Agenda of Papakura Local Board - Wednesday, 26 March 2025

1 Nau mai | Welcome

A board member will lead the meeting in prayer.

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 26 February 2025, including the confidential section, as true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - Rising Foundation

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Tiare Matara and Alex Tarrant from Rising Foundation will be in attendance to provide an update on how local board investment has supported local young people and how their programme will continue to grow to support local board aspirations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Tiare Matara and Alex Tarrant for their attendance and presentation regarding the Rising Foundation.

8.2 Deputation - Oceania Literacy Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. David Riley from the Oceania Literacy Trust will be in attendance to thank the Local Board for providing funding last year to gift boxes of books to families in the Papakura area and to briefly report back on the project.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank David Riley for his attendance and presentation regarding the Oceania Literacy Trust.

8.3 Deputation - Southern Park Parkrun

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Joyce Leevard, Co-Director of the Southern Path Parkrun and Gerald Masters will be in attendance to inform the board about the potential for establishing a new Parkrun location in Opaheke Park with the aim of applying for an LOA if the Opaheke Park location is deemed appropriate once it opens. The presenters also want to present a case for the installation of a public toilet at the Conifer Grove Parkrun site due to the increasing number of participants.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Joyce Leevard and Gerald Masters for their attendance and presentation regarding a new Parkrun location in Opaheke Park and request a public toilet at the Conifer Grove Parkrun site.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

Drury United Football Club, will be in attendance at the public forum to present a proposal for Drury Sports Complex.

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport Update for the Papakura Local Board – March 2025	15

Papakura Local Board

26 March 2025

Approval for seven new road names at 144 and 152A Park Estate Road and 60 Parkmore Drive, Hingaia

File No.: CP2025/03613

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board to name six new public roads and one new private road, being a privately owned access lot (COAL) created by way of a subdivision development at 144 and 152A Park Estate Road and 60 Parkmore Drive, Hingaia.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The developer and applicant, Hugh Green Limited, has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

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

5. The proposed names for the new roads at 144 and 152A Park Estate Road and 60 Parkmore Drive, Hingaia are:

· Public Road 30: Teal Avenue

· Public Road 31: Fern Drive

· Commonly Owned Access Lot 504: Papawai Lane

· Public Road 7: Extension of Emerald Avenue

· Public Road 16: Extension of Parkmore Drive

· Public Road 27: Extension of Seagreen Avenue

· Public Road 28: Extension of Forest Drive.

6. Alternative name options for Roads 30 and 31 are as follows:

· Sage Avenue

· Verdun Drive

· Mint Avenue

· Sacramento Drive

· Leaf Drive

· Waitrose Avenue.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve the following names for the six new public roads and one new private road created by a subdivision development undertaken by Hugh Green Limited at 144 and 152A Park Estate Road and 60 Parkmore Drive, Hingaia, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90121148, resource consent references BUN60388263 and SUB60388267-A).

i. Teal Avenue (Road 30)

ii. Fern Drive (Road 31)

iii. Papawai Lane (COAL 504)

iv. Emerald Avenue (Road 7)

v. Parkmore Drive (Road 16)

vi. Seagreen Avenue (Road 27)

vii. Forest Drive (Road 28)

Horopaki

Context

7. Hugh Green Limited owns the Park Green development, which is being completed in various stages by different developers and consultants.

8. Resource consent reference BUN60388263 (subdivision reference number SUB60388267-A) was granted on 23 April 2024 for Stage 3B and 3C at 144 and 152A Park Estate Road and 60 Parkmore Drive for subdivision to create numerous new residential lots, public roads and COALs.

9. Site and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B to the report.

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

11. Therefore, in these development stages, COAL 502 does not require a name, as the street address will be taken from the public roads that the properties front. All other roads require road names because they are either public roads or serve more than five lots. This can be seen in Attachment A, where the roads that require names are highlighted.

12. It is to be noted that this application is related to Stage 3B of the development. Roads 29, 32, 33, and 34 within Stage 3C are excluded from this application. A further road naming application for these will be made in the future.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature; or

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

15. All of the proposed road names within the Park Green development follow the theme of the colour green. This is a cohesive theme covering the entire development area, chosen to represent the various features and components of the development and land. The applicant has provided the following comments regarding the theme:

All of the…names form part of a proposed theme for the Park Green development of road names related to the colour green, reflecting the development’s name (Park Green), the development company (Hugh Green Limited) and the high quality green open spaces anticipated to be incorporated into the development (including parks, esplanade reserves and revegetated streams and wetlands)

The colour green speaks to revival and health. In colour psychology, green is thought to help balance emotions and promote a sense of calm and clarity. Green is the colour you notice the most in our natural habitat – trees, grass and forests. It is the colour of springtime, regeneration. Blue-green shades are reflected in the many colours of water - sea, lakes, estuaries and waterways.

This makes the colour green very appropriate given the location of Park Green in its upper harbour setting with significant coastal edges, freshwater streams and large areas of wetlands. The location and topography offer good views to the surrounding immediate and wider context, including the Hunua Ranges, Bombay hills and Pukekohe Hill. The long harbour edge connects to nature throughout, while providing recreational opportunities in both the terrestrial and marine environments

Road Number	Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Road 30	Teal Avenue (applicant’s preference)	A colour of green, following the theme of the colour green – see the ‘Theme’ paragraphs above for further details.
Road 31	Fern Drive (applicant’s preference)	The name “Fern” is chosen to reflect the colour green theme – see the ‘Theme’ paragraphs above for further details.
COAL 504	Papawai Lane (applicant’s preference)	The name ‘Papawai’ is gifted by Ngāti Tamaoho. It is referring to the para-papawai fern root.

Pool of alternative names for Roads 30 and 31
Sage Avenue	The name “Sage” is chosen to reflect the colour green theme – see the ‘Theme’ paragraphs above for further details.
Verdun Drive	A colour of green, following the colour green theme – see the ‘Theme’ paragraphs above for further details.
Mint Avenue	The name “Mint” is chosen to reflect the colour green theme – see the ‘Theme’ paragraphs above for further details.
Sacramento Drive	A colour of green, following the colour green theme – see the ‘Theme’ paragraphs above for further details.
Leaf Drive	The name “Leaf” is chosen to reflect the colour green theme – see the ‘Theme’ paragraphs above for further details.
Waitrose Avenue	A colour of green, following the colour green theme – see the ‘Theme’ paragraphs above for further details.

16. All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the guidelines and the standards in respect of road naming. Most technical standards are considered to have been met, except that there is no alternative name proposed for COAL 504 because the name ‘Papawai’ has been gifted by Ngāti Tamaoho. There are no duplicate names located in close proximity. It is therefore for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

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

18. ‘Avenue’, ‘Drive’, and ’Lane’, are acceptable road types for the new roads, suiting the form and layout of the roads.

19. Previously the road type ‘Way’ was proposed for COAL 504. The applicant chose the road type for consistency as the layout of COAL 504 is a mirror image of Paranui Way to the west. However, according to the guidelines ‘Way’ is only suitable for cul-de-sacs. The applicant has accepted the Council officer’s advice and changed the road type for COAL 504 to ‘Lane’.

20. Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the Guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. This report seeks the decision of the local board, and the decision is unlikely to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

25. Hugh Green Limited had consulted with Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua on road naming for the Park Green development amongst other matters. It is understood that Hugh Green Limited have come to a general arrangement with mana whenua in terms of the naming structure of the development, wherein Hugh Green Limited will arrange for the naming of the public roads, but mana whenua will name the COALs, physical features and walking tracks proposed as part of the development as they see fit. All names will follow the colour green theme.

26. In 2021 Ngāti Tamaoho had gifted four road names for the Park Green development, including the name ‘Papawai’. They have also recently confirmed their agreement to have the name ‘Papawai’ proposed for the COAL in Stage 3.

27. On 14 January 2025, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Maru

· Waikato-Tainui.

28. By the close of the consultation period (10 working days), a response has been received from Te Ahiwaru Waiohua supporting the name gifted by Ngāti Tamaoho. A response has also been received from Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua in support of the name gifted by Ngāti Tamaoho. Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua also questioned whether the name ‘Mangapikopiko’ has been used as a name with the site and suggested replacing the name ‘Teal’ with the name ‘Kaakaariki’ which translates to green.

29. The applicant confirmed that there is already a Mangapikopiko Parade at 72 Hinau Road, immediately north of the Park Green development. Hugh Green Limited has also indicated that they would be happy to consider the name “Kaakaariki” for a private road within future stages, subject to LINZ’s check and acceptance. This would be consistent with the agreed naming structure which has already been adopted in all developments (both by Hugh Green Limited and Fletcher Residential Limited) on the southern side of Park Estate Road.

30. Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua has acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s response with no further comments.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. Approved road names are notified to LINZ and recorded on its New Zealand wide land information database. LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Report Attachment A Site Plan	29
b ⇩	Report Attachment B Location Map	31

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Amy Cao - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Papakura Local Board

26 March 2025

Approval maintenance budget allocation (Rubbish Bin top up) in the 2024/2025 Papakura Local Board Customer and Community Services work programme

File No.: CP2025/03488

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board for a variation to the Full Facilities Contracts Park Bins Top-up within the 2024/2025 Parks and Community Facilities work programme, reducing Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating expenditure from $58,482 to $46,282 due to the removal of 26 bins for fiscal year 2024/2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governing Body approved operational cost reductions in the 2023/2024 financial year through the proposed optimising and reducing of full facility maintenance contracts, namely changes in turf and gardens and reduction in public litter bins in low use areas.

3. While the Governing Body is responsible for full facility maintenance contracts, minimum service levels and setting of budgets, local boards have a role in setting the local service levels and keeping oversight on maintenance.

4. One area with the potential for cost-effective savings is the optimisation of the current bin allotments within local board areas.

5. Following review of the local boards bin portfolio a total of 112 bins were recommended for removal to meet required cost savings. At this time, the board expressed difficulty in making a full commitment to the removal of the proposed bins due to a lack of empirical data to support this undertaking.

6. To maintain their total bin portfolio for FY2023/24, the local board resolved to allocate $54,656 from their LDI operating expenditure (OPEX) on the understanding that staff would conduct an ongoing review and provide data and options to enable ongoing optimisation.

7. Following assessments throughout FY2023/2024, staff in consultation with the local board, determined that the removal of 26 bins, and relocation of eight bins, would best optimize their current bin portfolio. This undertaking will also result in the local board’s bin top requirement being reduced to $46,282 for FY2024/2025 based upon a saving of $488 per bin.

8. The removal and relocation will be conducted by the full facilities contractor. Given the longstanding relationship, limited scope, and goodwill, this undertaking will be delivered at no cost to the local board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the variation including budget to its adopted 2024/2025 Customer and Community Services work programme, specifically:

i) Variation – Full Facilities Contracts Park Bins Top-up work programme line (ID4361), utilising $46,282 from the Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating expenditure during the 2024/2025 financial year for the retention of 86 bins.

b) whakaae / approve the removal of 26 bins and relocation of 8 bins as detailed in table 2 & 3.

Description	Site Description	Info
1. RBIN-By the Pahurehure shops	Wilencote Reserve	To relocate closer to playground
2. RBIN-Next to alleyway to carpark	Slippery Creek Reserve	To relocate to mid of the park
3. Bin Feather Pattern-NE of lower carpark	McLennan Park	To relocate more central in park along main pathways
4. RBIN-Bremner Rd end	Drury Sports Complex	To relocate to the carpark
5. RBIN-Anchorage Drive	Karaka Lakes Res (Lake Detention Pond)	To relocate to the small park south
6. RBIN-Middle of path in front of new track	Keri Downs Park	To relocate closer to the carpark
7. Best conditioned bins to be utilized following removals	N/A	To relocate to Milano Park basketball half court
8. Best conditioned bins to be utilized following removals	N/A	To relocate to McLennan Park basketball half court

Horopaki

Context

9. The Mayoral direction and subsequent Governing Body meeting on 15 December 2022 directed staff to achieve operational cost reductions of approximately $12 million and approved as part of those savings optimising and reducing full facility maintenance contracts as part of these reductions (GB/2022/134, resolution b(i)(c)).

10. Full facilities maintenance contracts are agreements with third-party providers responsible for the maintaining and preserving of council assets throughout the region. These contracts are structured on a regional and subregional level to leverage economies of scale. They represent a significant portion of council budgets, making them prime candidates for review and optimisation when there is a need to find savings.

11. While these contracts are funded from multiple funding sources, including contributions from all 21 local boards, it is important to note that the Governing Body holds the ultimate decision-making responsibility for the contracts with respect to budget and minimum service levels.

Bin reduction proposal

12. The review identified that there are currently over 10,000 bins throughout the Auckland region. Through careful assessment, it was determined that a 30 percent reduction in the number of rubbish bins has the potential to yield ongoing savings of approximately $1.5 million per annum, while still maintaining an acceptable level of quality in local parks, sports fields, and town centres.

13. The staff proposal for implementing cost savings in this area considered various factors. Areas considered to be good candidates for a reduced bin service include those that:

· have multiple bins near each other,

· are low usage areas and locations where users are more likely to carry out their own rubbish (pack in/pack out), and

· neighbourhood parks that receive active care and attention from residents.

14. Areas that need to be prioritised for bin retention (no or less reductions) include:

· places with amenities that encourage users to spend extended periods of time, such as shelters, toilets, destination or large-scale playgrounds, carparks, and sports infrastructure

· locations associated with activities that generate rubbish such as popular dog parks, BBQ areas and community venues

· destination sites including popular beaches, centres of community events/activities and destination parks

· areas co-located with other infrastructure such as bus stops in the streetscape.

15. These considerations informed the assessment conducted in FY2023/2024 and bins which were recommended for removal have adhered to these guidelines.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Multiple workshops were conducted with the local board which included the presenting of empirical data based off request for service (RFS) numbers to determine high and low use bins.

17. Consolidation of bins in the town centre was discussed with the board as the pre-existing allotment suggested numbers could be reduced to better optimise this aspect of the asset pool.

18. The full facilities contract is an outcome-based contract and as such, despite reducing the number of bins across the board, the service level is expected to be maintained regardless.

19. The local board conducted site visits as prior to the finalisation of the 26 bins to be removed as part of a qualitative review.

Table 1. Outline of bins to be removed

Description	Site Description
1. RBIN-Queen Street entrance	Prince Edward Park
2. RBIN-Taka Street frontage	Takaanini Reserve (aka Taka Reserve)
3. RBIN-Village Green	Village Green (Papakura Service Centre)
4. RBIN-Next to room, power components	Village Green (Papakura Service Centre)
5. RBIN-Next to seat and gardens	Village Green (Papakura Service Centre)
6. RBIN--left of main entrance, 2 each side pool	Massey Park - Papakura
7. RBIN- 1st Main accessway	McLennan Park
8. Cylinder-End carpark Gt Sth Rd	Longford Park Esplanade (Wellington) Reserve
Description	Site Description
9. RBIN - 3rd along athletics track railing	Massey Park - Papakura
10. RBIN- In front of Centennial Restrooms	Village Green (Papakura Service Centre)
11. LBIN-64-68 Walter Strevens Dr	Streetscape - Papakura
12. LBIN-Cunningham Pl	Streetscape - Papakura
13. LBIN-Old Wairoa Rd intersection Grove Rd	Streetscape - Papakura
14. LBIN-1/1 Robb St	Streetscape - Papakura
15. LBIN-Ron Keat Dr footbridge	Streetscape - Papakura
16. LBIN-132 Great South Rd	Streetscape - Papakura
17. LBIN-146 Great South Rd	Streetscape - Papakura
18. LBIN-297 Great South Rd outside shop	Streetscape - Papakura
19. LBIN-25 Broadway	Streetscape - Papakura
20. LBIN-216 Great South Rd	Streetscape - Papakura
21. LBIN-248 Great South Rd	Streetscape - Papakura
22. LBIN-Railway St outside park	Streetscape - Papakura
23. LBIN-6 Railway St	Streetscape - Papakura
24. LBIN-Op 4 Railway St at bus stop	Streetscape - Papakura
25. LBIN-1C Youngs Road Papakura (1)	Streetscape - Papakura
26. RBIN – 2nd along athletics track railing	Massey Park - Papakura

Table 2. Outline of bins to be relocated

Description	Site Description	Info
1. RBIN-By the Pahurehure shops	Wilencote Reserve	To relocate closer to playground
2. RBIN-Next to alleyway to carpark	Slippery Creek Reserve	To relocate to mid of the park
3. Bin Feather Pattern-NE of lower carpark	McLennan Park	To relocate more central next to main arterial pathway
Description	Site Description	Info
4. RBIN-Bremner Rd end	Drury Sports Complex	To relocate to the carpark
5. RBIN-Anchorage Drive	Karaka Lakes Res (Lake Detention Pond)	To relocate to the small park south
6. RBIN-Mid of path in front of new track	Keri Downs Park	To relocate closer to the carpark
7. Best conditioned bins to be utilized following removal	N/A	To relocate to Milano Park basketball half court
8. Best conditioned bins to be utilized following removal	N/A	To relocate to McLennan Park basketball half court

Table 3: Outline of the key considerations and economic analysis

Description

Estimated Annual Cost

Details

Retention of Rubbish Bins - Budget Allocation

Budget Source: Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Opex

$46,282 (annual)

Please note that the cost presented does not account for inflation or changes to CPI, as such this is subject to change beyond FY2024/2025

The cost for the retention of 86 bin for FY2024/2025 will be $46,282.

20. The 2024/2025 Papakura full facilities contracts park bins top-up (ID4361) work programme budget is $58,842. With the reduction of 26 bins the new budget figure is $46,282, a difference of $12,200.

21. The relocation of eight bins will be conducted at the time of removal with two removed bins installed at Milano Place half basketball court and McLennan Park half basketball court, one each respectively.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

28. The reduction in bins will likely reduce collection needs and associated transport requirements. Staff consider this beneficial due to the potential for reduced carbon emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. Staff collaboration will be ongoing throughout the life of this maintenance activity to ensure integration into the operational maintenance and asset management systems.

30. Performance of the bin portfolio will be monitored closely and assessed by staff with advice coming should there be options to further optimise. Conversely, if the reduced allotment results in high levels of loose litter or dumping occurring recommendations for increases could be explored.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. The board is facing pressure to reduce current operating expenditure (OPEX) with fair funding resulting in Papakura Local Board seeing a reduction in annual OPEX funding from FY2025/2026.

32. Given the current cost to retain 112 bins the Papakura Local Board has, in line with staff advise, opted to fund a reduced retention of 86 bins from FY2024/2025.

33. The local board have requested staff continue to monitor the performance of the bin portfolio and staff have committed to ensure ongoing assessments are conducted to enable efficiency through optimization.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader obligations to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework, and Local Board Plans.

35. The initiative discussed in this report will benefit Māori and the wider community through the provision of clean and well-maintained environments that contribute to the overall health and well-being of Māori and the wider community. By properly managing litter bins, Māori and the wider community can ensure that public spaces are kept clean and safe for everyone to enjoy.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The proposal to implement a variation in the 2023/2024 Customer and Community Services: Parks and Community Facilities work programme is detailed in table 3.

Activity Name

Department

Budget Source

Proposed Budget Allocation

Full Facilities Contracts Bins Top Up

CCS: Parks and Community Facilities

LDI: Opex

$46,282

Table 4: The Proposal to implement a variation

37. Opex will need to be allocated annually through the work programme development to continue upkeep of the bins that have been identified to be retained.

38. The recommended change has been agreed with the local board’s lead financial advisor.

39. The savings from reducing the number of bins totals $12,200.

Risks and mitigations

40. The existing full facility maintenance contracts include a loose litter collection service, which operates alongside the bin collection and other maintenance services to ensure cleanliness and hygiene in public spaces. There are no proposed changes to this service level, so it is anticipated that this service will play a role in mitigating any potential adverse effects of reducing bins in affected areas. This risk is low due to selection criteria. The loose litter collection service also helps minimise the risk of pests that may be attracted to litter in the absence of bins.

41. Staff recognise that customer’s perception of service quality may be influenced by the proposed reduction in the number of bins and expect that this may result in an increase in customer complaints. By closely monitoring parks and facilities user feedback, staff can assess the actual impact of the proposal and take appropriate measures to address concerns or issues that arise and manage the number of complaints received.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Subject to the local board’s decision on the proposal outlined in this report, 26 bins will be removed and the area to which they are located restored. Eight bins will be relocated to their detailed locations specified in table 2.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Alex Overwater-Davis - Area Manager, Operations – Papakura & Manurewa

Authorisers

Eli Nathan - Head of Area Operations

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Papakura Local Board

26 March 2025

Proposed new community lease to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura

File No.: CP2025/03778

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board to grant a new community lease to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board for land located at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board (the trust) seeks a new community lease to continue occupation and operation from a tenant-owned building at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura.

3. The trust held the ground lease which has reached final expiry on 30 September 2024. The lease is holding over on a month-by-month basis on same terms and conditions until terminated or a new lease is granted.

4. The new lease was identified and approved by the Papakura Local Board as part of its Customer and Community Services: Community Leases Work Programme 2024-2025 on 2 July 2024 (resolution number PPK/2024/79).

5. The trust aims to provide early childhood care services to young children between 2 and 5 years of age. The group aims to create nurturing, stimulating environments where children can thrive and develop a love for learning, setting a strong foundation for their future education and personal growth.

6. These activities align with and support the Papakura Local Board Plan 2023:

· Our Community – Papakura’s open spaces and recreation facilities are fit for purpose and well used.

7. The trust has provided all required information including financials, showing that it has sufficient funds and they are being managed appropriately. The trust has all the necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

8. As this is a tenant-owned building, they have an automatic right to re‑apply for a new lease at the end of their occupancy term.

9. Staff have assessed the application, and all conditions for a new lease have been met by the applicant. A site visit was undertaken on 25 September 2024 and the facility appears to be in good condition and is well maintained.

10. Staff engaged with the council’s internal stakeholders, and they are all supportive of the proposed lease.

11. Iwi engagement is required and took place in February 2025. No objections have been received.

12. A Community Outcomes Plan has been agreed upon and will be appended to the lease as a schedule of the lease agreement.

13. This report recommends that a new community lease be granted to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board for a term of 10 years commencing from 1 April 2025 with one 10 years right of renewal.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) whakaae / grant subject to 61 (2A) a of the Reserves Act 1977, a new community lease to the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board for an area comprising approximately 1205m² located at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura on the land legally described as Lot 11 Deposited Plan 87225, NA44D/1002 (as per Attachment A – Site Plan), subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – 10 years, commencing 1 April 2025, with one 10 years right of renewal.

ii) rent – $1,300.00 plus GST per annum.

iii) Community Outcomes Plan - to be appended to the lease as a schedule of the lease agreement (as per Attachment B – Community Outcomes Plan).

b) whakaae / approve all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (updated July 2023), and the Auckland Council standard form community lease agreement for a new community lease to the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board for an area comprising approximately 1205m² located at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura.

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that iwi engagement for Auckland Council’s intention to grant a new community lease to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura has been undertaken.

Horopaki

Context

15. Local boards have the allocated authority relating to local recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

16. The Papakura Local Board approved the Customer and Community Services: Community Leases Work Programme 2024-2025 on 2 July 2024 (resolution number PPK/2024/79).

17. The progression of this lease to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura was part of the approved work programme. This report considers the new community lease as approved on the work programme.

Land, building/s and lease

18. Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board is located at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura (refer to Attachment A Site Plan - 6R Liddy Place, Papakura). The land is legally described as Lot 11 Deposited Plan 87225, NA44D/1002 held in fee simple (owned) by Auckland Council as a classified local purpose (community building) reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

19. Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board holds a community lease for a tenant-owned building on the council owned land situated at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura.

20. For a group owned building, all operational and maintenance costs are borne by the lessee.

21. The building is primarily used by the group to provide early childhood care services to young children between 2 and 5 years of age.

22. These programmes provide a nurturing, stimulating environment where children can thrive and develop a love for learning, setting a strong foundation for their future education and personal growth.

Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board

23. Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board was established in 1986, and its primary purpose / objective is to provide early childhood care services to young children between 2 and 5 years of age.

24. The trust has included relevant information to include a membership of 17 tamariki of Māori ethnicity; 4 full-time staff; and is in operation for 35 hours per week.

25. The trust has been operating from 6R Liddy Place, Papakura since October 2009.

26. The trust’s current community lease with the council commenced on 1 October 2009 and has expired on the 30 September 2024. The lease to the group is holding over on a month-by-month basis on the same terms and conditions until terminated or a new lease is formalised.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

27. Under the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (updated July 2023), groups that own their own buildings have an automatic right to re‑apply for a new lease at the end of their occupancy term. Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board is exercising this right by applying for a new lease. The local board has discretion to vary the term of the lease if it wishes. However, the guidelines suggest that where the term is varied, it aligns to one of the recommended terms.

Public notification and engagement

28. Public notification is not required as the classified local purpose (community building) reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is the intended use under the land classification.

Assessment of the application

29. The trust has submitted a comprehensive application supporting the new lease request and is able to demonstrate its ability to deliver early childhood care services.

30. The area proposed to be leased to the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board consists of approximately 1205 m²and is outlined in Attachment A –Site Plan.

31. The trust has provided financials which show that accounting records are being kept, funds are being managed appropriately and there are sufficient funds to meet liabilities.

32. The trust has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

33. A site visit has been undertaken by staff on the 25 September 2024 and the facility is well managed and appears to be well maintained.

34. The group provides a valuable service to the local community by providing early childhood care services to young children between 2 and 5 years of age.

35. A community outcomes plan has been negotiated with the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board to identify the benefits it will provide to the community. This will be attached as a schedule to the lease agreement and is attached to the report as Attachment B - Community Outcomes Plan.

36. Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (updated July 2023) sets out the requirements for community occupancy agreements and will be included as part of the lease agreement if approved by the local board.

37. Staff recommend that a new community lease be granted to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board for a term of 10 years commencing from 1 April 2025 with one 10 years right of renewal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

38. It is anticipated that activation of the building will not result in an increase of greenhouse gas emission. A shared workspace/community space will however decrease overall energy use, as users will not consume energy at individual workspaces. The shared space will provide opportunity and enable people to enjoy positive healthy lifestyles and will increase capability and connections within local community.

39. To improve environmental outcomes and mitigate climate change impacts, the council advocates that the lease holder:

· use sustainable waste, energy and water efficiency systems.

· use eco labelled products and services.

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

40. Asset improvements and maintenance undertaken by the council will strive for maximum re-use and recycling of existing material. This will be in alignment with the waste management hierarchy (prevention, reduction, recycle) to ensure minimum impact on greenhouse gas emission.

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

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

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

42. Climate change has a likely potential to impact the lease, as the leased area is located in a flood plain zone. The group has been advised of this flood risk so that they can prepare a long-term plan for occupancy at this location.

Figure 1. Area map showing the flood plain areas within the lease boundary highlighted in blue.

43. Staff from the Healthy Waters team were consulted on the proposal and advised that a building height of 700mm above ground level would provide sufficient freeboard in the event of a flood. The trust has submitted the building floor plan, which indicates that the building height ranges between 730mm and 950mm, exceeding the recommended minimum.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44. The following council staff have been consulted on the proposal. No objections to the proposed new community lease have been received:

· Parks and Places Specialist, Parks and Community Facilities

· Facilities Manager, Parks and Community Facilities

· Facilities Coordinator, Parks and Community Facilities

· Manager Area Operations, Parks and Community Facilities

· Senior Maintenance and Delivery Coordinator, Parks and Community Facilities

· Community Broker – Connected Communities

· Manager Southern Operations -Healthy Waters.

45. Overall staff are supportive of the proposed new community lease as it will promote overall community wellbeing for the Papakura community.

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

Local impacts and local board views

46. The proposed lease will benefit the community by enabling initiatives that promote early childhood care services that will be delivered from the facility for the local board area and its surrounding communities.

47. The assessment of the application was discussed with the local board at a workshop held on 2 October 2024. The local board indicated its in principle support of the lease proposal.

48. The delivered activities align and support the Papakura cal Board Plan 2023:

· Our Community – Papakura’s open spaces and recreation facilities are fit for purpose and well used.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49. Iwi engagement about the council’s intention to grant a new community lease to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board located at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura was undertaken in February 2025 with thirteen iwi groups identified as having an interest in land in the local board area.

The engagement involved:

· an email to all iwi identified as having an interest in the area and containing detailed information on the land, the lessee, the lease proposal as per the Reserves Act 1977.

50. No objections or requests for hui or kaitiaki site visit received from the iwi and mana whenua groups who responded.

51. The lessee has agreed, via a community outcomes plan, to deliver Māori Outcomes that reflect their local community as per Attachment B of this report. The lease will benefit Māori and the wider community through Māori education.

52. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context.

53. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, the Unitary Plan (operative in part), individual local board plans and in Whiria Te Muka Tangata, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework.

54. Community leasing aims to increase Māori wellbeing through targeted support for Māori community development projects.

55. Community leases support a wide range of activities and groups. Leases are awarded based on an understanding of local needs, interests and priorities. The activities and services provided by leaseholders create benefits for many local communities, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56. On 8 June 2023, the 2023/2024 Annual Budget was approved by the Governing Body which included changes to the Community Occupancy Guidelines of the rent fee for a community ground lease from $1 per annum to $1,300 plus GST per annum effective from 1 July 2023.

57. If the local board chooses to retain the level of rent at $1, there will be no requirement for the local board to top up the community lease revenue budget. However, the local board will not have the benefit of the additional revenue of $1299 per annum over the initial term of the lease. The level of rent can be reviewed on renewal of the lease and on the expiry date of the lease.

58. Ongoing maintenance of the asset will be covered by the lessee

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. Should the local board resolve not to grant the proposed community lease to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board at 6R Liddy Place, Papakura the group’s ability to undertake all current and future activities will be negatively impacted. This will have an adverse impact on the achievement of the desired local board plan outcome/s.

60. The new lease affords the groups security of tenure, enabling them to attend to the scheduled maintenance of the facility. Should the building remain unoccupied, there is a risk associated with the lack of maintenance and possible improvements. Council will be liable for the asset/s regardless of whether budget is allocated to or identified for renewals. The renewal of the building will also not appear in the annual work programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. If the local board resolves to the grant the proposed new community lease, staff will work with the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board to finalise a lease agreement in accordance with the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan	47
b ⇩	Community Outcomes Plan	49

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Malinda Naidoo - Community Lease Specialist

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Papakura Local Board

26 March 2025

Papakura Local Board views on the draft Contributions Policy 2025

File No.: CP2025/04777

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on the draft Contributions Policy 2025 for inclusion in the Governing Body decision report on 1 May 2025

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The most-recent full review of the contributions policy, was completed and adopted in December 2021, based on the investments in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031. This was operational from 10 January 2022.

3. In April 2023, the Governing Body adopted the Contributions Policy 2022 Variation A which added investments over a 30-year period to support growth in Drury.

4. In June 2024, the council adopted its new Long-term Plan 2024-2034, which sets out capital expenditure plans for this period. The Contributions Policy 2025 now proposed for adoption reflects these decisions.

5. The draft Contributions Policy 2025 also includes investments over a longer time horizon for the Inner Northwest, and Auckland Housing Programme (AHPs) and to update the investments to be made in Drury beyond 2031. This follows through on the agreement in principle from December 2021 (FIN/2021/119) and subsequent noting in April 2023 (GB/2023/63).

6. The remaining Investment Priority Area (IPA), the City Centre/City Rail Link (CRL) stations, will be added as a next step later in 2025/early 2026 as more information becomes available, Also in this timeframe updates will be made for additional investments in Drury West, and stormwater in Mt Roskill and Māngere.

7. The Governing Body approved consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2025 in September 2024 and consultation took place from September to December 2024.

8. A memorandum and summary of feedback received from consultation was circulated to all local board and Governing Body members in February 2025. These are attached to this report as Attachment F.

9. This was followed up with Subject Matter Expert (SME) attendance at local board workshops as requested by individual local boards.

10. Any local board views agreed through this report will form an attachment to the decision-making report being presented to Governing Body on 1 May 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) tuku / provide views on the draft Contributions Policy 2025 for inclusion in the Governing Body decision report on 1 May 2025.

Horopaki

Context

11. Development contributions (DCs) allow for an equitable and proportionate share of the total cost of growth-related capital expenditure to be recovered from the development community. The Contributions Policy sets out how the council will recover from new development an appropriate and fair share of the cost of infrastructure investment attributable to growth.

12. Auckland's population has grown substantially over the 12 years to the end of 2024, from 1.4 million to over 1.8 million at an average of 1.4 per cent annually. It is forecast to continue to grow, with approximately 200,000 more Aucklanders expected by 2034. The population is expected to grow by a further 400,000 by 2054^{^[1]}.

13. To support the development enabled by the Auckland Unitary Plan, we are facing both immediate and longer-term demands for infrastructure in growth areas. If we do not adequately plan for the delivery and funding of this infrastructure, the cumulative effects of this development could lead to an unfair rates burden on future ratepayers or a risk of infrastructure shortfalls for future residents.

14. Auckland Council’s current contributions policy was introduced in January 2022 and later updated from June 2023 to extend cost recovery in Drury over a 30-year period instead of the previous 10-year approach.

15. Between September and November 2024, the council consulted on a proposal to adopt a new policy that incorporates updated capital expenditure from the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, revised growth and interest rate forecasts, adjustments to project costs, and extended investment planning for Drury.

16. The proposed policy also expands the 30-year cost recovery model to other Investment Priority Areas, including the Inner Northwest (Red Hills, Westgate, and Whenuapai) and Auckland Housing Programme (AHP) areas in Tāmaki, Māngere, and Mt Roskill. In addition, several smaller adjustments aim to ensure fairer cost distribution between ratepayers and developers.

17. The policy proposed for consultation included $10.3 billion in growth-related capital investment in the period to 2034, increasing the average development contribution from $21,000 to $30,000, while contributions in Drury would rise from $70,000 to $83,000. The proposed policy also provided for $10.9 billion of investment in Drury, Inner Northwest, and the AHP areas in the period beyond 2034. With these investments included the average DC price across the region would rise to $50,000. Different charges apply to different geographical areas based on the relevant activity funding areas in the proposal.

18. The Consultation Document (CD) provided to support consultation set out the key issues to be considered in assessing the proposal. The CD can be found at Attachment C. The key changes set out in consultation are summarised below.

Update for decisions in the LTP 2024-2034 and updates to Drury

19. The draft Contributions Policy 2025 that was consulted on updated the capital expenditure projects to reflect the decisions made since 2021 and the associated investment planned over the 10-year timeframe of the LTP.

20. The key changes include:

· Level crossings – Takanini ($550 million)

· Development of new town square in Henderson ($12.5 million)

· Waterview catchment separation ($59 million) – updated costs.

21. The current contributions policy included projects which are now funded as part of the NZ Upgrade Programme. Government decisions on the NZ Upgrade Programme had not been made at the time the Contributions Policy 2022 Variation A was adopted. We are now removing these projects from the policy as they are not expected to require council funding and there is no basis to recover any costs for them. Contributions collected for these projects to date will be re-allocated against similar projects within the same funding area.

22. The assessment of requirements for stormwater infrastructure in Drury has now been completed. This identified one project the council would need to deliver in addition to those that would be provided by developers as a condition of resource consent, and this has been included in the draft policy. Some adjustments have now also been made to the timing of projects including reducing investment and deferral of the timing of open space acquisitions. The assumptions made for investments in Drury over the longer horizon have also been reviewed based on the latest available information and the capital expenditure included in the policy has been updated. This includes updated land cost assumptions, alignment with the Cost Estimation guide published by Auckland Transport, and the latest growth forecasts. These changes raised the DC price for Drury that was consulted on from $70,000 to $83,000.

23. The draft policy will include a list of over 1,700 programmes and projects for which the council will seek to recover the growth share of costs through development contributions (see Attachment B).

24. The table below shows the total investments with a growth component in transport, stormwater, reserves, and community facilities over the LTP period and their funding source in the CD. In this analysis and that which follows later it is assumed that National Land Transport Fund from Waka Kotahi will fund 51 per cent funding of qualifying transport projects.

Funding source	CAPEX investment type $ millions
Funding source	Transport	Reserves	Community spaces	Stormwater	Total funding
Total NZTA/Waka Kotahi	3,569	0	0	0	3,569
Total rates	3,072	557	301	463	4,393
Total development contributions	893	1,005	127	309	2,334
Total CAPEX	7,534	1,562	428	772	10,296

25. As a result of the capital expenditure changes in the period to 2034, updated forecasts of NZTA/Waka Kotahi funding and dwelling construction, and adjustments to the investments in Drury before and after 2034 the weighted average development contributions price for a standard residential unit would rise from $21,000 under the Contributions Policy 2022, Variation A to $30,000 under the draft Contributions Policy 2025. The average price increase is driven by the increased level of investment within the LTP period in the Investment Priority Areas (IPA). This is a weighted average and varies widely by location depending on the investments the council plans to make to support growth in each area.

Inclusion of investments in IPA areas beyond 2034

26. The consultation proposed the addition of investments beyond 2034 to support growth in the IPA areas. The proposed investments and consequent changes to DC prices for each of the IPA areas is set out below.

Inner Northwest

27. The LTP provides for investment of $155 million in transport and $139 million in reserves between 2024 and 2034. The table below shows the investments with a growth component in transport, reserves, and community facilities beyond 2034 and their funding sources. No stormwater investment is required by the council as the nature of infrastructure needed in this area is such that it is expected to be delivered by developers as a condition of resource consent.

Total investments and funding source by activity in the Inner Northwest over a longer horizon $ millions
Funding source	Transport	Reserves	Community facilities
Total NZTA/Waka Kotahi	1,142	0	0
Total rates	558	118	82
Total development contributions	1,366	903	133
Total CAPEX	3,066	1,021	215

28. The additional funding requirement would increase the contributions price for the Inner Northwest from an average of $25,167 per household unit equivalent (HUE) to an average of around $98,000 per HUE when the investments beyond 2034 are added. Different charges apply to different geographical areas based on the relevant activity funding areas in the proposal. The proposed charges are set out in the table below.

Changes to funding area charges in the Inner Northwest over a longer horizon
Funding area	Current DC charge	Proposed DC for investments within the LTP period incl regional and sub-regional DCs	Proposed DC price for investments beyond LTP	Total proposed price including all investments incl regional and sub-regional DCs
Whenuapai	$25k	$27k	$75k	$102k
Redhills	$25k	$27k	$62k	$89k
Westgate	$23k	$34k	$61k	$95k

Māngere Auckland Housing Programme area

29. The LTP provides for investment of $46 million in transport and $23 million in reserves between 2024 and 2034. The table below shows the transport investments with a growth component beyond 2034 and their funding sources. Investments in stormwater infrastructure will be added in 2025 once further work is completed.

Total investments and funding source by activity in Māngere over a longer horizon $ millions
Funding source	Transport	Reserves	Community facilities
Total NZTA/Waka Kotahi	292	0	0
Total rates	531	0	0
Total development contributions	89	0	0
Total CAPEX	912	0	0

30. The additional funding requirement would increase the contributions price for the Māngere Auckland Housing Programme from an average of $18,123 per HUE to an average of around $29,000 per HUE when the investments beyond 2034 are added.

Mt Roskill Auckland Housing Programme area

31. The LTP provides for investment of $44 million in transport and $15 million in reserves between 2024 and 2034. The table below shows the transport investments with a growth component beyond 2034 and their funding sources. Investments in stormwater infrastructure will be added in 2025 once further work is completed.

Total investments and funding source by activity in Mt Roskill over a longer horizon $ millions
Funding source	Transport	Reserves	Community facilities
Total NZTA/Waka Kotahi	594	0	0
Total rates	677	0	0
Total development contributions	344	0	0
Total CAPEX	1,615	0	0

32. The additional funding requirement would increase the contributions price for the Mt Roskill from an average of $20,406, per HUE to an average of around $52,000 per HUE when the investments beyond 2034 are added. Different charges may apply depending on the combination of activity funding areas a development falls within. The primary driver of the higher DCs in the above range is the recovery of historic stormwater investments in the Inner West Triangle and the Waitematā Central funding areas.

Tāmaki Regeneration area

33. The LTP provides for investment of $76 million in transport, $67 million in stormwater, $87 million in reserves, and $1 million in community facilities between 2024 and 2034. The table below shows the investments with a growth component in transport, community facilities and stormwater beyond 2034 and their funding sources.

Total investments and funding source by activity in Tāmaki over a longer horizon $ millions
Funding source	Transport	Reserves	Community facilities	Stormwater
Total NZTA/Waka Kotahi	181	0	0	0
Total rates	194	0	41	18
Total development contributions	171	0	19	788
Total CAPEX	546	0	60	806

34. The standard of service for stormwater in Tāmaki has been planned to deliver the same level of service as in the Inner Northwest and Drury. This is higher than the service level presently provided by historical investment in the other brownfields areas that aren’t expected to develop. Accordingly, the scale of and cost of the investment required to redevelop the area is substantial.

35. The additional funding requirement would increase the contributions price for Tāmaki from $31,157 per HUE to $119,114 per HUE when the investments beyond 2034 are added.

Other proposed changes to the policy

Funding areas

36. Changes were proposed to funding areas to provide a more refined allocation of costs to development areas to better reflect beneficiaries of the planned infrastructure. The new proposed funding areas include:

· new sub-regional funding areas at Paerata, Whau, Inner Northwest

· a new local funding area at Avondale.

37. Changes to neighbouring funding areas were proposed to accommodate these new areas.

38. A number of other refinements were proposed to local and sub-regional funding areas to better reflect the beneficiaries of infrastructure. Details of these changes are included in Attachment E: Funding area maps.

Other changes

39. Some technical changes were proposed to the policy to clarify its intent and ensure fairness. Changes were highlighted in the draft policy in Attachment A.

40. Aside from the proposed changes discussed, the Contributions Policy 2022, Variation A was recommended as appropriate and fit for purpose and it was proposed to continue the unamended provisions in the current policy into the new policy.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

41. Key issues addressed in the CD related to the uncertainty inherent in taking a 30-year view of growth and the infrastructure investment required to support that along with the impact that higher DCs would have on current landowners planning to develop and whether higher DCs would impact on house prices. Key points made in the advice that supported the adoption of the draft policy for consultation on these issues is set out below. Further advice on these matters and other issues raised in consultation will form part of the advice to the council on 1 May.

42. The uncertainty associated with long-term planning is managed through the three-yearly review of our infrastructure planning priorities and funding through the council’s LTP. This allows the council to manage the risk of the pace of growth changing from our forecasts and consequent changes in the required infrastructure.

43. Continuing with a 10-year focus would continue the uncertainty for developers, landowners, and other infrastructure providers. It would also make it difficult to recover a fair share of the funding of expected capital expenditure in years 11-30 from early developers to address the longer-term cumulative impacts of their development. This would risk development occurring without adequate infrastructure and place more demand on future ratepayers.

44. These changes will not materially impact on house prices, which are driven by supply and demand and are not determined via a cost-plus methodology. That is, the developers are price takers. Their market power is limited, given they are part of a larger market, and their products are substitutable for near equivalents. Higher DC prices will eventually flow through to lower prices for raw land as the cost of enabling infrastructure is capitalised into the land value. However, they may have a short-term negative impact on the pace of development as developers respond to the change. Developers must absorb the cost into a lower land value. Depending on their financial position, they may either proceed with development, defer development and hold the land awaiting future value uplift, or on-sell the land to another developer. Staff consider that these short-term effects are outweighed by better cost signalling and associated longer-term benefits.

45. As these investments are being planned over decades, they are subject to refinement as investment plans are developed further, development intentions change, and economic conditions fluctuate. Future contributions policies will be updated as more refined information becomes available.

Consultation

46. Public consultation ran from 30 September to December 2024, featuring webinars, in-person events, and an opportunity for submitters to present directly to councillors.

47. Materials released to support consultation included the following documents attached to this report:

· Attachment A: Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025

· Attachment B: Schedule 8 Assets for which development contributions (DCs) will be used

· Attachment C: Consultation Document - Contributions Policy 2025

· Attachment D: How we set Development Contributions – Cost Allocation Methodology

· Attachment E: Funding area maps.

Feedback received

48. A total of 147 submissions were received, including 46 from organisations.

49. Key concerns raised included the impact of higher contributions on house prices and development, uncertainty around 30-year planning and cost escalation, the scale of stormwater investment in Tāmaki, delays in infrastructure investment, consideration of alternative funding sources, transparency of information, and specific issues with funding areas and projects.

50. A full analysis of the feedback can be found in Attachment F.

Updates for Final Policy for Adoption

51. Officers are analysing the points raised in the submissions. Advice on these points and further analysis conducted since the consultation process, including updated growth and economic forecasts, will be incorporated in advice to the Governing Body for decision making, planned for 1 May 2025. Potential changes to the proposed policy will also be presented at that time.

52. The Government has announced intended reforms to infrastructure funding and financing as part of the Going for Housing Growth policy program. The reforms are planned for implementation alongside council long-term plans in 2027. The exact form the reforms take will only be confirmed once legislation has passed. Staff consider that the Contributions Policy will still be required for at least the next two years and the council should continue with the updates and improvements proposed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

53. Planning now for the funding of investments to support growth in the IPAs will ensure that the council is better able to deliver the infrastructure required for development in the IPAs to manage climate impacts of development and to connect to the rest of the city with a reduced climate impact. The proposal provides for early developers to meet a share of the costs of the infrastructure they will benefit from and create the need for, to address the cumulative impacts of growth.

54. If plans for securing a share of funding with DCs from early developers aren’t made now, greater demands will fall on future ratepayers to deliver this infrastructure. While adjustments can be made to the DC policy in the future these can’t retrospectively secure revenue from early developers. General rates are the only practical alternative funding source to make up this shortfall. Given the competing demands on general rates there is a real risk that all the funding required won’t be available in the future. This will mean the council won’t be able to deliver the level of investment required, leading to a greater negative climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

55. The information prepared for consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2025 was developed in conjunction with the following council-controlled organisations and council units:

· Auckland Transport

· Public Law

· Policy

· Planning and Resource Consents

· Eke Panuku Development Auckland

· Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience

· Service Strategy and Partnerships

· Chief Economist Unit

· Spatial Analysis and Modelling.

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

Local impacts and local board views

56. The DC price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. These locations do not usually align to local board areas.

57. A local board briefing session was held on 30 September 2024 to brief members on this topic. Local boards have received a memorandum to update them on the review of the contributions policy and the feedback from public consultation. 18 local boards accepted an offer for workshop briefing sessions which were held in March. The purpose of this report is to seek local board views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

58. Development contributions are assessed against the demand that different types of development generate on council infrastructure. Māori developments are assessed under broader development types based on the demand they generate. For example, kaumātua housing is treated the same as retirement villages, and marae are considered under community facilities.

59. Iwi authorities with mana whenua interests were contacted prior to the start of consultation to seek expressions of interest in discussing and providing feedback on the proposed changes. All iwi authorities were also notified when consultation opened, further advising of how they could have their say. The Mana Whenua forum and other council forums were advised of the consultation.

60. Seven submitters on the proposal identified as Māori. One response supported the proposed changes to update the policy for changes to the LTP and to reflect growth beyond 2034 in the IPA areas and four were opposed. In regard to the changes to Drury and the other changes proposed two were in favour and two against. The only comment received was that new development needs to be fully funded by developers.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 assumes DCs revenue of $2.0 billion over the LTP period. After completing the analysis of the cost of investments in the LTP that can be recovered with DCs and the impact of the proposed policy changes, it was estimated that the revenue would be $2.6 billion. The achievement of this revised revenue forecast requires, as a first step, the implementation of a contributions policy updated for the capital expenditure decisions in the LTP, and the other changes proposed in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62. Forecasting long-term growth, infrastructure investment, and development contributions (DCs) carries risks, but these can be managed through the triennial long-term plans, policy adjustments, and reallocation or refunds of DCs if planned assets are not delivered.

63. There is a risk that projected development and DC revenue may not be met, which will be managed by monitoring consent applications and DC revenue.

64. The council ensures its contributions policy complies with legislation, but given the proposed increases in DCs, some developers may challenge the policy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. The Governing Body will consider the feedback and updates to the proposed policy and make a decision on the final policy adoption on 1 May 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Attachment A: Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Attachment B: Schedule 8 Asset for which development contributions (DCs) will be used	61
c ⇩	Attachment C: Consultation Document - Contributions Policy 2025	91
d	Attachment D: How we set Development Contributions – Cost Allocation Methodology (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇩	Attachment E: Funding area maps	119
f ⇩	Attachment F: Memorandum and Summary of consultation feedback	131

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Michael Burns - General Manager Financial Strategy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Papakura Local Board

26 March 2025

Local board views on draft plan change to add trees and groups of trees to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part and to the Notable Trees overlay

File No.: CP2025/03762

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a draft plan, change which seeks to add trees and groups of trees to Schedule 10 of the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) must consider local boards’ views on the plan change if local boards provide their views.

3. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to the AUP Schedule of Notable Trees (‘Schedule 10’), and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the AUP maps. The proposed additions are derived from nominations received from the public over the course of the last decade, and which have been held in council’s database. The 169 trees and 27 groups affect approximately 160 properties.

4. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions. If authorisation is given by the committee, it is anticipated that the plan change will be notified in May 2025.

5. The local board will have a second opportunity to express its views on the plan change after the period for submissions is complete

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on draft plan change to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to Schedule 10, and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the AUP maps.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

6. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on these documents’ contents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (sections 15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). Accordingly, local boards’ views are relevant to finalising a draft plan change (to be notified for submissions). A plan change will be included in the AUP if it is later approved.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

7. The purpose of the draft plan change is to address all of the nominations for notable trees that council has held in its database over the last 10-12 years. All nominations have been progressively evaluated, with a view to adding them to Schedule 10, and the corresponding mapped overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and notable groups found in the schedule.

8. Schedule 10 currently contains approximately 3000 ‘line items’ representing thousands of trees and groups of trees. It is a very large and dynamic schedule, which undergoes constant change through consenting activities such as subdivision, resource consent processes and other changes as a result of emergency works (in the case of dangerous of storm-affected trees, for example). Schedule 10 is an amalgam of all the legacy councils’ similar schedules which contained lists of specially protected trees. These were ‘rolled over’ into the Proposed AUP prior to the AUP being made partially operative in November 2016.

9. Schedule 10 is managed by the AUP through a policy and rule framework. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in the AUP (Chapter B4.5. Notable Trees) contains the objectives and policies (including the criteria for scheduling), while Chapter D13. Notable Trees overlay contains the district-level objectives and policies, and sets out the rules framework for how activities affecting notable trees are treated. Schedule 10 itself is found in Chapter L Schedules. The AUP maps contain the Notable Trees overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and groups throughout the region, using specific symbology.

10. A number of plan changes have been undertaken in the last 5 years relating to Schedule 10 and Chapter D13 of the AUP. However, there has not been a comprehensive plan change that has attempted to evaluate and address all of the nominations received by council. These nominations have been sporadic but regular, and also include those trees which were requested to be included at the time of the PAUP through the public submission process.

11. All nominations that seek to add trees and groups to the Schedule are triaged to ensure they are ‘eligible’ to progress through to the site evaluation stage. Those that are found to already be included in Schedule 10, or which are duplicate nominations, or those which nominate trees that are no longer present on the site, for example, are not added to the on-site application which council and consultant arborists use to assess trees.

12. The evaluation process is a detailed exercise based on the criteria as set out in the RPS. Each tree, and group of trees, is evaluated against each criterion and provided with a score.

The criteria are based on the following:

a) heritage or historical association;

b) scientific importance or rarity;

c) ecosystem service or environmental function;

d) cultural association and accessibility

e) intrinsic value: the trees are intrinsically notable because of a combination of factors including size, age, vigour and vitality, stature and form or visual contribution.

13. Approximately 160 new ‘line items’ representing 169 trees and 27 groups have been found to meet the criteria and are proposed to be put forward to the plan change with a view to adding them to Schedule 10 and the corresponding Notable Trees overlay maps.

14. The plan change addresses the nominations only, and does not seek to alter any of the objectives and policies, or any part of the rules framework relating to Notable Trees.

15. A summary of the numbers of trees and groups of trees according to Local Board area that are proposed to be added to Schedule 10 is included at Attachment A. The table also includes the districts within the Local Board areas that will be affected by the addition of trees and group of trees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

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

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

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

17. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirementfor Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) decision-makers to:

· have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) RMA), and

· to have regard to any emissions reduction plan and any national adaptation plan prepared under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (section 74(2) RMA) when preparing or changing a district plan.

18. It is considered that the draft plan change has positive climate considerations. The proposed formal protection through scheduling of 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region will contribute positively to carbon sequestration and therefore is beneficial to mitigating the effects of climate change.

Local board views – climate

19. It is not considered that the plan change will affect any local board in particular in terms of climate change. Across local board areas, the collective addition of approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees will be beneficial in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation by ensuring the retention of and formal protection of a number of trees.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Many of the trees and groups of trees are located on council reserves and also on road reserves which are the domain of Auckland Transport. All owners of land upon which a nominated tree or group is located were notified as part of a mail-out to advise of an upcoming site visit by a council or consultant arborist. As part of the notification process, they will again be contacted if a tree or group is one of those included in the qualifying number for inclusion to the plan change. All owners and affected parties (including council departments and Auckland Transport) will have the opportunity to participate in the submission process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 160 new ‘line items’ to Schedule 10 of the AUP, representing 169 trees and 27 groups of trees.

22. This draft plan change affects all local boards, except for Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board and Waiheke Local Board.

23. There are no funding impacts on Local Boards as a result of the plan change.

24. This report is the mechanism for obtaining local board views. The committee will be provided with the local board’s resolution when considering whether to authorise notification of the draft plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

26. Council is required to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a plan change. Consultation is currently underway simultaneously with all iwi authorities. Feedback will be incorporated into the plan change.

27. Later in the plan-making process, the planner will analyse Part 2 of the RMA which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance (2021) and Māori Plan (2017, Houkura Independent Māori Statutory Board).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The plan change does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

29. Costs from undertaking the plan change are met by existing council budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the draft plan change, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences in contributing to formulation of the draft plan change.

31. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, the opportunity to influence policy prior to public notification is forgone. (There is a later opportunity to comment on the plan change, following the close of submissions).

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. Local boards will provide feedback at the March business meetings.

34. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee in May 2025 seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions.

35. After submissions close, a second report will provide an opportunity for views and preferences of the local board, which will then be included in a hearing report for the decision-makers on the plan change. The local board may appoint a local board member to speak to the local board’s views at the plan change hearing.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Proposed additions of trees and groups by Local Board, and areas within each Local Board	151

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Andrews - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Papakura Local Board

26 March 2025

Local board views on private plan change 108 - Crestview Rise for 28, 30, 66 and 76 Crestview Rise and 170 Settlement Road Papakura

File No.: CP2025/03902

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on private plan change 108 – Crestview Rise by Harbour View Heights Limited Partnership (HVHLP) at Crestview Rise, Papakura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. HVHLP lodged a private plan change for 28, 30, 66 and 76 Crestview Rise and 170 Settlement Road. The purpose of the plan change is 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

· introduce a new precinct for the plan change area.

4. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board. This report is the mechanism for the local board to pass a resolution providing its views on the private plan change request. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) provide local board views on private plan change request 108 – Crestview Rise by HVHLP for 28, 30, 66 and 76 Crestview Rise and 170 Settlement Road

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

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

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

5. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on these documents’ contents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (sections 15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

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

7. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes local board views in the hearing report (and issues raised by submitters).

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

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

10. This report does not recommend what the local board should say, if the local board expresses its views on the private plan change request. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

11. The private plan change request applies to 28, 30, 66 and 76 Crestview Rise and 170 Settlement Road, Papakura. The land is currently zoned Rural – Countryside Living Zone as shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Zoning for 28, 30, 66 and 76 Crestview Rise and 170 Settlement Road (outlined in red) and surrounding area

12. HVHLP states that the purpose of the private plan change request is to rezone approximately 2 hectares of land in Papakura from Rural - Countryside Living to a Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone and introduce a new precinct to the AUP to apply to the rezoned land and adjoining Rural - Countryside Living Zone land. The private plan change also seeks to shift the Rural Urban Boundary to align with the boundary between the proposed Mixed Housing Urban Zone and the Countryside Living Zone. Figure 2 shows the proposed zoning.

Figure 2: proposed zoning

13. HVHLP included technical reports that address urban design, landscape and visual effects, transport, engineering and infrastructure, stormwater and flooding, ecology, geotechnical stability, contaminated land, economics and cultural values assessments. Reports and other documents are available from council’s website at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=275

14. Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· technical reports supplied by the applicant

· submissions

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

Themes from submissions received

15. The Plan change was notified with submissions closing on 23 February 2025. Seven submissions were received. This includes four from local residents and submissions from HVHLP, Veolia and the Ministry of Education.

16. The further submissions period will close on 28 March.

17. Key submission themes are listed below.

· Support the plan change subject to changing the zoning to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone (one local resident).

· Support the plan change, and if use of the medium density residential standards becomes optional, remove them from the plan change including changing the zoning to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone (HVHLP).

· Neutral but requesting amendments to address infrastructure (Veolia and Ministry of Education).

· Decline the plan change (other local residents).

Table 1: summary of submissions on PPC 108 – Crestview Rise

Submissions	Number of submissions
In support	2
In opposition	3
Neutral	2

18. Individual submissions received, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, are available from council’s website https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=275

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

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

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

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

20. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirementfor RMA decision-makers to:

· have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) RMA), and

· to have regard to any emissions reduction plan and any national adaptation plan prepared under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (section 74(2) RMA) when preparing or changing a district plan.

21. Consequently, any local board views on climate adaptation and/or climate mitigation will be considered by the plan change decision-makers (who will consider climate change effects even if the local board does not express views on this topic).

Local Board Views - Climate

22. The following prompts are included to assist the local board in forming any view should it wish to do so regarding climate mitigation and/or adaptation:

· How will the proposed plan change request impact on greenhouse gas emissions and what is the approach to reduce emissions? Consider dependence on private motor vehicle trips, connections to and availability of public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure, or whether a quality compact urban form will result.

· What effect will climate change have over the lifetime of what the proposed plan change enables, and how will these effects be addressed? Will climate risks, such as flooding, increased heat, coastal erosion, or extreme weather events be alleviated or elevated?

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. Healthy Waters, Parks, other council specialists, Auckland Transport and Watercare have had input into the information request process. Healthy Waters, Parks and other council specialists will review the submissions as necessary. Parks staff indicate that no new parks are required to service the proposed development. Healthy Waters indicate that with a revised stormwater management plan, this proposal has low risk. Watercare have advised that they do not support out of sequence development but if the plan change is approved, there is bulk water and wastewater capacity to support this proposal.

24. Veolia (who are not part of the council group) have indicated that the downstream wastewater pipes need upgrading to support the proposal. HVHLP has agreed to this in principle although details need to be resolved.

25. No council-controlled organisation made a submission.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The private plan change request is for 28, 30, 66 and 76 Crestview Rise and 170 Settlement Road, within the Papakura Local Board area only.

27. The site is close to the park known as the Children’s Forest on Settlement Road.

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

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

29. HVHLP stated that the Papakura Local Board was sent a letter and documents about the plan change on 23 June 2023 – which was prior to lodgement. The local board did not respond at that time.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

32. HVHLP advised the council that it consulted with Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Ngāti Pāoa Iwi Trust and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki when it prepared the private plan change. Cultural values assessments were provided by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Te Ākitai Waiohua. These informed preparation of the proposed precinct provisions including those that provide for mana whenua cultural values and their involvement in implementation. Mana whenua did not submit on PPC 108.

33. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the RMA which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The hearing report will also evaluate any cultural issues of significance that are relevant.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The private plan change request does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the private plan change, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. The planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the hearing report.

40. Should the Board resolve to present at the hearing, the local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

41. Later, once the hearing panel’s decision has been issued, the reporting planner will advise the local board of the decision on the private plan change request, by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Christopher Turbott - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Craig Cairncross - Acting Manager Planning – Central South (Tier 4)

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Papakura Local Board

26 March 2025

Local board input into Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2025/03885

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from the local board on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill proposes a mechanism for extending New Zealand’s parliamentary term from three to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

3. Rather than mandating an automatic change, this would allow Parliament to extend its term only if select committees reflect proportional representation – meaning the number of MPs from each party on committees matches their share of seats in Parliament.

4. Supporters argue a four-year term enables better policymaking and project delivery, while opponents highlight reduced electoral accountability. New Zealand’s three-year term is rare globally, and past referendums have opposed extending it, though recent reviews suggest shifting public sentiment.

5. A key consideration for Auckland Council is the potential impact on local election cycles. There could be years where local and central elections coincide, which could impact voter engagement. Fixed parliamentary terms would benefit the alignment of local election timing.

6. In December 2024, the council submitted feedback on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper, supporting a four-year electoral cycle for local government. The submission acknowledged potential benefits of aligning local and central elections if local elections shift to booth voting but recommended keeping them two years apart otherwise. While most local boards supported a four-year term, views varied on election timing—some favoured aligning with central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap.

7. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider the council’s submission on 10 April. The submission closing date is 17 April.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback to Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Bill

8. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) proposes a mechanism to extend the current three-year Parliamentary term to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

9. The Bill doesn’t automatically change the term to four years. Instead, Parliament can choose to extend its term from three to four years if select committees are structured in a way that fairly reflects the makeup of Parliament. To make this happen, Parliament must pass a resolution within the first three months of a new term stating that the proportionality requirement has been met, and the Governor-General must then issue a proclamation.

Key Considerations

10. Arguments in favour of a four-year term include allowing for a more deliberate and considered legislative process, reducing the frequency of election cycles, and providing governments with a longer timeframe to implement policy.

11. Arguments against a four-year term highlight concerns around democratic accountability. A longer term would mean elected representatives face elections less frequently, shifting accountability from a three-year to a four-year cycle.

12. Additionally, New Zealand’s constitutional framework differs from jurisdictions with stronger checks and balances, such as an upper and lower house or a clearer separation of executive and legislative powers. In New Zealand, the executive is formed from the majority party in Parliament and drives the legislative agenda.

13. To address concerns around accountability, the Bill strengthens the role of select committees by requiring their composition to more accurately reflect the proportionality of Parliament.

History of New Zealand Parliamentary terms

14. New Zealand originally had a five-year parliamentary term, in line with Britain. In 1879, it was reduced to three years following the abolition of provincial governments, as there were concerns about the concentration of power at the central level. Reducing the term ensured more frequent electoral accountability.

15. Two non-binding referendums on extending the term—held in 1967 and 1990—both resulted in strong opposition. Both referendums saw large majorities opposed to extending the term to four years.

16. Recent reviews, including the 2013 Constitutional Advisory Panel and the 2023 Independent Electoral Review, suggest public opinion may be shifting towards a four-year term.

17. A key change since the last referendum was the introduction of the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system in 1993, which increased proportional representation and strengthened the role of smaller parties in governance. While MMP has enhanced legislative scrutiny, concerns remain about reduced accountability if the term is extended.

18. The Constitutional Advisory Panel in 2013 found that public support for a four-year term was contingent on improved legislative scrutiny and accountability measures, such as more referenda, better human rights assessments, and the introduction of an upper house. The panel emphasised that any extension should be decided by referendum.

19. The Independent Electoral Review (IER), set up in 2022, also assessed the term length and found arguments for and against a four-year term to be finely balanced.

International context

20. New Zealand’s three-year parliamentary term is rare internationally. In 183 countries with elected lower houses or unicameral parliaments, only eight have a term of three years or less, 72 have a four-year term, 99 have a five-year term and four have a six-year term.

21. In general, parliaments (whether unicameral or bicameral) have a four-year or five-year term including both the United Kingdom (with Westminster-style of Parliament and Executive, headed by a sovereign) and Germany (with an MMP electoral system), from which New Zealand’s system is based.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. The last referendum on the parliamentary term took place in 1990 in which 69 per cent of voters rejected extending the term from three to four years. It is timely to revisit the topic again with communities.

23. A key concern for local government is the uncertainty around whether Parliament will adopt a three-year or four-year term. If local government maintains its three-year term while Parliament alternates between three and four years, there is likely to be occasional overlap, where parliamentary and local elections occur in the same year. However, this would likely happen inconsistently.

24. If local elections remain the responsibility of councils (rather than the Electoral Commission), the concurrent timing of parliamentary and local elections could lead to voter confusion.

25. Auckland Council, in its submission to the Electoral Reform Working Group, acknowledged that there could be potential benefits if local elections were conducted by the Electoral Commission, using the booth voting method, alongside parliamentary elections. This could capitalise on the higher voter turnout for parliamentary elections to boost participation in local elections. However, it remains uncertain whether this will occur.

26. As a result, the council’s draft submission on the bill would consider requesting that parliamentary terms be fixed, and that the legislation governing local elections be amended to align with parliamentary terms.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The Bill does not have any direct climate impacts.

28. However, a four-year term could provide a longer, uninterrupted timeframe for planning and implementing climate-related initiatives.

29. If both local and central government terms are fixed at four years, this could lead to a reduction in postal voting for local government elections. This change may result in environmental benefits, such as reduced paper usage and a decrease in transport requirements for the delivery and collection of voting papers.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The council group is not directly affected by the proposed change. However, if local and central elections were to coincide, further analysis of the potential impacts would be necessary.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. In February 2023, nine local boards provided feedback on the introduction of a four-year electoral term for local government in the draft submission of the Future for Local Government paper. Most supported a four-year term, though views on election sequencing varied. One board opposed aligning local and central elections, emphasising the importance of maintaining local focus.

32. In November 2024, local boards provided further feedback to inform the council’s submission on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper (Issue Five), which also addressed the four-year term. While most local boards supported the shift, there were differing views on election timing—some favored aligning local and central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap. Local board views are compiled here.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Māori views were not sought in the preparation of this report. A four-year term could allow more time to build relationships and ensure continuity in key initiatives, without disruptions from frequent election cycles.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The Bill does not impose any direct costs. Potential cost efficiencies could arise if central and local elections coincide.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The council's position on this matter presents minimal risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider approving the council’s submission at its meeting on 10 April.

37. Submissions close on Thursday, 17 April.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor Governance

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts - Planning & Operations Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

[1] The current population estimate is based on the most recent population estimates from StatsNZ. The post-covid period has been one of particularly high volatility with growth exceeding expectations. Future forecasts are based on the current ‘most likely’ Auckland growth scenario, AGSv1.1, These figures are the central scenario noting that the low and high are +/- 300,000 either side.

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

Authors	Sital Prasad - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager