage in play, sport and recreation. Heatwaves, drought and water restrictions will affect the health of vegetation in our open spaces and its ability to moderate temperatures and mitigate the urban heat island effect.

51. The draft strategy considers how to adapt to these challenges and work to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions. One of the five strategic directions is to enhance our resilience to climate change and our contribution to mitigation, including through reducing carbon emissions, in line with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan.

52. The draft strategy outlines what we will do to make this happen, including:

· develop the blue-green network to better manage stormwater

· accelerate the use of nature-based solutions in our open spaces and built environment to improve water capture and storage, green the city and reduce temperatures in urban areas

· improve the performance of our open spaces and facilities to reduce negative environmental impacts, including carbon emissions

· adapt our open spaces and facilities on the coast and in flood-prone areas.

53. While we already contribute to this strategic direction, the draft strategy proposes a ’do more’ approach to implementation. This is in recognition of the challenges Auckland is facing and their significant impacts on Aucklanders now and in the future.

54. The investment approach in the draft strategy also includes a greater emphasis on identifying and quantifying the environmental benefits of our investment and designing initiatives to deliver multiple benefits, such as making recreation parks better able to support stormwater management.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

55. Kaimahi from across the council group have provided input throughout the development of the draft strategy (see Attachment B).

56. This includes staff from Policy; Parks and Community Facilities; Community Wellbeing; Planning and Resource Consents; Group Strategy, Transformation and Partnerships; Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience; Engineering, Assets and Technical Advisory; Financial Advisory; Governance and Engagement; Chief Sustainability Office; Environmental Services; Māori Outcomes; Auckland Transport; Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.

57. Implementing the draft strategy will span across the investment areas identified in the council’s performance management framework.

58. We will continue to work closely with colleagues in planning for and supporting delivery, and monitoring progress.

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

Local impacts and local board views

59. Local boards have a role in communicating the views and preferences of their local communities. Parks and sport and recreation assets are highly valued by Aucklanders, whether they use them or not. This is reflected in outcomes and priorities expressed in local board plans and open space network plans.

60. In developing the draft strategy, staff have considered local board priorities and worked closely with council kaimahi to harness their knowledge of local issues and contexts. This is in an effort to ensure the draft strategy is relevant to local boards as a key decision-making group.

61. If consultation is approved, staff will work with Governance and Engagement to ensure we reach a broad range of regional and local community groups and organisations as well as residents to seek their views.

62. Staff have tested the engagement approach through a People’s Panel survey. The survey provides an early indication of the level of support amongst Aucklanders for the draft strategy, including strategic directions and investment principles. Interim findings are shown below.

Figure two: Interim People’s Panel findings (based on 200 responses)

63. Local board Member Sandra Coney and Member Margi Watson provided input as members on the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group. The direction and input received were summarised in memos after each meeting for the purposes of transparency.

64. In addition, staff have engaged with local boards throughout the development of the draft strategy through memos, briefings, workshops and business meetings.

65. Local boards provided feedback on the draft strategy in November 2024. At the time of writing, 20 local boards had resolved (see Attachment C). The additional local board resolution will be tabled at the committee meeting.

66. There is general support for the strategic directions and investment principles in the draft strategy.

67. However, there are mixed views on the draft strategy going for public consultation at this point in time. The common themes across local board feedback and staff responses are provided below.

Local board feedback	Staff response
Some local boards requested a better understanding of local impact of the draft strategy, including how it aligns with the “More Empowered Local Boards” programme, and that an increased decision-making lens be applied across the draft.	The draft strategy does not impact on local board decision-making over their local assets, services or budgets. The existing policy framework has been sufficiently flexible to enable increased local board decision-making without any change. The draft strategy is equally flexible and is not intended to restrict the decision-making role of local boards but instead support evidence-based decision-making. The draft strategy is designed to support both the Governing Body and local boards in accordance with their allocated decision-making responsibilities^{^[1]} to make investment and prioritisation decisions (see Attachment A, page 23). A regional policy is required to set region-wide direction and support the Governing Body in its responsibility for the funding and allocation of organisational resources and the final decision on the annual work programme. Work is underway to design processes that enable local boards to input more meaningfully into regional strategy and policy – particularly where there is a specific local impact. This draft strategy precedes this.
Some local boards requested better support from council kaimahi in implementing the draft strategy.	In the next stage of work (i.e. implementation plan), staff will work with Governance and Engagement to identify how best to support local boards to better deliver open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to their communities in line with the strategy, once adopted, as part of their local board plans and work programmes. For example, we will investigate whether current advice (e.g. local boards’ open space network plans) is still relevant and need adapting / replacing. The local board portfolio reviews will also support local boards in making the most of their network and better delivering for their communities. Any additional organisational resource to support local boards’ decision making will be considered as part of future budget allocations.
Some local boards have expressed the desire to deliver more than is proposed in the open space provision standards.	This is enabled. Local boards have delegated decision-making over the acquisition, location and use of parks and community facilities within agreed budget parameters. Additional funding through the proposed Fairer Funding budget envelope and increased ability to set targeted rates or other financial levers will empower local boards to do so.
Some local boards requested that community outcomes be the main focus of the strategy and that saving money should not be an outcome.	As a long-term strategy, implementation will occur over time as budgets allow. Saving money is not one of the draft strategy’s four investment principles. The investment approach is to maximise benefits we deliver to our communities. This reflects political direction to deliver value for money for Aucklanders and make the most of what we have, as well as our legislative requirement in S17A of the Local Government Act 2002.
Some local boards requested more funding be allocated to support implementation.	Budget and development contributions policies are out of scope of the draft strategy.
Some local boards made comments on area-specific matters or other specific matters.	Relevant comments will be passed on to operational teams, and / or considered as we refine the draft strategy and develop the implementation plan.

68. Feedback specific to the proposed policies is covered in a separate report on today’s agenda.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

69. Mana whenua have special relationships to open spaces and places in Tāmaki Makaurau through whakapapa, including the tūpuna maunga and other sites and places of significance. They are kaitiaki of the whenua and wai.

70. Open spaces and physical activities play an important role in achieving te tuakiri Māori me tōna oranga – a thriving Māori identity and wellbeing in Tāmaki Makaurau. Young Māori are active participants in play, sport and recreation, but this declines as they get older and historic inequities exist.

71. The views of mana whenua and mataawaka have been sought throughout the development of the draft strategy including:

· regular meetings of the advisory and Māori rōpū, which includes mana whenua and mataawaka representatives

· Houkura representation on the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group to provide input and direction

· invitation to mana whenua and mataawaka organisations to provide feedback as part of the targeted engagement on the background paper.

72. All iwi were invited to join the rōpū or engage in the manner that best suited them. Mana whenua have also been kept up to date with progress via memos.

73. The draft strategy incorporates a te ao Māori lens, one of the expectations of success set by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee and one of the key themes identified in the background paper. This includes:

· Te Ora ō Tāmaki Makaurau wellbeing framework adapted and simplified by the Māori rōpū to sit at the heart the draft strategy with four dimensions of wellbeing (oranga): tāngata, whānau, whenua and wai

· manaakitanga as a single value to guide implementation

· a focus on honouring our Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations embedded in our investment approach

· Māori as a key target group for investment in play, sport and recreation.

74. Implementation of the draft strategy includes a focus on investing in ‘by Māori for Māori’ solutions, building the capacity and capability of mana whenua and mataawaka and partnering with mana whenua to co-design our spaces and places.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

75. There are no financial implications for the Policy and Planning Committee associated with approving public consultation on the draft strategy.

76. The development of, and consultation on, the draft strategy can be completed within the existing policy department budget.

77. Each strategic direction specifies an implementation focus, from emphasising continuing to do things that work well and embedding emerging practices to delivering differently and doing more.

78. Two strategic directions have a focus on doing more:

· Direction two ‘Deliver innovative open spaces in high-density areas’ – because population growth and intensification mean we have more people living closer together with less private green space and our ability to deliver more parks is constrained

· Direction three ‘Enhance our response to climate disruption’ – because significant climate change impacts and extreme weather events mean we need to make our city greener and spongier.

79. Implementation will be enabled through available budgets set during long-term plan and annual plan processes. When constrained by resourcing, the investment principles will support decision-makers in prioritising investment.

80. The draft strategy reflects the resource constraints faced by the council and the need to deliver value for money. The proposed investment approach emphasises the importance of establishing a robust evidence-based approach to investment and prioritisation to better support elected decision-makers.

81. Advice around investment in open space and sport and recreation will be based on a better articulation of costs and benefits, including in relation to local board plan priorities. This will be supported by a new tool to enable better identification, description and quantification of these benefits to help local boards prioritise investment.

82. Consideration of a broad range of funding and delivery tools will support implementation, including making the most of what we have, delivering differently and partnerships.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

83. Potential risks and mitigations are outlined below:

If…	Then…	Possible mitigations…
Aucklanders, key stakeholders and partners are not supportive of the draft strategy.	Decision-makers may be less likely to adopt the draft strategy. Low reputational, strategic and delivery risk.	· Stakeholders and partners were supportive of the refresh and consolidation. They have been involved through the programme of work. · Consultation provides a further and broader opportunity to seek the views of Aucklanders, partners and stakeholders and refine the draft strategy to reflect feedback as required.
The draft strategy does not provide clear enough direction to implementers.	The draft strategy may not be incorporated into business as usual. Low reputational, strategic and delivery risk.	· Implementers provided regular input into development of the draft strategy. · The implementation context, including financial constraints, has also informed the draft strategy. · Implementers will be further engaged to develop the draft strategy’s implementation and monitoring plan.
The draft strategy is perceived as unfunded.	There may be less support for the draft strategy and decision-makers may be less likely to adopt it. Medium financial, reputational and strategic risk.	· The draft strategy sets strategic directions and investment principles to guide prioritisation and enable better informed discussions on future budget allocation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

84. If approved, public consultation will begin in February 2025 and run for approximately one month.

85. The Have Your Say engagement proposed to take place early next year will provide the opportunity to gauge Aucklanders’ support for the strategic directions and investment principles as well as refine the content in the draft strategy.

86. We will work with Governance and Engagement to ensure we reach local community groups and residents during consultation on the draft strategy.

87. The findings from the public consultation and an updated draft strategy will then be reported to local board business meetings ahead of going to the Policy and Planning Committee for adoption.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

88. If approved, public consultation will begin in February 2025 and run for approximately one month.

89. The Have Your Say engagement proposed to take place early next year will provide the opportunity to gauge Aucklanders’ support for the strategic directions and investment principles as well as refine the content in the draft strategy.

90. We will work with Governance and Engagement to ensure we reach local community groups and residents during consultation on the draft strategy.

91. The findings from the public consultation and an updated draft strategy will then be reported to local board business meetings ahead of going to the Policy and Planning Committee for adoption.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇨	Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy - draft strategic directions and investment principles
b⇨	Advisory structure memberships and meetings
c⇨	Local board resolutions - Part one

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Draft Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy - Part Two

File No.: CP2024/18196

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to undertake public consultation on the proposed policies in the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy, including on two options to update the open space provision standards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Staff have drafted Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy. It aims to provide open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to benefit all Aucklanders now, and in the future, and improve the health of Tāmaki Makaurau. It contains:

· five strategic directions and four investment principles (see Part one report on this agenda).

· three supporting policies for making the most of our open spaces (Policy one), for open space provision and acquisition (Policy two), and for the council’s investment in play, sport and recreation (Policy three). They are presented in Attachment A.

3. The proposed policies are the focus of this report. They set Auckland Council’s expectations for delivery. Like Part one, their development has been guided by an advisory structure and engagement with local boards.

4. They build on adopted policies and plans. Proposed updated and new information is as follows:

· new objectives to guide the development of Auckland's existing open space network

· two options to change current open space provision standards and add to our existing open space network to continue serving the needs of a growing population:

o Package one – High-density focused: provide more open space than currently enabled in high-density areas (mostly located in brownfield areas)

o Package two – Capacity focused: provide more open space than currently enabled in high- and medium-density areas where residents have low or moderate levels of provision (recommended by staff as the best way to balance open space outcomes and value for money).

· more targeted council investment in play, sport and recreation to enable more equitable participation.

5. Local boards considered the three policies at their business meetings in November 2024.

6. They expressed a range of views on the proposed policies in the draft strategy:

· some local boards support all three policies.

· others expressed a desire for a “More Empowered Local Boards” lens to be applied. The draft strategy does not impact on local board decision-making over their local assets, services or budgets.

· some local boards called for local rather than regional open space provision standards (see Policy two). A regional approach to policy setting for open space provision is consistent with S17 (2)(b) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. This is reflected in the decision-making allocation table that grants the Governing Body responsibility for regional governance, including regional strategies, policies and plans.

7. While only a few local boards expressed a preference for one of the two options packages for updating the open space provision standards, there is a shared desire for more open space provided for all areas, not just growth areas. Some local boards commented that Policy two does not go far enough in enabling higher levels of open space provision.

8. There will be another opportunity for the local boards to express their preferences when the draft strategy is reported to them following consultation.

9. If approved, public consultation would take place early in 2025. The policies are detailed and technical in nature and intended for use by individuals as well as local and regional organisations that will deliver the draft strategy. This will be reflected in our approach to consultation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve staff undertaking public consultation on the proposed policies in the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy, including on two options to update the open space provision standards (at Attachment A of the agenda report)

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the two options for updated open space provision standards for consultation:

i) Package one – High-density focused: provide more open space than currently enabled in high-density areas

ii) Package two – Capacity focused: provide more open space than currently enabled in high- and medium-density areas where residents have low or moderate levels of provision.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note local board feedback on the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau and that staff will work with local boards on the advice and support they need to implement the strategy.

Horopaki

Context

Proposed policies in the draft strategy set the council’s expectations for delivery

10. The draft Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy aims to provide open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to benefit all Aucklanders now, and in the future, and improve the health of Tāmaki Makaurau.

11. It provides a refreshed and simplified approach to planning and investment and sets five strategic directions, outlining where we are heading, and four investment principles, outlining how we will get there. This material is presented in a separate report on this agenda (see Part one).

12. What the council will deliver is informed by three policies contained in the draft strategy. The policies set the council’s expectations for delivery through objectives, rules or guidelines. They contain detailed technical information intended for a professional audience (e.g. developers, consultants, council kaimahi, sport funding agencies).

13. Budgets for delivery are set through the annual and long-term plan processes.

14. The policies build on the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013, the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 and the Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-39 and propose updated and new information as detailed in this report.

15. A separate three-yearly implementation and monitoring plan will detail what we will deliver. It will include priorities for delivery and track progress against key performance indicators. The implementation plan will identify the nuanced specialist advice that local boards require to support their decision-making and the development of their local board plans and work programmes. This is in recognition that different local boards and / or clusters of local boards may require different and bespoke advice, and the organisation is pivoting to support this.

16. Programmes such as the local board portfolio review and Delivering Differently will also support local boards in identifying opportunities to deliver improved outcomes for their communities. Increased local board decision-making and budget allocation through the Fairer Funding model from FY2026 will empower local boards to prioritise investment and identify options for local targeted rates and other enabling funding levers so that they can deliver above regional provision standards and / or increase levels of service.

Staff considered evidence and political input and direction in developing the proposed policies

17. The proposed policies in the draft strategy have been developed using:

· a strong body of evidence, including the background paper and a fit for purpose review of the Open Space Provision Policy 2016, options development and testing through working examples and assessment

· input from the advisory and Māori rōpū and key council kaimahi

· input and direction from the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group; the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee; the Policy and Planning Committee and local boards.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Policy one: Making the most of our open spaces

18. Auckland has an extensive network of green, blue and grey open spaces and facilities that are much used and valued by Aucklanders.

19. The quality, accessibility and functionality of those spaces and places are essential to drive participation and use. In addition, increasing demand from population growth and intensification, as well as financial and land availability challenges, mean we need to deliver more from our existing assets.

20. The policy for making the most of our open spaces sets four objectives and proposes new tools and guidelines to support delivery of the objectives (see Attachment A, pages 28-41).

Proposed objectives	Proposed new tools and guidelines
1. Increase the range of benefits our open space network delivers consistent with each space’s primary purpose	· Identification of opportunities to deliver multiple benefits from our open spaces · An overview of the primary and secondary purposes of different open space types to assist with identifying risks and trade-offs associated with delivering additional functions · A risk appetite framework to support strategic asset owners taking on more risk to realise greater benefits from the open space network
2. Improve the quality of our open spaces	· Best practice guidance for improving the quality of our existing open spaces
3. Improve our network to provide diverse recreation opportunities accessible to all Aucklanders	· An open space recreation opportunities tool that outlines the diverse range of opportunities we want to provide for Aucklanders to be physically active, recreate and connect with nature across the network and how we can provide them
4. Improve open spaces’ accessibility and functionality by prioritising connections and linkages across all types of open space	· Planning and development responses to ensure the delivery of quality connections and linkages across all types of open space, including using streets and footpaths, along waterways and the coast, and in our blue-green network

21. The policy informs the planning, development and management approach for open spaces by Auckland Council, its council-controlled organisations, private developers and external development agencies such as Kāinga Ora.

Policy two: Open space provision and acquisition

22. The open space provision and acquisition policy sets standards and methods for the types of open space we need, how we acquire them, and how we achieve quality outcomes from our open space network.

23. The policy sets two objectives and proposes new rules and guidelines to support delivery of the objectives (see Attachment A, pages 42-76).

Proposed objectives

Proposed new rules and guidelines

5. Plan for the provision of a high-quality open space network that meets the needs of Aucklanders and celebrates our cultural landscapes

· Two options for updated provision standards for pocket parks and neighbourhood parks to deliver better open space outcomes in high-density and greenfield development (see paragraphs 21 to 36)

· New open space capacity measure to enable us to compare provision levels across areas and over time (for more details see paragraph 25)

6. Ensure the acquisition of fit for purpose open space land that provides value for money and is sustainable in the long-term

· Updated criteria for prioritising potential acquisitions aligned with our strategic directions

· Updated acquisition process to include the development of an open space land acquisition priority plan to provide a 10-year and 30-year view of the open space acquisition pipeline

· Strengthened acquisitions standards (mandatory standards and site assessment criteria) to ensure acquisitions are fit for purpose and align with our strategic directions

· Detailed qualitative standards (including location, configuration, accessibility, coastal inundation and soil contamination) to ensure we acquire quality open space land from the start

· Emphasis on reconfiguring, redistributing or redeveloping open spaces rather than disposing of them to help us cater for growth

· Methodology to identify future regional park acquisitions so we can continue to meet the needs of Aucklanders

24. The policy informs developers, planners, implementers and decision-makers in their planning and investment decisions to expand Auckland’s existing open space network to best respond to Aucklanders’ needs and balance value for money and affordability considerations. It is an important consideration in regulatory and planning processes such as plan changes, structure plans and resource consents.

We propose to change provision standards for pocket and neighbourhood parks as part of Policy two

25. As part of Policy two, staff are proposing updated provision standards for pocket parks and neighbourhood parks to provide better open space outcomes in high-density areas and greenfield areas (see Attachment A, page 45).

26. Two options for updating the provision standards are outlined below. Those options reflect different ways of adding to our existing open space network across Auckland to continue serving the needs of a growing population.

Density	Park type	Current provision standards	Package one High-density focused	Package two Capacity focused (recommended)
High-density areas or other areas developed to an equivalent density	Pocket parks	1000-1500m² provided at no capital cost to the council	1000-1500m² acquired at cost to the council regardless of capacity	1000-1500m² in areas with moderate or low capacity acquired at cost to the council
	Neighbourhood parks (within 400m walking distances)	3000m² to 5000m²	5000m² regardless of capacity	2000m² to 5000m² depending on capacity
Medium-density areas	Pocket parks	No pocket parks	1000-1500m² provided at no capital cost to the council
Medium-density areas	Neighbourhood parks (within 400m walking distances)	3000m² to 5000m²	No change	2000m² to 5000m² depending on capacity
Low-density areas	Neighbourhood parks (within 600m walking distances)	3000m² to 5000m²	3000m²

27. Urban density is based on the Auckland Unitary Plan zones. Varying provision standards based on planned intensification levels enables us to better provide according to the likely demand for public open space, as well as likely private open space provision levels.

28. The capacity measure is a proposed addition to the existing policy. While the quantity of open space provision per capita is not a meaningful metric in isolation, it provides a basis of comparison when considering future provision across Auckland’s urban areas. There is no accepted international or national capacity standards. Based on local observations and international examples, we propose that capacity is considered low when below 10m² of open space per person, moderate when between 10m² and 20m² and high when more than 20m².

Both Package one and Package two involve trade-offs

29. Both options involve trade-offs, as shown below.

	Trade-offs
Package one High-density focused	Delivers more open space in high-density areas than current policy but larger parks might be difficult to acquire due to land ownership and cost Is a simple standard to understand but not tailored to where provision is most needed


Package two Capacity focused	Is more affordable than Package one but does not deliver the same level of additional open spaces in high-density areas Takes an equity lens by focusing provision where most needed but is more complicated to understand and apply

30. Both options are included in the draft strategy (see Attachment A, page 45). The final strategy will reflect the option (or variation of) that the Policy and Planning Committee chooses through resolution after consultation.

31. In addition, improving open space outcomes where needed can be supported by increasing access to and functionality of existing open space, including connection, linkage and access open spaces. This is reflected in Policy one – Objective four (Improve open spaces’ accessibility and functionality by prioritising connections and linkages across all types of open space).

HOW WERE THESE TWO OPTION PACKAGES DEVELOPED?

The current provision policy is generally consistent with good practice but could be improved

· The proposed change to existing open space provision standards responds to a fit for purpose review of Auckland Council’s current Open Space Provision Policy 2016. The review found that it was generally consistent with good practice, but there was room for improvement and innovation. In particular, it found that the policy is not working effectively in high-density urban areas and is delivering low capacity in greenfield areas.

· Staff investigated how to vary the quantity of open space provided to best respond to this problem. The process for revising the open space provision standards is outlined in Attachment B. It includes significant political input and direction.

Staff developed options to vary the quantity of open space and improve open space outcomes

· To vary the quantity of open space, staff developed 12 options along a policy continuum involving changes to the size, distribution and / or number of pocket and neighbourhood parks as they are the most common types of parks. The options also included increasing access to and functionality of other types of open space (e.g. riparian margins and esplanade reserves).

· Provision standards for suburb and destination parks, civic squares, and connection, linkage and access open spaces set in the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 are unchanged.

· After applying the 12 options in four brownfield and greenfield working examples and assessing them against a set of criteria, staff developed five packages of options that vary provision according to urban density and open space capacity.

· This will enable investment to be targeted where it is needed most, focusing on areas with less open space per person, to respond to both Auckland’s population growth and the council’s financial constraints. The five packages of options are:

Package one
High-density focused

Package two
Capacity focused

Package three
Budget focused

Package four
Doing things differently

Package five
Consolidating and simplifying

Acquire pocket parks and larger neighbourhood parks in high-density areas and increase access to / functionality of existing public and private open space

Acquire pocket parks in high-density areas depending on capacity, vary the size of neighbourhood parks depending on capacity and increase access to / functionality of existing public and private open space

Do not acquire new land for open space, instead enable pocket parks in medium-density areas and increase access to / functionality of existing public and private open space

Acquire pocket parks and increase access to / functionality of existing public and private open space

Maintain existing provision standards but acquire pocket parks in high-density areas and increase access to / functionality of existing public and private open space

Based on assessment and political direction two options are presented for public feedback

· The five packages were assessed using four additional working examples (two greenfield areas and two brownfield areas). The results of the assessment are below.

Criteria	Package one High-density focused		Package two Capacity focused	Package three Budget focused		Package four Doing things differently		Package five Consolidating and simplifying
Alignment	üü		üü	üüü		üüü		üü
Open space outcomes	üü		üüü	ü		ü		üü
Response to growth	üü		üüü	ü		ü		üü
Value for money	üü		üü	üü		üü		üü
Achievability	üü		üü	üüü		üüü		üü
Key:		ü Low			üü Medium		üüü High

· Based on this assessment and direction from the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group; the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee; and the Policy and Planning Committee, two options are presented for public feedback: Package one and Package two.

· Both Package one and Package two scored well across the brownfield and greenfield working examples. Staff recommend Package two as it was the highest scoring package.

Policy three: Auckland Council’s investment in play, sport and recreation

32. Regular physical activity, whether it be play, sport or recreation, provides significant health and wellbeing benefits. While many Aucklanders are physically active, not everyone is getting enough physical activity in their lives and some are missing out as they face barriers to participation.

33. The policy for Auckland Council’s investment in play, sport and recreation sets three objectives and proposes new planning and investment approaches and indicators of what success looks like to support delivery of the objectives (see Attachment A, pages 77-88).

Proposed objectives	Proposed new planning and investment approaches and indicators of success
7. Increase physical activity levels by targeting our investment to low-participating communities and addressing disparities	Planning and investment approach: · balance investment to increase physical activity levels across four key groups: all Aucklanders, Māori, young people (5-17 years old) and low participation groups (based on Active New Zealand surveys, Auckland Council and Aktive information) · invest to enable Aucklanders to be more physically active, whether through play, recreation or community sport. Indicators of what success looks like: · increasing numbers of adult Aucklanders meeting physical activity guidelines (150-plus minutes per week) · increasing numbers of Aucklanders aged 5-17 years meeting physical activity guidelines (420-plus minutes per week) · increasing numbers of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau meeting physical activity guidelines · increases in specific community groups with low levels of physical activity meeting physically activity guidelines · increase in the proportion of the regional sport and recreation grants directed to low participation groups and emerging physical activity opportunities that target these groups.
8. Deliver a fit for purpose, future proofed facility network that makes the most of what we have	Planning and investment approach: · plan for a regional sport and recreation facilities network to provide opportunities for Aucklanders to be physically active through their choice of activity, focusing primarily on facilities for community sport · accelerate the transition to multi-use and adaptable facilities to provide more opportunities for community participation, including high-level guidance on developing multi-use facilities · improving the performance of our facilities to reduce negative environmental impacts and supporting the development of universally accessible facilities so more people in our community can use them. Indicators of what success looks like: · increasing community satisfaction with the level of access to sport and recreation facilities and the range of opportunities provided.
9. Strengthen partnerships with mana whenua and mataawaka, local communities and other sport and recreation providers	Planning and investment approach: · partner with others to improve public access to existing non-council facilities and identify joint solutions for delivery of opportunities for Aucklanders · work with communities to understand barriers to participation, including guidance on co-designing with the community · support delivery of play, sport and recreation opportunities by Māori for Māori. Indicators of what success looks like: · increasing number of Auckland schools and tertiary institutions making their sport and recreation facilities available for public use over time · increasing number of sport and recreation initiatives delivered by Māori for Māori · a more visible Māori presence in sport and recreation spaces, places and activities.

34. The policy outlines how Auckland Council will fund and invest in play, sport and recreation alongside many other organisations delivering these opportunities to Aucklanders at both the local and regional level.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. Delivering the proposed policies in the draft strategy will positively contribute to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan’s core goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

36. The proposed policies help enable the achievement of strategic direction three in the draft strategy: ‘Enhance our response to climate disruption.’ This focuses on better planning and designing our open spaces and places network to respond to climate change and prioritising our investment to make Auckland greener and spongier.

37. The proposed policies provide:

· guidance on delivering multiple benefits from our open spaces (including designing or retrofitting recreation parks to contribute to water retention)

· guidance on increasing connections between open spaces to green the city and manage stormwater (such as blue-green corridors)

· clear qualitative standards to ensure we acquire fit for purpose land for open spaces, including relating to flood plains, overland flow paths and coastal inundation

· a planning and investment approach focused on improving the performance of our spaces and places to reduce negative environmental impacts, including carbon emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38. Kaimahi from across the council group have provided input throughout the development of the draft strategy.

39. The proposed policies were developed with detailed input from Policy; Parks and Community Facilities; Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience; Community Wellbeing and Engineering, Assets and Technical Advisory. This helps ensure that the proposed policies provide the necessary information and clarity to support implementation.

40. Staff will continue to work closely with colleagues in planning for and supporting delivery.

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

Local impacts and local board views

41. The proposed policies are designed to support local boards to deliver open spaces and play, sport and recreation opportunities for their communities in line with their local board plan priorities.

Allocated decision-making responsibilities

Examples of proposed policies to support decision-making

Acquisition of new local parks (within budget parameters agreed by the Governing Body) and their specific location and acquisition of new local sport and recreation facilities (within budget parameters agreed by the Governing Body) and their specific location, design, build and fit out

Local parks improvement and place-shaping, the use of and activities within local parks and the use of local sport and recreation facilities

Local sport and recreation programmes and initiatives and local community funding and grants.

Standards to ensure the right mix of the right open spaces is distributed equitably across the network

Best practice guidance for improving the quality of existing open spaces

A tool to support the provision of a diverse range of accessible recreation opportunities across the open space network

Standards to ensure the acquisition of fit for purpose open space land, including relating to location, configuration and accessibility

Guidance on developing multi-use sport and recreation facilities and maximising community benefits.

42. If consultation is approved, staff will work with Governance and Engagement to ensure we reach a broad range of regional and local community groups and organisations as well as residents to seek their views.

43. Staff have tested the engagement approach through a People’s Panel survey. The survey provides an early indication of the level of support amongst Aucklanders for the proposed policies in the draft strategy. Interim findings are shown below.

Figure one: Interim People’s Panel findings (based on 200 responses)

44. Local boards provided feedback on the proposed policies in November 2024. At the time of writing, 20 local boards had resolved (see Attachment C). The additional local board resolution will be tabled at the committee meeting.

45. The key local board feedback and staff responses are provided below.

Local board feedback	Staff response
There was general support for the level of detail in the open space provision standards in Policy two, but a desire for local standards to be agreed by local boards for each local area.	A regional approach to policy setting for open space provision in consistent with S17 (2)(b) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. Setting provision standards at the local board level would create complexity and undermine the benefits of an integrated network approach.
Some local boards expressed concern that the draft strategy assumes acquisitions are a growth response only.	Acquisitions to improve an existing park’s configuration and to fill a provision gap are enabled by the draft strategy. The wording in Policy two, Objective five might have been confusing and has been changed from “to keep pace with growth” to “to meet the needs of Aucklanders” (see Attachment A, page 43).
Local boards want to see more investment in their area for both sport and recreation and open space, including in non-growth areas.	As a long-term strategy, implementation will occur over time as budgets allow. The Governing Body will consider budget allocations as part of the next long-term plan and may choose to do more. Local boards have the option to deliver more than what is set out in provision standards, using their existing budget, proceeds from optimisation or setting a targeted rate. Through the new fairer funding approach, the local board budget envelope will see $84 million of additional operating funding and $56 million of additional capital funding over the next three years.
Some local boards expressed concern that the draft strategy is focused on urban issues, with no rural or coastal lens.	The wording in Policy two has been updated to better highlight the provision of parks in the rural and coastal settlement zone, that regional parks are predominantly located in rural areas and encompass significant coastal areas and that the provision of access to and along the coast and other water bodies is encouraged in both rural and urban areas (see Attachment A, page 43).
Some local boards oppose reducing the minimum size of neighbourhood parks in high and medium-density areas with high capacity to 2,000m² in the provision standards.	This can be considered after obtaining feedback during consultation.
Some local boards requested that the open space provision standards be based on international best practice.	The proposed capacity measure in the draft strategy is based on a review of international open space standards and an assessment of greenfield and brownfield working examples across Auckland. The draft strategy proposes that open space capacity should be at least 10m² per capita within a catchment of 2km from any point in urban Auckland at full build-out in areas where open space provision standards apply (see Attachment A, page 52).
Some local boards made comments on area-specific matters or other specific matters.	Relevant comments will be passed on to operational teams, and / or considered as we refine the draft strategy and develop the implementation plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

46. In a Māori worldview, Auckland's open spaces and places are interconnected parts of the natural world, imbued with spiritual and ancestral significance.

47. The draft strategy puts manaakitanga, a te ao Māori way of showing respect, generosity, and care for one another and for our resources, at the forefront of open space, sport and recreation to achieve oranga tāngata, whenua, wai and whānau.

48. The proposed policies provide:

· guidance on delivering multiple benefits from our open spaces (including reflecting mana whenua culture and identity and drawing on mātauranga Māori to protect and enhance our environment, biodiversity and heritage)

· best practice guidance for improving the quality of existing open spaces (including emphasis on the importance of integrating indigenous knowledge from mana whenua)

· a planning and investment approach that targets increased participation in physical activity by Māori Aucklanders (including in traditional Māori sports) and supports the delivery of sport and recreation opportunities by Māori for Māori.

49. The views of mana whenua and mataawaka have been sought in the development of the proposed policies. This includes input from the advisory and Māori rōpū (with mana whenua and mataawaka representatives) and input and direction from the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group (with a Houkura representative).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50. There are no financial implications for the Policy and Planning Committee associated with approving public consultation.

51. The development of, and consultation on, the draft strategy can be completed within the existing policy departmental budget.

52. Implementation will be enabled through available budgets set during the long-term plan and annual plan processes.

53. The proposed policies reflect the resource constraints faced by the council and the need to deliver value for money. They place a greater emphasis on making the most of our open spaces and facilities, as well as recognising the need to continue to cater for a growing Auckland and to target our investment where it is needed most and will have the greatest impact.

54. All the options for changes to the open space provision standards involve high-level trade-offs, including on cost. The recommended changes (Package two) take an equity lens, balancing the higher cost of acquisition of larger parks in some areas to address capacity issues with acquiring smaller parks in areas that are already well served.

55. The emphasis on reconfiguring, redistributing or redeveloping open spaces rather than disposing of them includes the opportunity to make greater use of the service property optimisation process. This means that money generated by disposing of an open space can be used by local boards to fund already-planned open space acquisition or development.

56. The strengthened acquisition standards will help ensure that we acquire fit for purpose open space land from the outset, with a positive flow on effect to the cost of developing and managing our open spaces.

57. The draft strategy also proposes developing an open space land acquisition priority plan every three years to provide a 10-year and 30-year view of the open space acquisition pipeline. This will support decision-makers, including local boards, in understanding the trade-offs between meeting the expectations set in the draft strategy and budgetary allocation.

58. Our investment in sport will be primarily focused on community sport, where participation levels are higher and we can achieve the most impact. Investment will also be targeted to low-participating communities and addressing disparities.

59. The draft strategy proposes changes to the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund to increase the proportion directed to low participation groups and emerging physical activity opportunities, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of contestable funding available.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

60. Potential risks and mitigations are outlined below:

If…

Then…

Possible mitigations…

The proposed policies, and open space provision options, go for consultation.

Some Aucklanders may feel unable / unwilling to provide their views due to the technical nature and complexity of the information.

Low reputational and strategic risk.

· Consultation material will simplify the content of the draft strategy.

· The two open space provision packages will be articulated in plain English and supported by images to explain what density could look like.

· Staff will present at stakeholders’ meetings (as resources allow). This will enable us to answer questions and provide clarity where needed.

· We will engage with mana whenua and mataawaka separately in a way that suits them.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. If approved, public consultation will begin in February 2025 and run for approximately one month.

62. The Have Your Say engagement proposed to take place early next year will provide the opportunity to gauge Aucklanders’ support for the proposed policies as well as refine the content in the draft strategy.

63. We will work with Governance and Engagement to ensure we reach local community groups and residents during consultation on the draft strategy.

64. The findings from the public consultation and an updated draft strategy will then be reported to local board business meetings ahead of going to the Policy and Planning Committee for adoption.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy - proposed policies
b ⇨	Process to develop revised open space provision standards
c ⇨	Local board resolutions - Part two

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Natural environment and water quality targeted rates and Regional Pest Management Plan annual report 2023/2024

File No.: CP2024/11218

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note the annual report for 2023/2024 on delivery of the natural environment and water quality targeted rate work programmes and the annual report on the implementation of the Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The natural environment and water quality targeted rates were established in 2018, with strong support from Aucklanders, to respond to increasing pressures and grow Auckland Council's investment in protecting and restoring our natural environment and improving water quality.

3. The Long-term Plan 2021-2031 included an extension of both targeted rates to 2031 and an increase to the water quality targeted rate, enabling the eastern isthmus water quality improvement and southern catchments alignment programme to be brought forward six years.

4. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 included an extension of both targeted rates to 2034 and resumed full funding of the natural environment targeted rate. Funding for the water quality targeted rate will now only cover the annual programme operating costs and interest costs in each year. The total budgeted expenditure of the two targeted rates is $1,011 million over the 10-year period from 2024-2034.

5. In the 2023/2024 financial year, the natural environment programme spent a total of $30.9 million against a budget of $30.9 million, and the water quality programme spent a total of $45.7 million against a budget of $43.6 million.

6. Both targeted rates made significant progress in 2023/2024 towards achieving environmental and water quality outcomes.

7. This report provides a summary of the key achievements from the natural environment and water quality targeted rate programmes for 2023/2024. A detailed annual highlights report is provided as Attachment A.

8. Through the natural environment programmes, the targeted rate funds the protection and restoration of native ecosystems and species and the implementation of the Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030. This includes the pest management highlights set out in this report.

9. Under Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act, the council is required to report annually on its operational plan for implementing the Regional Pest Management Plan. The annual report for 2023/2024 is provided in Attachment B. An updated operational plan can be found on the council website.

10. The natural environment and water quality targeted rates annual report will be published on the council website. Throughout the year, quarterly updates on the natural environment and water quality programmes will be provided to the Governing Body and additional updates on specific programmes will be provided to committees and local boards as required.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the annual report on the natural environment and water quality targeted rate work programmes

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the annual report on the operational plan implementing the Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the updated operational plan implementing the Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030.

Horopaki

Context

11. Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2018-2028 introduced the natural environment and water quality targeted rates, with strong support from Aucklanders. These targeted rates provided $311 million of investment towards environmental outcomes and to deliver on the statutory Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030 and $452 million for investment into water quality outcomes over 10 years.

12. In June 2021, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 was adopted. This included extension of the water quality targeted rate to 2031 and increasing it in line with general rates. This provided an additional $256 million investment into water quality outcomes over 10 years. The natural environment targeted rate was also extended to 2031, with an additional $107 million of investment into environmental outcomes.

13. In June 2024, the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 was adopted. This included extension of the water quality targeted rate to 2034 and setting of the rate to cover only the annual programme operating costs and interest costs in each year. Water quality improvement capital expenditure is now funded using debt with no change to programme delivery.

14. The extension provides an additional $360 million investment into water quality outcomes between financial years 2031/2032 and 2033/2034. This investment comprises $54.5m water quality targeted rate funded operational activities and $231m debt funded capital activities of which the WQTR funds 74.4 million to service the interest. The extension of the water quality targeted rate will help continue to improve water quality in other areas of the city, including coastal water quality from Hobson Bay to St Heliers, as well as the Manukau Harbour.

15. The natural environment targeted rate was also extended to 2034, with an additional $146 million of investment into environmental outcomes. From 2025/2026 the natural environment targeted rate will increase by 3.5 per cent per year. Ongoing investment will be required to maintain the benefits gained from this work programme, particularly as environmental pressures increase with new invasive species such as exotic Caulerpa.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Key highlights from the sixth year of delivery of the natural environment and water quality targeted rate work programmes are summarised in the end of year report in Attachment A.

17. Key outcomes from the delivery of the natural environment targeted rate work programmes in 2023/2024 include:

· Biodiversity focus areas: the Regional Conservation Status Assessments for freshwater fish and birds was completed, adding to the published assessments for plants, lizards and amphibians. These assessments are an important component of the biodiversity programme and are used to prioritise species survey, management and research.

· Plant pathogens: Staff undertook kauri health monitoring in the Hūnua Ranges in partnership with the Department of Conservation and ngā iwi mana whenua o Te Ngāherehere o Kohukohunui: Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Whanaunga, and Ngāti Tamaterā. During this survey, kaimahi surveyed tree health and sampled soil from the base of over 500 kauri. This work sought to verify the healthy status of Hūnua kauri and provides a baseline for kauri health into the future.

· Mainland: possums were maintained to low numbers across 141,266 hectares of rural mainland Auckland this year. To maintain this coverage, staff carried out 52,500 hectares of ground-based control with 22,000 hectares of this delivered by contract, and 30,500 hectares maintained by community-funded and led control. Removing possums in rural areas reduces grazing competition for livestock, helps protect sites of high ecological and biodiversity value and provides protection for revegetation efforts on rural properties.

· Islands: In partnership with Auckland Council, Te Korowai o Waiheke has made good progress in eradicating stoats on the island and is now focussed on removing the remaining individual animals, using a range of methods including detection dogs to do so.

· Marine and pathways: staff supported Biosecurity New Zealand in the exotic caulerpa response efforts within the Auckland region. Auckland has six of the nine known caulerpa sites in Aotearoa. Our work included surveillance, trialing treatment tools and developing monitoring tools for this invasive seaweed.

Pest Free Warrants became mandatory for commercial operators working across the Hauraki Gulf in January 2024. To date, we have issued 142 Pest Free Warrants enabling Hauraki Gulf transport operators to help keep islands pest free. Training and support are also included, ensuring operators are equipped with the knowledge and tools to detect biosecurity threats.

· Marine ecology: Aotea / Great Barrier Island seabird monitoring was established for the first time on the Broken and Grey Islands with the collaboration and support of Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea and Tū Mai Taonga showing great potential for seabird population recovery on these islands.

· Expanding community action: over $2 million in grants supported community-led conservation activities including contestable and non-contestable grants and direct support for practical tools and equipment.

· Enabling tools: enhancements to Ruru, our Conservation Management System, has lifted our data management and decision-making capability. Ruru supports the portfolio of NETR programmes in delivering and monitoring conservation efforts, allowing council to remain responsive, cost-effective and adaptive to site specific management needs.

18. Key outcomes from the delivery of the water quality work programmes in 2023/2024 include:

· Western isthmus water quality improvement: Waterview Separation Project began construction in April 2024, and is divided into several phases over the next 10 years to improve water quality in the Waitematā Harbour and Hauraki Gulf. Pt Chevalier Separation (stage 2) also began in 2024. This stage in Pt Chevalier aims to improve water quality at Waitematā Harbour by reducing the number of uncontrolled wastewater overflows into the harbour. Which is being delivered in coordination with Auckland Transport as part of the Point Chevalier to Westmere improvements in a ‘dig once’ approach.

· Safe Networks: conducted extensive sampling investigations across more than 40 stormwater catchments, collecting and analysing over 1500 water samples. Additionally, the team completed over 2000 private drainage inspections, successfully resolving nearly 200 private drainage issues.

· Safe Septic: maintenance records were received for 12,676 onsite wastewater systems, confirming that each system was inspected by a qualified professional and any identified issues were resolved.

· Urban and rural stream rehabilitation: Fonterra and Auckland Council Wetland Restoration Project is a fund is to reduce the amount of nitrogen entering our waterways from Fonterra farmers in the Manukau Harbour and Wairoa River catchments. Round one of funding will result in 3.8 km of fencing and 63,225 native plants being established.

· Contaminant reduction: Industrial Trade Activity Proactive Programme aims to reduce the number of non-compliant Industrial and Trade Activity, with a targeted proactive compliance of the Puhinui catchment in 2023/2024. Of the 225 businesses visited, 36 per cent of businesses did not require any follow up action, indicating an increase in compliance on the first visit compared to previous years. A number of these were given suggested areas for improvement but were overall found to meet the minimum requirements.

· Eastern isthmus water quality improvement: Lower Khyber Pass Separation Project construction was planned to begin in autumn 2024 but was postponed to amend the design to one of the vertical drop shafts to make it smaller, due to the limited space on site. This change to the design will make construction cheaper and reduce the carbon footprint. Construction will begin in early financial year 2025.

· Southern catchments alignment: significant work is expected to begin from 2026. Work this year focussed on identifying opportunities for projects where we could implement water quality improvements alongside scheduled infrastructure improvements, to minimise disruptions, maximise efficiencies and achieve better water quality outcomes.

Regional pest management plan

19. The natural environment targeted rate funds the implementation of the Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030. This includes those pest management highlights set out above.

20. Under Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act, the council is required to report annually on its operational plan for implementing the Regional Pest Management Plan. The annual report for 2023/2024 is shown in Attachment B.

21. The operational plan itself has also been updated, to better align key performance indicators with current reporting on the natural environment targeted rate. The updated operational plan can be accessed online.

22. The current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) is scheduled to be operative until 2030.

23. Preliminary public consultation is underway for the next RPMP. Consultation materials were approved at the 12 September meeting of the Policy and Planning Committee (PEPCC/2024/90). Preliminary public consultation began on the 25 October 2024 and will end on 8 December 2024, with formal consultation on a draft plan in 2027.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. Indigenous flora and fauna are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change through habitat loss, extreme heat and drought, and exotic species that can adapt more easily to a changing climate. Protecting and restoring indigenous ecosystems and controlling pest plants and animals improves the resilience of native species to the impacts of climate change.

25. The natural environment targeted rate programme contributes to the following action areas of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan through ecological restoration, pest control and planting:

· Action area N1: Build the resilience of Auckland’s indigenous biodiversity, habitats and ecosystems to the impacts of climate change

· Action area N2: Grow and protect our rural and urban ngahere (forest) to maximise carbon capture and build resilience to climate change

· Action area N4: Maximise potential of terrestrial and marine ecosystems to capture carbon.

26. The water quality targeted rate programme contributes to the following action areas of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan:

1. Action area B2. Ensure new infrastructure is planned and designed to minimise climate risks and lifecycle emissions

2. Action area N5: Advocate for land use practices that deliver healthy, resilient soils, waterways and ecosystems.

27. Initiatives such as the Regional Waterway Protection Fund, Kaipara Moana Remediation and the contaminant reduction programmes support rural Aucklanders to protect local waterways, improving biodiversity and making waterways more resilient to the impacts of climate change.

28. The Western Isthmus and Eastern Isthmus Water Quality Improvement Programmes fast-track major infrastructure upgrades to significantly reduce wastewater overflows entering our waterways. These upgrades allow us to better manage the increasing demands on our network due to wet weather and population growth.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. Delivery of the natural environment targeted rate is led by Environmental Services, working closely with departments and units across the council, including Parks and Community Facilities, Environmental Evaluation and Monitoring Unit, Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience, Licencing and Compliance and Technology Services.

30. Delivery of the water quality targeted rate is led by Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience, working with the council’s Compliance unit for the Safe Networks, Safe Septic and contaminant reduction programme.

31. The Western Isthmus and Eastern Isthmus Water Quality Improvement Programmes are co-delivered by Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience and Watercare. Watercare’s investment in these programmes supports their annual targets for fewer wastewater overflows, as well as lower volumes, and complements their Central Interceptor programme.

32. Many individual capital water quality targeted improvement projects are co-delivered by or in coordination with Auckland Transport as part of larger capital projects to secure cost savings, maximise benefits and minimise disruption. The gross pollutant traps with Eastern Busway Alliance project will see the Eastern Busway Alliance install treatment devices which both satisfy their resource consent conditions and provide improved treatment to the wider catchment. Pt Chevalier Separation Stage 1 and Stage 2 have been delivered by Auckland Transport as part of the Point Chevalier to Westmere improvements in a ‘dig once’ approach.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. As part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, local boards were consulted on the extension and funding of the natural environment targeted rate, and water quality targeted rate.

34. Ten local boards provided feedback and supported the extension and funding proposed in the Long-term plan for the natural environment targeted rate and the water quality targeted rate.

35. Local boards are provided with an annual snapshot of the regionally funded natural environment and water quality targeted rate delivery in their areas. These snapshots will be provided in December 2024.

36. Staff engage with local boards on specific targeted rate-funded projects in their local areas, and seek local board views on individual projects where appropriate. Where possible targeted rate programmes and locally driven initiative-funded programmes are aligned at a local level to be complementary and to optimise investment in local environmental and water quality outcomes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. Both the natural environment and water quality targeted rate programmes contribute to the Kia ora te Taiao outcome of Kia ora Tāmaki Makaurau, the council’s Māori outcomes performance measurement framework. The mahi outcome statement for this area is ‘Māori exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga through Te Tiriti based relationships with the council group, to enhance the mauri of te taiao’.

38. The following are examples of programmes that highlight how these targeted rates are being used to give effect to this outcome, by supporting and enabling mana whenua to exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga of their ancestral lands.

Natural environment targeted rate

39. Auckland Council partnered with ngā iwi mana whenua o Te Ngāherehere o Kohukohunui, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaterā, and the Department of Conservation to verify the healthy status of Hūnua kauri and provide a baseline for kauri health into the future.

40. Auckland Council in partnership with Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust and the Department of Conservation and in collaboration with members the Kawau Island community are working towards eradicating wallabies, possums and rats from Kawau island. Following extensive engagement with the Kawau Island community, the partnership has started operational planning for the removal of wallabies and possums in the first instance, while the proposal for rodent eradication will be revisited at a later date.

41. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland Council have undertaken an innovative mana-based partnership approach to deliver Te Wharekura, a cultural and taiao education venue located on Quay Street. Te Wharekura stands to celebrate the cultural richness of Tāmaki and Waitematā Kupenga Rau, aiming to inspire public awareness and appreciation of these taonga.

42. Tū Mai Taonga is a mana whenua-led project on Aotea / Great Barrier Island which aims to remove rats and feral cats and restore biodiversity. The project is under the leadership, guiding vision and tikanga of Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea, and Auckland Council is a part-funder of the project through the natural environment targeted rate (NETR) and Māori Outcomes Fund. The project has had Jobs for Nature (central government COVID stimulus) funding through Predator Free 2050 Limited and the Department of Conservation.

43. In partnership with Ngā Iwi Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland Council co-created Te Haumanu Taiao: Restoring the natural environment in Tāmaki Makaurau, released in November 2023. This important restoration guide provides practical planting advice, alongside the expertise and aspirations of mana whenua for te taiao, including advice on how to engage with mana whenua. This helps nurture the growing understanding and respect for our Te Tiriti partners shown by those involved in conservation efforts across the region.

Water quality targeted rate

44. Partnership with mana whenua is a key outcome of the Hōteo Project with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī o Kaipara, Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Manuhiri co-leading the programme. A cultural monitoring framework has been developed specifically for the project and for the Hōteo awa. Drones have been provided to each hapū, along with drone certification and training, as well as upskilling in water quality testing techniques to input into the cultural monitoring results. On the geomorphic side of the project, mana whenua representatives selected the sites in collaboration with the local community, and all paid contractual works in the project have been offered to mana whenua first.

45. Safe Networks main focus is investigative work improving water quality. The goals to improve water quality is by improving wastewater cross connections from stormwater and streams. As part of the Safe Networks programme, engagement with the Ngāti Whātua environmental team has enabled iwi to conduct water sampling at their significant sites, providing a level of cultural monitoring for their iwi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. The Long-term Plan 2021-2031 includes budgeted expenditure of $355 million for the natural environment targeted rate and $593 million for the water quality targeted rate.

47. In the 2023/2024 financial year, the natural environment programme spent a total of $30.9 million against a budget of $30.9 million, and the water quality programme spent a total of $45.7 million against a budget of $43.5 million.

48. The water quality targeted rate programme had a capital expenditure underspend of $15.9 million and an operational expenditure overspend of $17.9 million. This was due to the reclassification of the $18.5 million payment to Watercare to ‘capital subsidy’. The payment is design and enabling works of the Central Interceptor Pt Erin Extension.

49. The natural environment targeted rate programme had a capital expenditure of $5.2 million against a budget of $5.2 million and operational expenditure of $25.8 million against a budget of $25.8 million.

50. As part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, the Governing Body agreed to extend and resume fully funding the Natural Environment Targeted Rate, including an increase of 3.5 per cent annually from 2025/2026. A full programme of water quality stormwater projects is funded to a total of $779 million by setting the water quality targeted rate so that it covers the annual programme operating and interest costs in each year and financing the capital expenditure through debt.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. All capital works are subject to delivery risks of resource consent delays, availability of construction materials, and unforeseen increases and demand for labour and professional services. These risks are mitigated as best as possible by utilising resource consent experts, early engagement with contractors, and external price estimation at an early stage.

52. Water quality improvement projects funded by council but delivered by other organisations as part of larger projects are subject to delays outside of the control of Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience, such as the Pt Chevalier Separation Stage 2 being delivered as part of Auckland Transport’s Road Improvement programme. This is mitigated through close working with counter-part project managers to understand potential risks, possible mitigations, and adjust timeframes accordingly. The benefits of delivering water quality outcomes in this way continue to outweigh the disbenefits.

53. Water quality sampling requires dry weather to complete sampling for tracking and isolating contamination before public and private drainage inspections are completed. Prolonged wet weather, as experienced in 2023, can impact the progress of the sampling programme. This is mitigated through shifting focus to other areas of the programme during prolonged wet weather and progressing sampling investigations when able.

54. There is a risk that the arrival and spread of invasive species such as exotic Caulerpa will require the diversion of resources from existing natural environment targeted rate programmes. Resourcing for some programmes were re-examined through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 development process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

55. The final natural environment and water quality targeted rates annual report will be published on the council website.

56. The next annual report on the natural environment targeted rate, water quality targeted rate and the Regional Pest Management Plan will be provided to the Policy and Planning Committee following the end of the 2024/2025 financial year.

57. Throughout the year, quarterly updates on the natural environment and water quality programmes will be provided to the Governing Body through its quarterly performance reporting, and additional updates on specific programmes will be provided to committees and local boards as required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Te taiao taketake me ngā reiti kounga wai kua āta whakaritea Natural environment and water quality targeted rates
b ⇨	Annual report on the Operational Plan 2023-2030

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Craig Mcilroy – General Manager Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience
Sam Hill - General Manager Environmental Services

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Resilience and Infrastructure

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Request from Harbour View Heights Ltd to Rezone Land at Papakura from Rural Countryside Living Zone to Residential Mixed Housing Urban Zone

File No.: CP2024/15445

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide how to process a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan from Harbour View Heights Limited (Requestor) to rezone approximately two hectares of land at Papakura from Rural – Countryside Living Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone, shift the Rural Urban Boundary and introduce a new precinct.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Harbour View Heights Limited (Requestor) has lodged a private plan change request under clause 21 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The request is to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) to:

· rezone approximately two hectares of land at Papakura from Rural – Countryside Living Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone,

· shift the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) to match the zone change,

· and introduce a new precinct for the plan change area.

3. The plan change area is located off Crestview Rise and Settlement Road, in an elevated area on the eastern urban edge of Papakura.

4. If developed, the two hectares of land could support between 60-95 dwellings.

5. Auckland Council must decide how a private plan change request is processed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) the council may either:

a) adopt the request as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council, or

b) accept the private plan change request in whole or in part, or

c) reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, if one of the limited grounds for rejection is satisfied, or

d) deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent.

6. In considering this, the council is required to apply a “coarse scale” (i.e. not a detailed) merits assessment. Staff have reviewed the Requestor’s planning and specialist reports, the council’s experts’ comments, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the private plan change, and taken the purpose and principles of the RMA into account. The private plan change is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice for the purposes of consideration under Clause 25(4)(c) Schedule 1.

7. Although this area requires a RUB change and is therefore not provided for in the council’s Future Development Strategy, the strategic implications are minor because of the small area and the feasibility of access to existing infrastructure.

8. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) Schedule 1 of the RMA (included as Attachment C).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / agree not to reject the private plan change request under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA as there are no grounds of rejection available, on the basis that:

i) the private plan change request is not frivolous or vexatious;

ii) the substance of the private plan change request has not been considered within the last two years;

iii) having regard to relevant caselaw, a coarse scale assessment of the private plan change request does not indicate that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice;

iv) a preliminary assessment indicates the private plan change request will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA;

v) the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan subject to the private plan change request have been operative for at least two years;

b) whakaae / accept the private plan change request for the following reasons:

i) accepting the private plan change request for notification will enable a range of matters to be considered on their merits during a public participatory process

ii) it is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change as the council has no immediate intentions or need to rezone this area for development

iii) it is not appropriate to deal with the private plan change as if it was a resource consent application because the current Rural – Countryside Living Zone that applies to the land is not suitable for medium density residential development.

c) tautapa / delegate authority to the Manager Central South - Planning and Resource Consents Department to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request.

Horopaki

Context

Location

9. The private plan change area is located at 28, 30, 66 and 76 Crestview Rise and 170 Settlement Road Papakura. This includes Lots 123, 124, 125, 126 and 127 outlined in red as shown in Figure 1 below. The total area is about 5.5ha.

Figure 1: Location

10. The sites are undeveloped. The upper slopes have previously been cleared and now have secondary regrowth of grass and gorse. The lower slopes (south of the green line in the figure above) are steeper running down to an existing stream (blue line) and flatter area, all with remnant native vegetation and introduced species. There is an existing council stormwater asset and easement near the stream.

11. Existing recent residential development lies to the north of the sites. Existing countryside living sites lie to the south of the sites.

12. The wider context is shown in Figure 2 below. The plan change area is shown in red outline at the eastern edges of the Papakura suburban area. The red circles indicate 400m and 800m walking radii. Bus routes are shown in blue and green. Papakura town and railway station are in the west of the image.

Figure 2: Wider context

13. The sites have a Rural – Countryside Living Zone under the AUP. This is shown in Figure 3 below outlined in red. It is on the urban edge adjoining an existing developed Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban area in the AUP (becomes Residential – Mixed Housing Urban in Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification). The Requestor is the developer of the adjoining existing Crestview Rise area.

14. The sites are outside and adjoining the RUB indicated by the black dashed line.

Figure 3: Existing zoning and RUB

Policy context

15. This area is not identified in the council’s future development strategy (FDS) for urbanisation. However, it is relatively small with only about two hectares of the area of the draft precinct proposed for urban residential use.

16. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020(NPS-UD) contains relevant policy on consideration of unplanned or out of sequence urban development. Also, a change to the AUP RUB is proposed and there are specific AUP Regional Policy Statement (RPS) policies that apply to extending the RUB and new urban zoning. These are addressed in overview in the analysis and advice section of this report.

17. All infrastructure required that is within the sites would be funded and provided by the developer.

18. Implications for public infrastructure outside the plan change site area are addressed in the analysis and advice section of this report.

Proposed private plan change context

19. The proposed plan change seeks to rezone about 2ha of sites from Rural – Countryside Living Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone. The area to be rezoned adjoins the existing suburban area and is in the same valley running up to a ridgeline. The proposed new development is likely to be similar to the recently completed adjoining residential development to the north of the site (two storey medium density). The proposed zoning is shown in Figure 4 below. Note that:

· The application of the medium density residential standards (MDRS) in PC 78 means that the existing zoning to the north of this site is proposed to be zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone rather that the Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban of the AUP that is shown in Figure 4.

· The MDRS also requires the applicant to apply the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone rather that the Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. Any subsequent changes to the law requiring application of the MDRS can be considered at a later date during the hearing process.

· The proposed plan change also proposes to relocate the RUB to the position indicated in the dashed black line.

· The larger remainder of the site is to retain the Rural – Countryside Living Zone and the majority of this will be subject to a proposed landscape buffer and bush planting requirement.

Figure 4: Draft zoning, RUB and precinct boundary proposed by the Requestor referenced as Figure 6, page 25 in Attachment A.

20. A new AUP precinct with description, objectives, policies and rules for the area is proposed. A copy of the draft precinct provisions is included in Attachment B.

21. The Requestor has provided the following documentation, and as noted above, this has been updated and amended in response to information requests from the council, in support of the private plan change:

· private plan change request, including draft changes to the AUP;

· a section evaluation report;

· a consultation record;

· specialist reports:

o urban design plans and statement by Urban Form Design,

o landscape and visual effects assessment by Reset Urban Design Ltd,

o integrated transport assessment by Commute Transportation Consultants,

o engineering plans and infrastructure report by Envelope Engineering Ltd,

o stormwater management plan by Envelope Engineering Ltd,

o terrestrial and freshwater ecological assessments by Bioreseaches,

o geotechnical investigation by ENGEO Ltd,

o preliminary environmental site investigation (contamination) by ENGEO Ltd,

o economic assessment report by Strateg.Ease Ltd

o cultural values assessments by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Te Ākitai Waiohua.

22. The council has undertaken the following specialist reviews of the draft private plan change:

· transport

· stormwater and flooding

· water and wastewater infrastructure

· landscape

· ecology

· geotechnical

· contaminated land

· open space.

Timeframes

23. The private plan change was lodged on 29 May 2024. Further information was requested under clause 23 of Schedule 1 RMA on 1 July 2024, with the exchange of information requests closing on 25 November 2024.

24. The council is required to decide how the private plan change is processed within 30 working days of the latest date specified above. This Policy and Planning Committee meeting is within 30 working days from when all the additional information was provided by the requestor on 25 November 2024.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Statutory context: Resource Management Act 1991

25. Any person may request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal plan.^{^[2]} The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted^{^[3]} and procedural steps added^{^[4]} including the opportunity to request information.

26. Council must decide under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 which is the most appropriate processing option for each private plan change request. In making this decision council must have particular regard to the Requestor’s section 32 evaluation report when deciding. The clause 25 decision is the subject of this report and clause 25 of Schedule 1 is set out in full in Attachment C.

27. It is considered that the Requestor has provided sufficient information for the request to be considered. It is therefore considered that the insufficient information grounds for rejection in clause 23(6) of Schedule 1 are not available in this instance.

28. The options available under clause 25 are evaluated in the next sections of this report. Particular regard has been had to the Requestor’s section 32 evaluation report in undertaking the assessment of clause 25 options.

Options available to the council

Option 1: Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan change

made by the council itself

29. The council can decide to adopt the request, or part of the request. The council would then process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change.

30. If the plan change:

a) includes a rule that protects or relates to any natural or historical resource specified in section 86B RMA, or

b) provides for or relates to aquaculture activities

it may be appropriate for the plan change to have legal effect from notification. If there is a proposed rule of this kind, immediate legal effect could be desirable to prevent a “goldrush” of resource (over)use that could occur until the plan change is made operative.

31. Only a council-initiated, or an adopted private plan change, can have immediate legal effect.

32. The plan change does not include any proposed rule that would protect, or relate to, any natural or historical resource specified in section 86B. The private plan change is unrelated to aquaculture activities. It is therefore unnecessary to adopt the private plan change request to enable a rule to have immediate legal effect.

33. The private plan change proposal is not a matter under consideration in the council’s policy work programme. The private plan change does not address a gap in the Auckland Unitary Plan, introduce a new policy direction, nor does the private plan change have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region. There is no case for the council to adopt the requested plan change.

34. Also, the council meets all costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted. The council should not carry these costs if the request is primarily of benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public. The applicant did not request that the council adopt the private plan change request.

35. Therefore, it is recommended that the private plan change request not be adopted.

Option 2: reject the request in whole or in part

36. The council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one or more of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:

a) the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

b) within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request;

i) has been considered, and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or

ii) has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

c) the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 [of the RMA]; or

e) in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

37. The objective of the plan change is to change zoning to enable the urban development of land that has been zoned in the AUP as Rural – Countryside Living Zone. The request includes a section 32 evaluation report which is supported by specialist assessments on a full range of relevant matters that assess the environmental effects of the proposed plan change. It is considered that the request is not frivolous or vexatious as the private plan change:

a) is considered thoroughly in the application materials,

b) is supported by expert independent opinion, and a section 32 analysis, and

c) cannot be said to have no reasonable chance of succeeding.

38. The Requestor is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request. It is not a speculative venture. The Requestor is not requiring council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or the subject of extensive community engagement or investment. Accordingly, it is not considered that the private plan change request is vexatious or frivolous.

39. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Has the substance of the request been considered and been given effect, or rejected by the council within the last two years?

40. The provisions which are the subject of the requested plan change have been in place since the AUP became partly operative in 2016. It is now more than two years since that occurred.

41. The requestor did make a submission on the councils FDS in August 2023. This submission outlined the plan change in preparation and requesting provision for it in the FDS. However, previously in resolving to initiate the FDS process, the council’s resolution (PLA/2022/95) excluded consideration of new urban areas from the scope of the FDS project. Therefore, submissions on the FDS seeking additional urban areas were not considered by staff, nor was a decision requested on them at the time the FDS was approved. Consequently, the request was not considered and given effect to or rejected as part of the FDS process.

42. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Has the substance of the request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?

43. Section 360A relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The site is not within the coastal marine area and does not involve aquaculture activities, and therefore section 360A regulations are not relevant.

44. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management?

45. The term ‘sound resource management practice’ is not defined in the RMA. In the most recent Environment Court decision Orakei Point Trustee v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117, the Court stated:

“[13] What not in accordance with sound resource management practice means has been discussed by both the Environment Court and High Court in cases such as Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010), Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC)) and Kerikeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council (KeriKeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council, Decision No. A068/2009)

[14] Priestley J said in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95) that the words sound resource management practice should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the Act's purpose and principles. He agreed with the Environment Court's observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the Act's purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95)

[15] Where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at para 22).”

46. The consideration of this ground should involve a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request - “at a threshold level” - and take into account the RMA’s purpose and principles – noting that if the request is accepted or adopted the full merits assessment will be undertaken when the plan change is determined.

47. The RMA’s purpose is set out at section 5 and the principles are set out at sections 6 to 8. Regarding these RMA Part 2 matters, the private plan change proposes changes to the zoning of land to allow new urban development. Issues of national importance of relevance to the plan change include the appropriateness of development near streams and significant ecological areas, public access to and along streams and the management of significant risks from natural hazards. At a coarse level, the plan change request has examined these matters.

48. The applicant supplied technical reports and a section 32 evaluation report in support of the private plan change request. Staff and experts engaged by the council have evaluated the proposed plan change at a coarse level. This included: landscape, ecology, contaminated land, geotechnical land stability, stormwater and flooding, water supply and wastewater and transport. These matters have been satisfactorily addressed. At a coarse merits level, the plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice.

49. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

50. Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Regional and district plan provisions must give effect to the regional policy statement and higher order RMA documents, plus not be inconsistent with any (other) regional plan. The relevant sections in Part 5 are determined by the nature of the private plan change.

51. It is noted that there are aspects of the NPS-UD that the proposal will need to be considered against, including the extent to which it integrates infrastructure planning and funding decisions (Objective 6a), strategic approaches to planning (Objective 6b), supporting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Objective 8a) and some aspects of a well-functioning urban environment – including providing good accessibility via public or active transport (Policy 1c), and supporting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Policy 1e). 68. These are be considered together with Policy 8 which indicates decision makers are to be responsive to development capacity that is not anticipated in existing RMA planning documents such as the AUP.

52. The private plan change is also proposing development outside of the areas set out in the FDS. However, on a coarse assessment this is not inconsistent with the NPS-UD, particularly Policy 8 which recognises that there may be situations where plan changes may occur ahead of time and that the council’s decisions should be responsive to such plan changes. Accordingly, it is considered, that overall, the proposal at a coarse level cannot be said to inconsistent with the NPS-UD.

53. The most relevant part of the AUP in regard to this test is RPS Chapter B2 – Tāhuhu whakaruruhau ā-taone - Urban growth and form of the AUP. This chapter seeks a quality compact urban form that enables a high-quality urban environment and that urbanisation be contained within the RUB, towns, and rural and coastal towns and villages.

54. In this context, the plan change request seeks rezoning of about 2ha of rural land for urban purposes and simultaneous shift of the RUB to encompass this. While this would allow urban growth that is not contained within the existing RUB the plan change request:

· is relatively small at about 2ha and 60 to 90 dwellings,

· creates a logical RUB boundary on a ridgeline,

· can in principle provide for the matters set out in RUB policy B2.2.2 (2) which relates to expansions of the RUB.

55. There are no substantial transport, water and wastewater capacity issues although some wastewater network upgrades will be required as explained in the council group impacts and views section.

56. Therefore the plan change request is also not considered to be contrary to other relevant RPS chapters of the AUP including B3.3. Transport, B7 Natural resources and B10 Environmental risk.

57. On a coarse merits assessment, it is not considered that the plan change request will make the plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

58. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Has the plan to which the request relates been operative for less than two years?

59. The plan provisions of the AUP relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years.

60. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Option 3 – Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

61. The council may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 of the RMA would then apply.

62. It is considered that the plan change process is the most appropriate process because the private plan change seeks to rezone the sites from Rural – Countryside Living Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone. This private plan change is seeking to rezone the land to a different zone therefore the resource consent process is not appropriate.

63. It is recommended the private plan change request not be dealt with as if it were an application for a resource consent.

Option 4 - Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part

64. The council can decide to accept the request in whole, or in part. If accepted, the plan change cannot have legal effect until it is operative.

65. The private plan change mechanism is an opportunity for the Requestor to have their proposal considered before a council’s ten-yearly plan review cycle. The next review of the AUP is scheduled to commence in late 2026.

66. If the private plan change is accepted, its merit can be considered in detail, together with any submissions, during a public participatory planning process.

Options assessment recommendation: Option 4 – Accept the private plan change request

67. The private plan change has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include clause 25, Schedule 1 matters, having particular regard to the Requestor’s section 32 evaluation report, and case law that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request. It is recommended that the private plan change is accepted for processing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

69. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself.

70. The plan change location is accessible to public transport, the Papakura Metropolitan Centre and employment opportunities in nearby industrial areas as indicated in Figure 2. This assists in reducing transport emissions. The location of the plan change is not in a coastal area (and therefore at potential risk from sea-level rise) and does not pose any significant risks in terms of predicted increases in the severity and frequency of heavy rainfall events.

71. Climate impacts can be considered in greater detail in the future hearing report on the private plan change, after any submissions have been received.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

72. Specialists from a number of council departments including Planning and Resource Consents, Healthy Waters and Flooding Resilience, Parks and Community Facilities and Engineering, Assets and Technical Advisory have considered the requested private plan change and had input into the requests for additional information under clause 23 of Schedule 1.

73. Healthy Waters have considered the information provided and the applicants revised draft stormwater management plan and advise that there are no significant risks with the proposal.

74. Auckland Transport (AT) have reviewed the private plan change and provided high level general comments to the council via the council’s consultant transport specialist. Concerns included provision of a long narrow private road and its steepness and intersection safety. These have been addressed in the applicant’s response including replacement of the proposed private road with wider proposed public road. Remaining issues regarding gradient are at a level that can be addressed at a later stage of development. There are no wider transport network issues.

75. Veolia have indicated that there are wastewater pipe capacity issues in the network downhill of the plan change area. The Requestor proposes to address these by funding pipe network upgrades.

76. Watercare has also considered the bulk network implications and advises: ‘Watercare does not support unanticipated growth, however if the decision is made to approve the PPC, Watercare confirms there is sufficient capacity in the bulk water supply and wastewater networks to accommodate the additional demand.’

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

Local impacts and local board views

77. The views of local boards are important in Auckland Council’s co-governance framework. The views of the Papakura Local Board will be sought on the content of the private plan change after the submission period closes. All formal local board feedback will be included in the hearing report and the local board will present its views to hearing commissioners, if it chooses to do so. These actions support the local board in its responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area, in relation to the content of Auckland Council plans.

78. Local board views have not been sought on the options to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change as a resource consent application. Although the council is required to consider local board views prior to making a regulatory decision, that requirement applies when the decision affects, or may affect, the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area. The clause 25 decision does not affect the Papakura Local Board’s responsibilities or operation, nor the well-being of local communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

79. The Requestor has consulted with mana whenua and correspondence was sent to five iwi authorities. Confirmation was requested as to whether they had an interest in and wanted to engage on the private plan change proposal. The following iwi groups were contacted:

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Pāoa Iwi Trust

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

80. Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Te Ākitai Waiohua expressed an interest in the proposed plan change. Information was provided by the Requestor and hui and site visits were undertaken with representatives of the Requestor and Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Te Ākitai Waiohua. Cultural Values Assessments (CVA) were provided by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Te Ākitai Waiohua.

81. Matters raised in hui and the CVA include:

· application of Te Aranga Cultural and design principles

· ongoing participation in all stages of the project

· maintaining the highest possible treatment standards in relation to stormwater and erosion and sediment control

· protection and covenanting of the remaining vegetation including extensive replanting and pest control

· cleaning up the existing street environment existing stormwater infrastructure

· visibility from the Pukekoiwiriki Pa

· provision of pou.

82. The proposed AUP precinct for the plan change responds by including provisions for landscape buffers, vegetation replanting and covenants, stormwater management plans, pou and other cultural landscape identity, and participation of mana whenua in further stages of the design and development.

83. The Requestor is working towards a memorandum of understanding with mana whenua that will relate to the development phase.

84. Iwi authorities will be notified of the private plan change request if it is accepted and can make submissions which will be addressed through the hearing process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

85. If the private plan change is adopted, the council would pay all costs associated with processing it. The Planning and Resource Consents Department would be required to cover this unbudgeted expenditure, and there would be less funding available to progress the department’s work programme.

86. If the private plan change is accepted or, if the request is dealt with as a resource consent application, the Requestor would pay all reasonable costs associated with processing it on a user-pays basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

87. An applicant may appeal to the Environment Court a decision by the council to:

a) adopt the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2),

b) accept the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2),

c) reject the private plan change in whole or in part under clause 23(6),

d) deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent.

88. It is recommended that the private plan change is accepted. It is noted that the Requestor requested the private plan change be accepted. The risk of a legal challenge by the Requestor utilising the clause 27 appeal rights is therefore negligible if this recommendation is accepted. The risk of another party challenging a decision to accept the private plan change is also considered to be negligible. If accepted, affected parties will be notified and able to make a submission.

89. A key risk that often emerges with private plan change requests to rezone land for urban development in an un-planned locations, or ahead of the timing in the FDS, relates to pressure that would be placed on the council (and the CCOs) to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure. As noted above, there is an issue relating to local wastewater infrastructure that needs to be considered in greater detail, however on a coarse scale assessment, there are no fundamental risks relating to the provision of infrastructure to support development within the plan change area.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

90. The council’s clause 25 decision must be communicated to the Requestor.

91. If accepted, the private plan change must be notified within four months of its acceptance.

92. If the private plan change request is accepted and publicly notified, when submissions close on this private plan change request council officers will seek the views and preferences of the Papakura Local Board on this private plan change request for inclusion in the section 42A hearing report.

93. The council will need to hold a hearing to consider any submissions, and local board views, and a decision would then be made on the private plan change request (by a panel of independent hearing commissioners) in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Private Plan Change Request
b ⇨	Crestview Rise Precinct
c ⇨	Clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turbott - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Request - Whenuapai Green

File No.: CP2024/18629

1. To decide how to process the private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) from Neil Construction Limited (Requestor) to rezone 16.36 hectares of land located at 98-100 and 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone (MHU) and introduce a new precinct.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Council must decide how a private plan change request is processed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991^{^[5]} (RMA) the council may either:

a) adopt the request as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council, or

b) accept the private plan change request in whole or in part, or

c) reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, if one of the limited grounds for rejection is satisfied, or

d) deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent.

3. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) and clause 25(4A) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

4. The Requestor seeks to rezone 16.36 hectares of land at 98-100 and 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai from FUZ to Residential – MHU, to apply a new precinct (the ‘Whenuapai Green’ precinct), and apply the Stormwater Management Area Flow control to the land. The removal of an Historic Heritage Overlay – Extent of Place is also proposed from a small portion of the land.

5. The Requestor considers that the private plan change request is the most appropriate method to rezone the land from FUZ to a residential zone and to deliver a comprehensive and integrated residential development of approximately 430 dwellings.

6. The development of the land was previously sought via a COVID-Fast Track Resource Consent application. However, that application was declined by an Independent Hearings Panel due to the site’s location in the FUZ. On advice from Council officers, the Requestor has now prepared this private plan change request.

7. A copy of the private plan change request (including maps, the proposed precinct provisions, and the Planning and Section 32 Assessment) is included as Attachment A (Parts 1 and 2) to this report.

8. The proposed precinct includes staging provisions and triggers to align development with the provision of infrastructure. If specified infrastructure upgrades are not in place, then development within the area of the private plan change request is limited to specified thresholds. The precinct also includes provisions to manage noise, particularly aircraft engine testing, from the nearby Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Auckland (RNZAF).

9. The private plan change request includes provisions which incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) as required by s77G(1) of the RMA. The proposal also gives effect to policy 3 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (updated May 2022) (NPSUD). As such clause 25(4A) of Schedule 1 of the RMA does not affect the ability to accept the request.

10. The private plan change request land is within the area covered by Council’s Whenuapai Structure Plan 2016 (WSP). The WSP identifies the land for medium density residential development. The area subject to this private plan change request is within Stage 2 in the structure plan to be developed in the period 2017-2027. The WSP is currently being updated in line with the Council’s Future Development Strategy 2023 (FDS). The FDS identifies the area as “Whenuapai North Stage 1” with live zoning not before 2035+ and development from that stage is subject to a number of transport, wastewater and water supply pre-requisites.

11. The NPSUD provides a pathway via Policy 8 for out-of-sequence development to occur where it would significantly add to development capacity that is not otherwise enabled in the AUP and contributes to a well-functioning urban environment, even if the development capacity is unanticipated by the AUP or out of sequence with planned land release.

12. With regard to the FDS listed pre-requisites, the Requestor considers that

· The traffic assessment confirms that the Brigham Creek/Totara Road and SH18/Brigham Creek Road intersections have sufficient capacity to support the private plan change request without the need for the identified SH16 to SH18 connections.

· Brigham Creek Road will be progressively upgraded as future development fronting the road corridor progresses.

· The existing public transport network in Whenuapai does not meet Auckland Transport’s classification for Frequent or Rapid Transport. However, the traffic assessment considers there is sufficient capacity in the intersections prior to the provision of Auckland Transport’s Frequent and Rapid Transit for Whenuapai.

13. The council’s transport experts consider that the Requestor has provided sufficient information for notification, albeit there are some differences of opinion regarding the effects. Any differences of opinion and issues can be further tested through the submission and hearing process, particularly if Auckland Transport and others make a submission.

14. Watercare has advised on 20 November 2024 (Attachment B) that the proposed Whenuapai Wastewater Packages 1 and 2 include the Slaughterhouse Wastewater Pump Station, the Massey Connector, and the Northern Interceptor connection from the Massey connector to the Hobsonville Wastewater Treatment Plant. These projects are currently in the consenting phase and the final delivery date is currently forecast to be late 2028, although this is noted as being subject to change.

15. In response the Requestor has advised that the precinct provisions include standards that require the Whenuapai 1 and 2 wastewater packages, as well as a McKean Road wastewater pump station and a Hobsonville Road/Brigham Creek Road pipe upgrade (proposed to be funded and undertaken by the Requestor), to be completed and commissioned prior to the occupation of any buildings. Furthermore, the Requestor has provided a letter which confirms the new and upgraded infrastructure that they will fund and that they are willing to enter into an agreement for infrastructure works with Watercare (refer to Attachment D).

16. Council planning staff consider it more appropriate that the precinct provisions include standards that require the infrastructure to be completed and commissioned prior to the issuing of certificates of title under section 224(c) of the RMA. This can be raised through the hearing process.

17. With regard to water supply, Watercare has also advised (in their letter at Attachment B), that the bulk water supply network has sufficient capacity to service the private plan change request area. Full build out of the wider Whenuapai area will require future bulk water supply upgrades that will be delivered by Watercare in response to actual growth. While local network upgrades to support the private plan change request area can be assessed at the time of resource consent applications and engineering plan approval.

18. Another key issue raised by the plan change concerns the proximity of the site to Whenuapai airbase, and the potential impacts of aircraft noise on the health and well-being of future residents and impacts on the operation of the airbase. To address these issues, the plan change includes acoustic treatment and no complaints covenant controls. The appropriateness of these controls is a matter staff consider will require a detailed merits assessment relative to the specific noise levels created by the airbase. If accepted, this assessment can occur at the submission, hearing and substantive decision-making phase.

19. The Requestor considers that the private plan change request is consistent with the Whenuapai Structure Plan, the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS), and the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).

20. Having reviewed the Requestor’s planning and specialist reports, the council’s experts’ comments, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the private plan change request, and taken the purpose and principles of the RMA into account, the request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice for the purposes of consideration under Clause 25(4)(c) Schedule 1 and is recommended to be accepted for public notification.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / agree not to reject the private plan change request under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as there are no grounds of rejection available, on the basis that:

i) the private plan change request is not frivolous. The Requestor has provided sufficient supporting technical information and the private plan change request has a resource management purpose as it seeks to rezone approximately 16.36 hectares of land from Future Urban Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone

ii) the private plan change request is not vexatious. The Requestor is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request. The Requestor is not requiring council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or that are the subject of extensive community engagement or investment

iii) the substance of the private plan change request has not been considered within the last two years

iv) having regard to relevant caselaw, a coarse level of assessment of the private plan change request does not indicate that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice

v) a preliminary assessment indicates that the private plan change request will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) inconsistent with Part 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991

vi) the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan subject to the private plan change request have been operative for at least two years.

b) whakaae / accept the private plan change request for processing for the following reasons:

i) accepting the private plan change request for notification will enable a range of matters to be considered on their merits during a public participatory process

ii) it is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change request. The council has no immediate intentions to rezone this area for urban development. A council plan change is not currently on the council’s work programme. Therefore, the associated risks and costs of a private plan change request should be met by the developer rather than the council

iii) it is not appropriate to deal with the private plan change request as if it was a resource consent application because the current Future Urban Zone that applies to the land is not currently suitable for residential subdivision and development.

c) tautapa / delegate authority to the Manager Planning – Regional, North, West and Islands to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request.

Horopaki

Context

Plan Change Area Description

21. The Requestor seeks to rezone 16.36 hectares of land at 98-100 and 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai from FUZ to Residential – MHU. It also seeks to apply a new precinct (the ‘Whenuapai Green’ precinct), apply the Stormwater Management Area Flow control to the land, and add measures to manage noise, in particular aircraft engine testing noise, from the nearby RNZAF Base. The removal of an Historic Heritage Overlay – Extent of Place is also proposed from a small portion of the land.

22. The private plan change request area is outlined in yellow in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Aerial View of Private Plan Change Request Area at 98-100 & 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai

Source: Auckland Council Geomaps

23. The site is part of the FUZ as identified with red outline in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Plan change area within in wider FUZ area

Source: Auckland Council Geomaps

24. The private plan change request area is generally rectangular in shape, excluding the northern boundary which follows the angle of Totara Road and a rectangular area to the east. The land has a slight slope. The land is predominantly open pasture with some buildings (dwellings and barns) located in the northern and south-western corners. Two vehicle crossings are provided off Totara Road as access for the existing buildings. However, the private plan change request area has frontage to both McCaw Avenue and Totara Road.

25. The private plan change request area is near to the emerging Whenuapai Town Centre which is located to the south on Brigham Creek Road. It is also accessible to the Westgate Centre via SH16 and Hobsonville via SH18.

26. As identified by Figure 3 below the private plan change request area contains a number of overland flow paths and flood plains. The eastern portion of the land also contains two intermittent streams that flow north to the Rarawaru Creek and then into the Waitemata Harbour.

Figure 3: Location of overland flow paths, intermittent stream and flood plains in private plan change request area.

Source: Auckland Council Geomaps

27. The Ecological Assessment provided by the Requestor identifies that the land contains three artificial channels along its western side and two ephemeral streams. The two intermittent streams identified in the eastern area of the private plan change request land also contain multiple natural wetlands. These features are identified in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Ecological features identified in Private Plan Change Request Area

Source: Requestors Ecological Assessment prepared by Viridis

28. The private plan change request site contains no existing public stormwater or wastewater servicing infrastructure. However, existing public water supply infrastructure is located on the western side of Totara Road.

29. The northern portion of the private plan change request area is subject to the AUP Aircraft Noise Overlay, in particular the 55 dBA noise control area, given the land’s proximity to the RNZAF.

30. A small portion of the land is currently identified as being subject to the Historic Heritage Extent of Place, Category B feature, being the RNZAF Officer Mess (ID 232). Refer to Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Historic Heritage Extent of Place over eastern edge of plan change land

Source: Auckland Council Geomaps

31. The development of the land was previously sought via a COVID-Fast Track Consent application. However, this was declined by an Independent Hearings Panel because a more appropriate planning method for this site in the FUZ would be via a comprehensive plan change. On advice from council staff, the Requestor has now prepared this private plan change request.

Surrounding Area Description

32. The immediate surrounding environment is characterised by both rural and residential activities.

33. The north-eastern boundary of the private plan change request area is bordered by lifestyle properties that contain clusters of buildings and vegetation, such as mature trees along the shared boundary with 94 Totara Road.

34. RNZAF land is also located to the east of the private plan change request land. The RNZAF airbase is a prominent feature of the Whenuapai landscape and the Whenuapai community. The airbase has a number of Minister of Defence designations in place to protect and enable its operations, including operations in the airspace above the private plan change request area. The airbase provides for a range of functions and infrastructure to support its ongoing operations, with multiple runways, open space areas and an assortment of buildings and other services.

35. The land to the north and west of the private plan change request area is generally comprised of rural land uses, predominantly rural lifestyle properties that contain dwellings and a range of other ancillary buildings. Areas of vegetation are located across the neighbouring land, as well as open pasture and streams.

Policy Context

36. The private plan change request land is within the WSP area. The WSP identifies the land for medium density residential development. The area subject to this private plan change request is within Stage 2 in the WSP, identified to be developed in the period 2017-2027.

37. In the Council’s FDS the area is identified as Whenuapai North Stage 1 with live zoning not before 2035+. It is subject to the following infrastructure pre-requisites:

· State Highway 16 (SH16) to State Highway 18 (SH18) connections

· Brigham Creek Road upgrade

· North-west Rapid Transit Corridor

· Upper Harbour Rapid Transit Corridor

· Whenuapai Wastewater Package 1 and 2

· Trig Road Water Reservoir

· North Harbour No. 2 Watermain.

Private Plan Change Request Content

38. The area of rezoning for the private plan change request is identified in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6: Proposed Zoning Plan – F UZ to MHU Zone

Source: Applicant’s Lodged Documents

39. Following Council requests for further information and discussions with the Requestor, the private plan change request was modified from that which was originally lodged and the updated documents are provided in Attachment A Parts 1 and 2.

40. The private plan change request also seeks to apply a new precinct (the ‘Whenuapai Green’ precinct) to AUP Chapter I, Precincts. This precinct would rely on the existing provisions of the AUP where appropriate, but would also introduce several site-specific objectives, policies, activities, standards and assessment criteria to align future subdivision and development with the provision of the necessary transport, wastewater and other infrastructure, stormwater management and ecological outcomes. The proposed new precinct also includes staging provisions and triggers to align development with the provision of infrastructure. If specified infrastructure upgrades are not in place, then development is limited to specified thresholds. The precinct also includes provisions to manage the effects of noise, in particular aircraft engine testing from the nearby RNZAF airbase.

41. The private plan change request seeks to apply the Stormwater Management Area Flow control to the land to manage stormwater; and to remove the Historic Heritage Overlay – Extent of Place associated with the RNZAF’s Officers Mess, ID 232 from a small portion of the land.

42. Figure 7 below shows the proposed precinct plan identifying indicative roads, walking and cycling connections, an indicative neighbourhood park and riparian corridor.

Figure 7: Private Plan Change Request –Precinct Plan 1

Source: Applicant’s First Clause 23 Response

Specialist Assessments

43. The Requestor has provided the following information to support the private plan change request:

· Private plan change request, including proposed rezoning, overlay, control and precinct plans and proposed precinct provisions;

· Planning and Section 32 evaluation report;

· Specialist reports including:

• Ecological Impact Assessment prepared by Viridis

• Site Investigation Reports prepared by Geosciences Ltd

• Integrated Transport Assessment prepared by Abley Ltd

• Water and Wastewater Servicing Memo prepared by Water Acumen

• Stormwater Management Plan prepared by The Neil Group

• Acoustic Assessment prepared by Earcon

• Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared CMW Geosciences

• Archaeological/Historic Heritage Assessment prepared by Clough & Associates Ltd

• Urban Design Statement prepared by Urban Acumen

• Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects prepared by LA4 Landscape Architects

• Correspondence with Te Kawerau ā Maki

• Cultural Impact Assessment by Te Kawerau ā Maki

• Te Kawerau ā Maki Resource Management Statement

• Consultation Summary

• Clause 23 responses to further information requested.

44. The council has undertaken the following specialist reviews of the private plan change request:

· Transportation

· Stormwater and Flooding

· Landscape and Urban Design

· Ecology

· Geotechnical

· Parks

· Noise

· Infrastructure funding and economic impacts

· Archaeology and Built Heritage

· Planning.

Timeframes

45. The Requestor lodged the private plan change request on 9 April 2024.

46. Further information was requested under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA on 10 June 2024 and again on 4 October 2024. The Requestor provided further information responses on 19 August 2024 and 13 November 2024.

47. Council is required to decide how the private plan change request is processed within 30 working days of the latest date specified above. That period ends on 28 January 2025.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

48. This section sets out the Requestor’s position and a coarse merits assessment is provided.

Infrastructure Provision

49. In terms of the infrastructure pre-requisites identified in the FDS, the Requestor considers that the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) and the water and wastewater servicing strategy prepared for the private plan change request have confirmed that capacity, or an infrastructure solution exists, to enable development proposed within the plan change area to commence ahead of the 2035+ sequencing.

50. Further, the Requestor notes that the proposed precinct provisions include trigger rules and requirements to ensure that the Council maintains the ability to control further growth if the necessary infrastructure upgrades are not in place. The precinct provisions seek to coordinate development capacity with the required infrastructure, including transport and wastewater. Upgrades to service development seek to ensure that no financial or other burden associated with bringing the implementation of Whenuapai North Stage 1 (as identified in the FDS) forward falls on the Council. Further costs may be determined through the Development Contributions Policy that is currently being prepared.

Transport

51. The private plan change request is supported by an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) that assesses the transportation implications of the proposed rezoning to Residential – MHU. It also includes the identification of potential measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse transportation effects. The ITA modelling indicates that the following key upgrades are required to serve the area:

· Establishment of intersections onto Totara Road, including roundabouts at the northern intersection and the existing Totara Road / Dale Road / McCaw Avenue intersection

· Upgrade of Totara Road to an urban standard along the private plan change request frontage

· The ability to provide future connections to surrounding land

· The provision of bus stops on Totara Road

· Possible line making changes to the Brigham Creek Road / Totara Road intersection to enable a shared through / left turn lane for eastbound traffic.

52. The above transportation works are identified in Appendix 1 and 3 of the precinct provisions in Attachment A Part 2. If these works are not provided at subdivision stage this will require a Non-Complying Activity resource consent.

53. The private plan change request also identifies new internal local roads, and footpath and cycling links within the plan change area to be delivered through the precinct provisions.

Wastewater

54. No existing wastewater connection to the private plan change request area exists so a new network is required. The Requestor has identified several options to deliver wastewater services to the area. They consider that a new wastewater pump station in McKean Road is necessary. This will require twin rising mains from the wastewater pump station to the intersection of Totara Road and Brigham Creek Road, and a new gravity main located within Brigham Creek Road to the proposed Slaughterhouse Wastewater Pump Station. The Requestor has included provisions to ensure that no building could be occupied until the necessary pump stations and upgrades are built.

55. Watercare have identified that there is limited wastewater capacity in Whenuapai. Discussions between the Requestor and Watercare are ongoing and wastewater triggers are proposed in the precinct to ensure that development is restricted if wastewater infrastructure is not available. Watercare’s views are discussed further in the coarse assessment and the section on the council group impacts and views below.

Water

56. The Requestor has provided an assessment of water capacity in the Whenuapai area which concludes that there is sufficient capacity available. This view is supported by Watercare. There are some water upgrades required, and the Requestor acknowledges these would be at the developer’s expense.

Stormwater and Flooding

57. A draft Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) has been prepared by the Requestor. Council’s Healthy Waters team have been working with the Requestor on amendments to the draft SMP. It is intended that the SMP will be adopted into the region-wide Network Discharge Consent (NDC). Provisional approval for the SMP will be sought during the plan change process as evidence that stormwater is able to be managed in line with the requirements of the NDC. The SMP aims to align the proposed stormwater management approach for the private plan change request area with the requirements of the AUP.

58. The Requestor has also addressed flooding effects, noting that the existing overland flow paths in the western part of the private plan change request area discharge through a culvert under Totara Road that then discharges to the upper end tributary of the Ratara Stream. In addition, overland flow paths in the eastern portion of the private plan change request area currently discharge to the Rarawaru Creek or tributaries. The Requestor’s assessment notes that currently flooding is contained to areas adjacent to existing streams and overland flow paths in the private plan change request area and to the Rarawaru Creek, and flooding also occurs along Totara Road.

59. The Requestor’s assessment notes that the private plan change request can suitably manage any adverse flood effects, including those associated with climate change, and that the future development enabled by the private plan change request will not be subject to flooding. Additional stormwater runoff resulting from an increase in impervious areas can be managed to minimise the effects on streams and downstream areas to an acceptable level; and any increases in flood volumes will be attenuated sufficiently to prevent any significant increase in the potential flooding of neighbouring properties.

60. Stormwater and flooding remain matters that can be addressed in the future submission and hearing process and both parties (Healthy Waters and the Requestor) have indicated they wish to continue to work together on the mitigation provided by the private plan change request.

Staging

61. The private plan change request includes precinct provisions to ensure that the subdivision and development of land for residential activities is coordinated with transport and wastewater infrastructure provision and the upgrades necessary to provide for or manage adverse effects on the local and wider transport and wastewater networks. The Requestor considers that the precinct manages and mitigates infrastructure effects.

Other Matters

62. The Requestor has also provided technical reports and a summary in the section 32 report of a number of other matters, including noise, ecology, cultural heritage, archaeology and geotechnical matters.

63. The Requestor has provided an acoustic assessment of the potential noise effects that could be received or generated by activities enabled under the private plan change request zoning. The acoustic assessment identifies the main sources of noise received by the private plan change request land are related to aircraft operations from the nearby RNZAF airbase from normal flights, emergency flight operations and ground based engine testing. In response, the Requestor proposes specific rules for building construction, including specific building materials, to ensure that internal noise levels in a dwelling provide a sufficient level of residential amenity.

64. The assessment also considers an assessment of reverse sensitivity effects and amenity effects with regard to the RNZAF airbase and proposes measures such as a no complaints covenant being registered on any new titles created in the private plan change request area at a subdivision stage.

65. The appropriateness of the acoustic treatment and no complaints covenant controls in the plan change is a matter that requires a detailed merits assessment relative to the specific noise environment created by the airbase. If the plan change is accepted, this would form an important part of the hearing report prepared under section 42A of the RMA.

Summary

66. The Requestor concludes that:

… the PPC is the most appropriate way of achieving the purpose of the RMA. It is recommended that the PPC be accepted for processing under Schedule 1 of the RMA as the PPC will enable the efficient use of the land, whilst ensuring the surrounding uses are protected through bespoke controls proposed to manage the interface between the PPC land and the surrounding environment.

Statutory Context: Resource Management Act 1991

67. Any person may request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal plan. The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1, RMA. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted, and procedural steps added including the opportunity to request information.

68. Council must decide under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA which is the most appropriate processing option for each private plan change request. In making this decision council must have particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report when deciding. The clause 25 decision is the subject of this report and clause 25 is set out in full in Attachment C.

69. The Requestor has provided sufficient information for the private plan change request to be considered. The insufficient information grounds for rejection in clause 23(6) are not available in this instance.

70. Through the clause 23 further information process, the Requestor has updated the plan change documents, section 32 evaluation report and other specialists’ reports.

71. Council has four possible options available to it when making a decision on a private plan change request under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. The options available under clause 25 are evaluated in the next sections of this report. Particular regard has been given to the Requestor’s section 32 evaluation report in undertaking the assessment of clause 25 options.

Options available to the council

Option 1: Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council itself

72. The council can decide to adopt the request, or part of the request. Council would then process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change.

73. If the private plan change request:

a) includes a rule that protects or relates to any natural or historical resource specified in section 86B RMA, or

b) provides for or relates to aquaculture activities

74. it may be appropriate for the plan change to have legal effect from the time of notification. If there is a proposed rule of this kind, immediate legal effect could be desirable to prevent unexpected applications that seek to pre-empt the AUP provisions.

75. The private plan change request does not include any proposed rule that would protect, or relate to, any natural or historical resource specified in section 86B of the RMA. While the private plan change request does seek to remove part of an Historic Heritage Extent of Place from a small part of the plan change land, this does not trigger a particular rule, change a rule, or require immediate legal effect. The private plan change request is also unrelated to aquaculture activities.

76. Therefore it is unnecessary to adopt the private plan change request to enable a rule to have immediate legal effect.

77. The private plan change request is not a matter under consideration in council’s policy work programme. The private plan change request does not address a gap in the AUP, introduce a new policy direction, nor does it have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region. The private plan change request is seeking a site-specific zoning with a new precinct.

78. The council meets all costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted. The council should not carry these costs if the request is primarily of direct benefit to the Requestor, rather than the wider public. The request is a site-specific proposal, and the most immediate or direct benefit, if any, is to the Requestor.

79. The Requestor did not request that council adopt the private plan change request.

80. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be adopted by council as its own plan change.

Option 2 – Reject the request, in whole or in part

81. The council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

82. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:

a) the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

b) within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request;

I. has been considered, and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or

II. has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

c) the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

e) in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.

83. The council can only reject a private plan change request if one or more of the limited grounds of rejection in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 are available. The council does not have to reject the private plan change request in those circumstances and can exercise its discretion not to reject the request. If there are no grounds of rejection available, the council cannot reject the private plan change request.

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

84. The objective of the private plan change is to rezone land from the Future Urban zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone to enable development of the land for medium density residential activity. The private plan change request includes a planning report and section 32 evaluation. These are supported by specialist assessments of environmental effects, including transport, infrastructure, stormwater and flooding, geotechnical, ecological, noise urban design, landscape, archaeological, heritage and cultural effects, together with consultation undertaken by the Requestor.

85. It is considered that the private plan change request is not frivolous as the private plan change:

a) was considered thoroughly in the application materials

b) is supported by expert independent opinion, and a section 32 evaluation

c) cannot be said to have no reasonable chance of succeeding.

86. The Requestor is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request. The Requestor previously sought consent through the Covid-Fast Track Consenting process. That Fast Track application was declined by the Independent Hearings Panel due to the Future Urban zoning of the land. The Requestor has subsequently prepared and lodged this private plan change request. It is noted that this course of action was recommended by council officers during the Fast Track consenting process as a more appropriate pathway.

87. The Requestor is not requiring council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or been the subject of extensive community engagement or investment. Accordingly, it is not considered that the private plan change request is vexatious.

88. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Has the substance of the request been considered and been given effect, or rejected by the council within the last two years?

89. The substance of this private plan change request has not been considered within the last two years by Auckland Council. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Has the substance of the request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?

90. Section 360A relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The land is not within the coastal marine area, and the request does not involve aquaculture activities. Therefore, section 360A regulations are not relevant.

91. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management?

92. The term ‘sound resource management practice’ is not defined in the RMA.

93. In the recent Environment Court decision Orakei Point Trustee v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117, the Court stated:

“[13] What not in accordance with sound resource management practice means has been discussed by both the Environment Court and High Court in cases such as Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010), Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC)) and Kerikeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council (KeriKeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council, Decision No. A068/2009)

[15] Where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at para 22).”

94. The consideration of this ground should involve a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request - “at a threshold level”. It should take into account the RMA’s purpose and principles – noting that if the request is accepted or adopted, the full merits assessment will be undertaken when the plan change is determined.

A Coarse Merits Assessment of the Private Plan Change Request

95. The Requestor supplied technical reports and a section 32 evaluation report in support of the private plan change request. This has considered the zoning options for the site and concluded that the proposed rezoning is the most appropriate.

96. The assessment of environmental effects provided by the Requestor indicates that any actual and potential adverse effects can be adequately mitigated. These conclusions are supported by experts who are advising the Requestor.

97. The council’s specialists have assessed the information provided and worked with the Requestor. Changes have been made to the request in response to further information requirements.

98. As identified above, the private plan change request land is within the area covered by the WSP. The WSP identifies the land for medium density residential development. The area subject to this private plan change request is within Stage 2 in the WSP, to be developed in the period 2017-2027.

99. In the FDS the private plan change request area is identified as Whenuapai North Stage 1 with live zoning not before 2035+. That area is also subject to the following infrastructure pre-requisites:

· SH16 to SH18 connections

· Brigham Creek Road upgrade

· North-west Rapid Transit Corridor

· Upper Harbour (SH18) Rapid Transit Corridor

· Whenuapai Wastewater Packages 1 and 2

· Trig Road Water Reservoir

· North Harbour No. 2 Watermain.

100. The NPSUD provides a pathway for out-of-sequence development to occur where this would significantly add to development capacity and contribute to a well-functioning urban environment, even if the development capacity is unanticipated by the AUP or out of sequence with planned land release. This is placed in the Auckland context by Principle 5(a) of the FDS, which states that there may be scenarios where unanticipated and/or out-of-sequence development is appropriate. This may be the case with alternate or new infrastructure funding approaches which limit impacts on council’s financial position and commitments. Council will therefore consider agreements with the private sector to provide the bulk infrastructure for development where this does not unduly impact the council’s debt profile or other funding commitments.

Wastewater

101. As outlined earlier in this report, no existing wastewater connection to the private plan change request area exists, so a new network is required. The Requestor has identified several options to deliver wastewater services to the area. They consider that a new wastewater pump station in McKean Road is necessary, along with twin rising mains from the wastewater pump station to the intersection of Totara Road and Brigham Creek Road, and a new gravity main located within Brigham Creek Road to the proposed Slaughterhouse Wastewater Pump Station. The Requestor has also included provisions to ensure that no building could be occupied until the necessary pump stations and upgrades are built.

102. Council considers it more appropriate that the precinct provisions include standards that require the infrastructure to be completed and commissioned prior to the issuing of certificates of title under section 224(c) of the RMA.

103. With regard to wastewater servicing, Watercare has advised (on 20 November 2024 provided as Attachment B) that the proposed Whenuapai Wastewater Packages 1 and 2 include the Slaughterhouse Wastewater Pump Station, the Massey Connector, and the Northern Interceptor connection from the Massey connector to the Hobsonville Wastewater Treatment Plant. These projects are currently in the consenting phase and the final delivery date is currently forecast to be late 2028, although this is noted as being subject to change.

104. The Requestor has advised that the precinct provisions include standards that require the Whenuapai 1 and 2 wastewater packages, as well as a McKean Road wastewater pump station and a Hobsonville Road/Brigham Creek Road pipe upgrade (proposed to be funded and undertaken by the Requestor), to be completed and commissioned prior to the occupation of any buildings. Furthermore, the Requestor has provided a letter which confirms the new and upgraded infrastructure that they will fund and that they are willing to enter into an Agreement for Infrastructure Works with Watercare (refer to Attachment C).

105. There are wastewater servicing options available. The land development will occur gradually over a period of time. Based on the information provided by Watercare, indications are that by the time the land is ready to be developed (i.e. the plan change process completed), and the necessary resource consenting is in place for any bulk earthworks and building construction, the necessary wastewater infrastructure will have been constructed and be close to being online.

Water Supply

106. The Requestor has provided an assessment of water capacity in the Whenuapai area which considers that there is sufficient capacity available. This view is supported by Watercare.

107. Watercare has advised (in their letter at Attachment B), that the bulk water supply network has sufficient capacity to service the private plan change request area. Full build out of the wider Whenuapai area will require future bulk water supply upgrades that will be delivered by Watercare in response to actual growth. Local network upgrades to support the private plan change request area can be assessed at the time of resource consent applications and engineering plan approval. The Requestor acknowledges that local water supply upgrades that are necessary to support the plan change would be at the developer’s expense.

Transport

108. The Requestor has provided an assessment of transportation matters and infrastructure upgrades required to support the private plan change request area. This includes a letter (at Attachment D) confirming the funding of the necessary transport infrastructure and associated precinct provisions requiring their implementation.

109. The council’s transport experts consider that the Requestor has sufficiently addressed the transport effects to be considered for notification and the future assessment. These effects can be further tested through the submission and hearing process.

Stormwater

110. In terms of stormwater management and flooding, the Requestor has provided a draft SMP which the Healthy Waters Department has reviewed and commented on, and which has been amended by the Requestor in response to further information requests.

111. Stormwater, flooding and the details relating to managing flood risk can be appropriately managed and considered during the notification and hearing process; and further refinement can occur through the submission and hearing process.

Other Matters

112. Requests for further information, including on the topics outlined in this report, have been made by the council and changes to the private plan change request have been made by the Requestor in response. Outstanding issues can be addressed through the section 42A hearing report and hearing process

113. Having reviewed the Requestor’s planning and specialist reports, the council’s experts’ comments, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the private plan change request, and taken the purpose and principles of the RMA into account, the private plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice for the purposes of consideration under clause 25(4)(c) Schedule 1.

114. Therefore, it is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

115. Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Regional and district plan provisions must give effect to the regional policy statement and higher order RMA documents, plus not be inconsistent with any (other) regional plan. The relevant sections in Part 5 are determined by the nature of the private plan change.

116. The most relevant part of the AUP in this regard is the RPS and specifically, Chapter B2 Urban Growth and Form and B3 Infrastructure, Transport and Energy. Objective B3.2.1(5) seeks that:

Infrastructure planning and land use planning are integrated to service growth efficiently

117. The relevant Policy seeks to:

Enable the rezoning of future urban zoned land for urbanisation following structure planning and plan change processes on accordance with Appendix 1 Structure Plan Guidelines. (Policy B2.2.2(3)).

118. Furthermore, Objectives in B2.4.1 seek that residential intensification support quality compact form and that an increase in housing capacity and the range of housing choice meets the needs of Auckland’s growing population.

119. The Requestor has undertaken an assessment of the private plan change request against the Objectives and Policies of RPS. This concludes that the land is within the AUP Rural Urban Boundary and is zoned Future Urban. The Requestor also concludes that the private plan change request can support the direction of RPS with regard to zoning, the provision of housing and infrastructure.

120. The private plan change request uses existing methods for managing resource management issues and takes an approach that is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the RPS and AUP. Therefore, it is considered that the private plan change request will not make the AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

121. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Has the plan to which the request relates been operative for less than two years?

122. The regional and district plan provisions of the AUP relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years.

123. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Option 3 – Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

124. The council may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 would then apply accordingly. This proposal has already been through a consenting process where it was declined.

125. It is considered that the plan change process is the most appropriate process because the private plan change request seeks to rezone the land from Future Urban zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone. This private plan change request is seeking to rezone the land to a different zone therefore the resource consent process is not appropriate.

126. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be dealt with as if it were an application for a resource consent.

Option 4 - Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part

127. The council can decide to accept the request in whole, or in part. If accepted, the plan change cannot have legal effect until it is operative. It is considered that if the private plan change request is accepted for processing there is no demonstrable need for any rule to have immediate legal effect. Therefore, adoption is not required.

128. The private plan change mechanism is an opportunity for the Requestor to have their proposal considered between a council’s ten-yearly AUP plan review cycle. The next review of the AUP is scheduled to commence in late 2026.

129. The subject matter of this private plan change request is not a priority matter in Planning and Resource Consents’ work programme and is not currently being considered. The private plan change process is a means by which this matter can be considered before the next AUP review.

130. If the private plan change request is accepted, the matters raised by the plan change (and included in any submissions) can be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process.

Conclusion: options assessment

131. The private plan change request has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include clause 25 Schedule 1 of the RMA matters, having particular regard to the Requestor’s planning report and section 32 evaluation, and case law that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request.

132. It is recommended the private plan change request is accepted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

134. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request by the way of a resource consent application is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself. That said, a coarse merits assessment of the private plan change request indicates that it would have benefits in increasing land available for housing and correspondingly housing availability and choice, and that climate related natural hazards (such as flooding) have been properly considered. In addition, the proposed residential zoning is located close to emerging employment areas, such as Westgate and light industrial areas.

135. Climate impacts can be considered in the future hearing report on the private plan change request, and any submissions received. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (such as does it encourage car dependency, enhance connections to public transport, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form), and whether the request sufficiently elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding and stress on infrastructure).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

136. Discussions have been held between the applicant and a number of council departments including Planning and Resource Consents, Healthy Waters, Parks and Community Facilities, Resilient Land and Coasts (Geotechnical) and the Infrastructure Funding and Development Strategy team have also considered the private plan change request and have had input into the requests for additional information under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

137. Watercare have been directly consulted by the Requestor and discussions will be ongoing between them through the private plan change process. Discussions will continue at the design and construction phase if the private plan change is ultimately approved. Watercare have also provided a letter for the purpose of this clause 25 report at Attachment B. Watercare’s specific comments are outlined under the coarse assessment above. Watercare can also make submissions through the public notification process.

138. The Requestor has also had discussions with Auckland Transport staff who have reviewed the private plan change request and sought further information under clause 23. Auckland Transport has some concerns about the mitigations proposed, particularly at the intersections identified for upgrade. These are considered to be matters of detail that can be worked through during the hearing process, rather than fundamental issues.

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

Local impacts and local board views

139. The views of local boards are important in Auckland Council’s co-governance framework. The views of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be sought on the content of the private plan change request after the submission period closes. All formal local board feedback will be included in the hearing report and the local board will present its views to hearing commissioners, if the local board chooses to do so. These actions support the local board in its responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area, in relation to the content of Auckland Council plans.

140. Local board views have not been sought on the options to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request as a resource consent application. Although the council is required to consider local board views prior to making a regulatory decision, that requirement applies when the decision affects, or may affect, the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area. The clause 25 decision does not affect the Upper Harbour Local Board’s responsibilities or operation, nor the well-being of local communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

Record of applicant’s consultation

141. A Requestor should engage with iwi authorities in preparing a private plan change request, as a matter of best practice. It is also best practice for an applicant to document changes to the private plan change request and/or supporting technical information arising from iwi engagement.

142. The Requestor has consulted with mana whenua and correspondence was sent to the following nine iwi authorities seeking confirmation about whether they wanted to attend a hui on the private plan change request.

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Paoa Trust and Trust Board

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Trust Board

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Te Ākitai Waiohua.

143. Of the above Mana Whenua groups, the response from Ngāti Manuhiri deferred to Te Kawerau ā Maki. The response from Te Kawerau ā Maki advised that the cultural impact assessment (CIA) prepared for the COVID Fast Track Application could be repurposed for the private plan change request. This CIA has been provided with the request.

144. The CIA prepared by Te Kawerau ā Maki included the following conclusion:

“The site sits on relatively productive soils within a cultural landscape focused on coastal settlements and resource extraction around the upper Waitematā harbour. The site is in very close proximity to Te Rarawaru historic kāinga site and the Rarawaru, Waionoke, and Ratara streams. A total of five impacts are noted in relation to the development (not including individual potential animal impacts which are not covered in this report), most of which could be minor to moderate beneficial (one would be negligible adverse) if mitigations discussed are incorporated, which would be a net benefit from a cultural perspective. Without mitigation minor (but not less than minor) adverse cultural effects would occur. Mitigations include a mixture of stream restoration, native planting, stormwater treatment, and placenaming/interpretation.”

145. Furthermore, Te Kawerau ā Maki did not oppose the COVID Fast Track proposed development but sought the following recommendations in order to endorse it. These apply to the Requestor’s private plan change, and include:

· The adoption of 100% native eco-sourced plantings for all streetscape, reserve or public spaces within the development

· The adoption of a combination of tree pits, vegetated swales, proprietary devices or other methods such as to develop a secondary or tertiary (three-step) stormwater treatment process for the development

· Stream restoration (including in order of preference daylighting/use of bridge/decently sized culvert with fish passage design) within the property footprint including riparian planting

· That the developer encourages neighbouring properties to undertake stream restoration works, and, where possible, coordinate efforts for a net positive outcome

· Retain or reinter cut soils within the site as much as possible, including through landscaping or other means

· Work with Te Kawerau ā Maki on incorporating wāhi tohu and history into the development through things like street naming, park/reserve naming, and naming the new school.

146. Te Kawerau ā Maki also sought that the precinct includes a robust and agreed cultural context.

147. The Requestor advises that they have sought to include many of the above recommendations in the private plan change request and/or they will provide for the recommendations as part of any future development enabled by the private plan change. Furthermore, the Requestor identifies that the proposed precinct provisions respond to the recommendations via ensuring native plants are eco-sourced where possible; a range of stormwater management tools are provided for in the SMP and stormwater runoff will be sufficiently treated before entering any water bodies. In addition, riparian and wetland areas will be restored and enhanced from their current degraded state via setbacks for development and extensive planting.

148. The Requestor also advises that they are committed to ongoing collaboration with Mana Whenua and will continue to engage throughout the plan change process and beyond.

149. Council will notify Iwi authorities about the private plan change if the request is accepted. They will be able to make submissions, which will be addressed through the hearing process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

150. If the private plan change request is accepted or, if the request is dealt with as a resource consent application, the Requestor would pay all reasonable costs associated with processing it on a user-pays basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

151. An applicant may appeal to the Environment Court a decision to:

a) adopt the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)

b) accept the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)

c) reject the private plan change in whole or in part under clause 23(6)

d) deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent.

152. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted. The Requestor has requested that the private plan change be accepted. The risk of a legal challenge by the applicant utilising the clause 27 appeal rights is negligible if the recommendation is accepted. The risk of another party challenging a decision to accept the private plan change is also considered to be negligible. If accepted, affected parties will be notified and able to make a submission.

153. A key risk that often emerges with private plan change requests to rezone land for urban development ahead of the timing in the FDS, relates to pressure that may be placed on the council (and the CCOs) in the future to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure. As noted above, there are infrastructure matters that need to be considered in greater detail, however on a coarse scale assessment, there are no fundamental risks relating to the availability or provision of infrastructure to support development within the plan change area.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

154. The council’s clause 25 decision must be communicated to the Requestor.

155. If accepted, the private plan change must be notified within four months of its acceptance.

156. If the private plan change request is accepted and publicly notified, when submissions close on it, council officers will seek the views and preferences of the Upper Harbour Local Board, for inclusion in the section 42A hearing report.

157. The council will need to hold a hearing to consider any submissions, and local board views, and a decision would then be made on the private plan change (by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners) in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Private Plan Change Request - Whenuapai Green
b ⇨	Watercare Services Limited Correspondence 20 November 2024
c ⇨	Clause 25 of the First Schedule, Resource Management Act 1991
d ⇨	NEIL Group Correspondence 25 November 2024

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Todd Elder - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Auckland Unitary Plan - Making operative Private Plan Change 90 - 8 Sparky Road, Ōtara

File No.: CP2024/18392

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Plan Change 90: 8 Sparky Road, Ōtara to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 90 is a private plan change request to rezone 4.4 hectares of land on the north-western side of Highbrook Drive at 8 Sparky Road, Ōtara, from Business – Light Industry to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) Zone.

3. The plan change also applies a new precinct called Highbrook Precinct, to the plan change area.

4. Plan Change 90 was publicly notified on 23 February 2023 and 20 submissions and two further submissions were received.

5. The hearing was held on 25-26 March 2024. The decision by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners to approve Plan Change 90 (the Decision) with modifications, was initially notified on 27 August 2024 and re-notified on 9 October 2024 to correct technical errors in the Decision. The Commissioners were delegated authority to make the Decision on the plan change.

6. The appeal period closed on 25 November 2024 and no appeals were received.

7. The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) can now be amended to make Plan Change 90 operative in accordance with the Decision (and as shown in Attachments A and B of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 90 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as set out in Attachments A and B to the agenda report

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

Horopaki

Context

8. Plan Change 90 to the AUP is a private plan change request from Highbrook Living Limited (the Applicant) which relates to 4.4 hectares of land on the north-western side of Highbrook Drive located adjacent to State Highway 1 and the Tāmaki River.

9. The plan change area is also in close proximity to the Highbrook Business Park, and approximately 2.3km from the Ōtara town centre, while the Ōtāhuhu town centre is approximately 3.3km from the plan change area. To the west, beyond State Highway 1 and north along the Tāmaki River, are established residential areas. An esplanade reserve extends along the full extent of the Highbrook Business Park and connects to Highbrook Park Reserve, containing the Pukewairiki (Waiouru) tuff ring zoned open space.

10. The land adjacent to the plan change area is zoned Business – Light Industry which is the same zoning applied to the nearby Highbrook Business Park.

11. The plan change sought to rezone the land from Business – Light Industry to THAB, and apply a new precinct (Highbrook Precinct) to the rezoned land.

12. The plan change was publicly notified on 23 February 2023, and 19 submissions and two further submissions were received. Auckland Transport and Watercare submitted on the plan change. The council group impacts and views section of this report includes more information about this submission.

13. A panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners was delegated authority to hear and make the Decision on the plan change. A hearing on the plan change was held on 25-26 March 2024.

14. The Commissioners Decision to approve the plan change (with modifications) was initially notified on 27 August 2024 and re-notified on 9 October 2024 to correct technical errors. The Decision on the plan change amends the AUP by:

· rezoning land from Business – Light Industry to THAB

· adding a new precinct – the Highbrook Precinct.

15. These amendments apply to the plan change area at 8 Sparky Road, Ōtara.

16. Maps showing the area to be rezoned and the new precinct are in Attachment B of this report.

17. The purpose of the plan change and new precinct is to enable the use and development of the rezoned area for high density residential development through application of the THAB Zone and complementary precinct provisions.

18. The precinct provisions primarily seek to manage transport effects through traffic generation and multi-modal transport standards, while also addressing coastal, open space and road traffic noise matters. These include the design of appropriate interfaces between the precinct and both existing and anticipated future land uses in the surrounding area, such as the provision of a required esplanade reserve when the plan change area is subdivided.

19. The appeal period for the plan change Decision closed on 25 November 2024, and no appeals were received. Therefore, the plan change can now be made operative and the relevant parts of the AUP amended as set out in the Decision and included in Attachments A and B of this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

21. Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’. Decisions were made on all submissions and no appeals were received. On this basis the plan change can now be approved.

22. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 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 Policy and Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. 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.

24. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change were considered through the hearing process. It is noted that the Decision made the following comments in relation to the plan change area and precinct:

· Demonstrated that sufficiently accessible and connected to encourage a range of transport modes, particularly in relation to surrounding shared path routes which accommodate multi-modal transport options, including micro-mobility transport.

· That supporting Coastal Hazard Assessment confirms the suitability of rezoned land for residential intensification with regard to climate change matters.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 90. Therefore no views from the council group were sought in relation to making the plan change operative.

26. It is noted that through the plan change process input from the council’s Healthy Waters department was sought. Auckland Transport and Watercare submitted on the plan change.

27. The submissions from Auckland Transport and Watercare and the views of Healthy Waters were considered as part of the hearing and are reflected in the Decision on the plan change.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of the plan change.

29. While this report is procedural only, it is noted that the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and formally resolved to provide views held on the proposed plan change at business meetings held on 18 April 2023 and 27 June 2023 respectively.

30. Both local boards opposed the proposed plan change and expressed concerns on a variety of matters including adverse transport effects and lack of public transport; the provision of stormwater and wastewater infrastructure; and adverse coastal effects resulting from reduced vegetation and water quality and increased coastal erosion, particularly affecting coastal forest, local biodiversity e.g. bird life and natural habitat within the Tāmaki Estuary environment.

31. These local board views were included in the council’s hearing report and were considered in the Decision on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. The Applicant advised the council that it invited mana whenua groups to engage by sending them a letter on 2 November 2021 which provided an overview of the plan change and requesting acknowledgement of potential matters of interest. Responses were received from:

• Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki;

• Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua;

• Ngāti Tamaoho Trust; and

• Te Ākitai Waiohua.

33. All four mana whenua groups advised the Applicant that Cultural Values Assessments (CVA) were necessary, however only two CVA’s from Ngāti Tamaoho and Te Ākitai Waiohua were provided prior to the plan change being notified.

34. During notification of the plan change, a submission was received from Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, in opposition to the plan change, seeking a CVA be undertaken to ensure their values, history and preferred environmental/cultural recommendations are captured, and included in subsequent decision-making. The Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua CVA was provided after notification of the plan change.

35. On 4 March 2024 Mr. Karl Flavell, on behalf of Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, advised the hearing panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners that Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua withdrew its submission and the associated CVA on the basis that its queries and report recommendations had been satisfactorily resolved with the Applicant.

36. The Commissioners were also advised by the Applicant at the hearing that through continued consultation with Te Ākitai Waiohua, it supported Te Ākitai Waiohua’s request for additional text to be incorporated into the Highbrook Precinct description, which is:

“Highbrook Precinct has frontage to Tāmaki River, an important awa that leads out to the Hauraki Gulf (Tikapa Moana) and Waitemata Harbour. These waterways were crucial for iwi and hapū both as a traditional food source, and a historical means of transport with coastal and island settlements, boundary markers, navigation points and waka portage routes. Mana Whenua have a spiritual connection with Tāmaki River and have on-going guardianship (kaitiakitanga) responsibilities. The remnants of the Pukewairiki Tuff Ring, a regionally important and one of the oldest volcanoes in the Auckland volcanic field, is located to the north-east of the Highbrook Precinct.”

37. The Commissioners Decision incorporated the above wording into the Highbrook Precinct which was viewed as appropriate in the context of existing mana whenua related provisions in the AUP which would be applied through future consenting processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision.

39. 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

40. There are no risks associated with making the plan changes operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. The final step in making Plan Change 90 operative is to publicly notify the date on which the plan change will become operative, and to update the AUP.

42. Planning and Resource Consent Department staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Change 90 operative, including the public notice and seals.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Plan Change 90 Highbrook Precinct provisions
b ⇨	Plan Change 90 AUP Mapping changes

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nicholas Lau - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

10 December 2024

Auckland Unitary Plan - Making Operative Private Plan Change 95 - Lot 3 DP 185893 Golding Road, Pukekohe

File No.: CP2024/19889

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Plan Change 95: Lot 3 DP 185893 Golding Road, Pukekohe to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 95 is a private plan change request to rezone approximately 0.85 hectares of land in Pukekohe from Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) Zone to Business – Neighbourhood Centre (Neighbourhood Centre) Zone.

3. The plan change also amends the Pukekohe East – Central Precinct which currently applies to the site and wider area, by introducing a new sub-precinct with additional provisions.

4. Plan Change 95 was publicly notified on 16 November 2023 and five submissions were received, including from Auckland Transport and Watercare.

5. The hearing was held on 5 August 2024. The decision by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners to approve Plan Change 95 (the Decision) with modifications, was notified on 11 October 2024. The commissioners were delegated authority to make this decision.

6. The appeal period closed on 25 November 2024 and no appeals were received.

7. The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) can now be amended to make Plan Change 95 operative in accordance with the Decision (and as shown in Attachments A and B of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 95 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as set out in Attachments A and B to the agenda report

b) tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative in part 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 95

8. Plan Change 95 to the AUP is a private plan change request from Aedifice Development No.1 Limited (the Applicant) which relates to approximately 0.85 hectares of land fronting Golding Road, Pukekohe.

9. The plan change area is to the west of Pukekohe, just over 2km to the town centre. It is surrounded by MHU and Future Urban zoned land.

10. When notified Plan Change 95 sought to rezone the site from MHU Zone to Neighbourhood Centre Zone, remove the existing Pukekohe East-Central Precinct from the plan change area and replace it with a new precinct, the Golding Road Neighbourhood Centre Precinct.

11. The plan change was publicly notified on 16 November 2023, and five submissions were received. Auckland Transport and Watercare submitted on the plan change.

12. A panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners was delegated authority to hear and make the decision on the plan change. A hearing on the plan change was held on 5 August 2024.

13. The Commissioners’ Decision to approve the plan change (with modifications) was notified 11 October 2024.

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

· rezoning the site from MHU Zone to Neighbourhood Centre Zone

· retaining the Pukekohe East – Central Precinct on the plan change area, but amending the precinct by applying a new sub-precinct (Sub-precinct A) and bespoke provisions to the plan change area.

15. Maps showing the area to be rezoned, and the new Sub-precinct A are in Attachment B of this report.

16. The existing Pukekohe East – Central Precinct provisions continue to apply to the plan change area. The new Sub-precinct A provisions include additional requirements related to managing traffic and stormwater effects, coordination of development and infrastructure (water supply, wastewater, transport infrastructure triggers), recognition of Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho cultural values, urban design controls and a village green.

17. The village green is to provide for passive and social recreation activities and will be retained in private ownership, unless the council accepts it being vested for public purposes.

18. The appeal period for the Plan Change 95 Decision closed on 25 November 2024, and no appeals were received. Therefore, the plan change can now be made operative and the relevant parts of the AUP amended as set out in the Decision and included in Attachments A and B of this report.

19. It is noted the plan change area was previously subject to another recent private plan change request by the same Applicant, Plan Change 76. Plan Change 76 rezoned a large area of land (including the land now in Plan Change 95), from Future Urban Zone to MHU Zone and applied the Pukekohe East-Central Precinct. Plan Change 76 was made operative in the AUP on 20 July 2023.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

22. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Staff from the Planning and Resource Consents department will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Policy and Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. 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.

24. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change were considered when the plan change area was initially rezoned through Plan Change 76, and subsequently through the hearing process for Plan Change 95.

25. The Pukekohe East – Central Precinct provisions as a whole encourage walking and cycling. In relation to Plan Change 95 it is noted that:

· providing for business services close to planned residential populations will encourage shorter vehicle trips and trips by modes other that private transport

· the plan change area is not in a coastal location and is not subject to floodplains.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 95. Therefore no views from the council group were sought in relation to making the plan change operative.

27. Through the consideration of the plan change, the council’s open space staff sought clarification on the future ownership status of the village green, which was addressed through the plan change Decision. The village green will remain in private ownership unless the council agrees to acquire all or part of the green at a later date.

28. Watercare and Auckland Transport both submitted on the plan change. Their submissions were considered as part of the hearing and are reflected in the Decision on the plan change.

29. Overall Auckland Transport supported the transport related amendments made to the plan change, including the retention of the existing Pukekohe East-Central Precinct and the addition of Sub-precinct A to the plan change area. Watercare were also generally satisfied with the provisions in relation to water and wastewater servicing.

30. Healthy Waters provided input into Plan Change 76 where urbanisation of the land and consideration of stormwater effects were addressed. The Pukekohe East-Central Precinct continues to manage stormwater effects in the plan change area. Subdivision and development within Sub-precinct A, as introduced by Plan Change 95, must also be in accordance with an approved stormwater management plan and granted network consent.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of the plan change.

32. While this report is procedural only, it is noted that the Franklin Local Board provided its views on the proposed plan change at its 26 March 2024 business meeting.

33. In its views the local board supported the notion of a localised business centre to cater to new neighbourhoods, however it did not support the scale of the proposed centre in the proposed location. The local board was generally concerned about traffic effects and considered other locations in Pukekohe were better suited for the scale of commercial activity proposed.

34. These local board views were included in the council’s hearing report and were considered in the Decision on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. Six iwi are identified as having an interest in the area of the plan change.^{^[6]} The plan change is also within a Ngāti Tamaoho Statutory Acknowledgement Area.

36. The Applicant advises they contacted Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho prior to lodging the plan change request, noting they both previously provided cultural values assessments (CVAs) for Plan Change 76. Both iwi indicated they wanted to be involved in Plan Change 95 but had not provided feedback when the plan change was notified.

37. When the plan change was publicly notified, the council provided direct notice of the plan change to the six iwi with interest in the area.

38. Following notification of the plan change Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho provided confidential CVAs to the Applicant. Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho also submitted on the plan change, however no other iwi submitted.

39. Overall the Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho submissions supported the plan change subject to matters and recommendations in their CVAs being addressed.

40. Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho confirmed that their CVAs could be provided to the Commissioners but were to remain confidential throughout the hearing process. Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho did not provide any evidence or attend the hearing.

41. The Sub-precinct A provisions seek positive outcomes related to Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho cultural values and encourage ongoing consultation with them as the land is developed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision.

43. 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

44. There are no risks associated with making the plan changes operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. The final step in making Plan Change 95 operative is to publicly notify the date on which the plan change will become operative, and to update the AUP.

46. Planning and Resource Consent Department staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Change 95 operative, including the public notice and seals.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Plan Change 95 Decision (precinct text and zone map)
b ⇨	Plan Change 95 before and after map

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katrina David - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

[1] Local boards have a role in: acquisition of local parks and local sport and recreation facilities (within budget parameters agreed by the Governing Body) and their specific location and development - local parks improvement and place-shaping, the use of and activities within local parks (including community events and programmes) and the use of local sport and recreation facilities (including leasing and changes of use) - local sport and recreation programmes and initiatives and local community funding and grants.

[2] Clause 21, Part 2, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[3] Part 1, Schedule 1 applies, as modified by clause 29 Part 2 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[4] Part 2 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[5] Clause 25, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[6] Te Ākitai Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Maru, Waikato - Tainui

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

Resolution Number	Item	Status
PEPCC/2024/118	Auckland Council's submission on proposed amendments to the Biosecurity Act	Staff are finalising requested amendments to the submission before seeking final approval from Chair/Deputy Chair of the committee. Submissions close 13 December 2024 and the final submission will be circulated to members.
PEPCC/2024/119	Auckland Unitary Plan - Making operative Plan Change 80 - Regional Policy Statement Well-functioning urban environment, Resilience to the effects of climate change and Qualifying matters	Plan Change 80 will be made operative on Friday 13 December 2024.

Date	Subject
17/10/2024	Ōrākei Local Board – Notice of Motion and Presentation from the Local Board Chair’s Forum held on 9 September 2024
21/10/2024	City Centre Advisory Panel, Chair’s Report
7/11/2024	Update - Te Tupu Ngātahi \| Supporting Growth
18/11/2024	Memorandum - Annual progress report on the implementation of the Tāmaki Makaurau Tauawhi Kaumātua Age Friendly Auckland Action Plan
18/11/2024	Memorandum - Disability Operational Action Plan progress report update 2024
21/11/2024	Memorandum – Kawau Island multi-species eradication project update
25/11/2024	Memorandum – Raising awareness about biosecurity threats to the Hauraki Gulf/Tikapa Moana across summer 2024/2025
27/11/2024	Memorandum - Auckland Council submission on Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill
2/12/2024	Memorandum - Refresh of Ngā Tikanga Hopu Wakaahua i te Rohe o Tāmaki Makaurau - Auckland Film Protocol
2/12/2024	Memorandum - Fast-track Approvals Bill – Environment Select Committee report

Date	Subject
11/11/2024	Waste Political Advisory Group – agenda, minutes and minutes attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Forward Work Programme - 2024
b ⇨	Draft Forward Work Programme - 2025
c	Ōrākei Local Board – Notice of Motion and Presentation from the Local Board Chair’s Forum, 17 October 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
d	City Centre Advisory Panel, Chair’s Report, 21 October 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
e	Update - Te Tupu Ngātahi \| Supporting Growth, 7 November 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
f	Memorandum Annual progress report on the implementation of the Tāmaki Makaurau Tauawhi Kaumātua Age Friendly Auckland Action Plan, 18 November 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
g	Memorandum – Kawau Island multi-species eradication project update, 21 November 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
h	Memorandum – Raising awareness about biosecurity threats to the Hauraki Gulf/Tikapa Moana across summer 2024/2025, 25 November 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
i	Memorandum - Disability Operational Action Plan progress report update 2024, 18 November 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
j	Memorandum - Auckland Council submission on Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, 27 November 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
k	Memorandum - Refresh of Ngā Tikanga Hopu Wakaahua i te Rohe o Tāmaki Makaurau - Auckland Film Protocol, 2 December 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
l	Memorandum - Fast-track Approvals Bill – Environment Select Committee report, 2 December 2024 (Under Separate Cover)
m	Waste Political Advisory Group – agenda, minutes and minutes attachments, 11 November 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

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

Five focus areas can help council deliver outcomes for children and young people

Key objectives sought by Kawerau ā Maki

Key elements of a Deed with Te Kawerau ā Maki

Plan Change Area Description

Surrounding Area Description

Policy Context

Private Plan Change Request Content

Specialist Assessments

Timeframes

Infrastructure Provision

Transport

Wastewater

Water

Stormwater and Flooding

Staging

Other Matters

Summary

Statutory Context: Resource Management Act 1991

Options available to the council

Record of applicant’s consultation

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987