1 Nau mai | Welcome

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.

Specifically, members are asked to identify any new interests that they have not previously disclosed and any interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

The following are declared interests of elected members of the Whau Local Board:

Member	Organisation	Position
Kay Thomas	New Lynn Citizens Advice Bureau	Volunteer
	Citizens Advice Bureau Waitākere Board	Deputy Chair
	Literacy Waitākere	Board Member
	West Auckland Heritage Conference	Committee Member
	Whau Ethnic Collective	Patron
	Whau Wildlink Network	Member
Fasitua Amosa	Equity NZ	Vice President
	Massive Theatre Company	Board Member
	Avondale Business Association	Family Member is Chair
	Silo Theatre Trust	Board Member
Ross Clow	Portage Licensing Trust	Trustee
	Te Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust	Patron
	Bay Olympic Sports Club	Life Member
	Forest and Bird Society	Member
	Waitākere Ranges Protection Society	Member
	New Lynn Heritage Protection Society	Member
	Trust Community foundation Limited	Trustee
	Karekare Surf Lifesaving Club	Member
	Libraries	Family Member is Librarian
Catherine Farmer	Avondale-Waterview Historical Society	Member
	Blockhouse Bay Historical Society	Member
	Blockhouse Bay Bowls	Patron
	Forest and Bird organisation	Member
	Grey Power	Member
Sarah Paterson-Hamlin	New Zealand Down Syndrome Association	Employee
Sarah Paterson-Hamlin	Raukatauri Music Therapy Trust	Employee
Warren Piper	New Lynn RSA	Associate Member
Warren Piper	New Lynn Business Association	Member

External Organisations	Lead	Alternate
The Avondale Business Association	Kay Thomas	Ross Clow
The Blockhouse Bay Business Association	Warren Piper	Sarah Paterson-Hamlin
The New Lynn Business Association	Warren Piper	Kay Thomas
The Rosebank Business Association	Warren Piper	Fasitua Amosa
The Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust	Ross Clow	Sarah Paterson-Hamlin

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Whau 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.

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 Whau 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: Riversdale Skatepark

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a deputation from Aaron Martin on the condition of the Riversdale Reserve skate facility.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Aaron Martin, Chairperson of East Skate Club, will be presenting to the board on the condition of the local skatepark at Riversdale Reserve.

3. The primary goals of the deputation are to inform the board on the deteriorating condition of this local asset, and to request that the board invest a small amount in the refurbishment of the skatepark surface as part of their work programme budget allocation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Aaron Martin for his attendance.

8.2 Deputation: Proposal for Green Bay Pouwhenua

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a deputation from the Green Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association on a proposal for a Green Bay Pouwhenua.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Shane Manuela, Chairperson of the Green Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association, will be presenting to the board on a proposal for a Pouwhenua in Green Bay to recognise the cultural heritage of the portage crossing.

3. The primary goal of the deputation is to request that a working party is set up with the Whau Local Board to evaluate the feasibility of the proposal, for inclusion in the next local board plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Shane Manuela for his attendance.

8.3 Deputation: Crescendo update

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a deputation from Cat Percy, on behalf of Crescendo, on their ongoing work with rangatahi in the Whau local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To provide an update on Crescendo’s move to Henderson and their ongoing youth mentoring programmes with rangatahi in the Whau local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Cat Percy, from Crescendo for her attendance.

8.4 Deputation: Te Ao Kita

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a deputation from Jahn Gavala, Graham Paniora and Hemi Tahuri on Te Ao Kita, a sport programme for rangatahi across West Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Jahn Gavala, Graham Paniora and Hemi Tahuri, will be presenting to the board on Te Ao Kita, a full immersion te reo Māori sport programme run by Māori, where rangatahi can see themselves, their tikanga and world view flourishing, enabling active participation in sport.

3. The primary goals of the deputation are to raise awareness of the programme and to ask the board for funding and support.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Jahn Gavala, Graham Paniora and Hemi Tahuri for their attendance.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ward Councillor Kerrin Leoni's Report - February-March 2025	11

Allocation of Local Board Transport Capital Fund 2022-2025

File No.: CP2025/04408

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To allocate the additional budget for the Whau Local Board Transport Capital Fund 2022-2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport manages the Local Board Transport Capital Fund on behalf of the Whau Local Board. Auckland Transport provides quality advice to support local board decision-making.

3. The total indicative budget for 21 local boards for the 3-year term has been increased from $29.5 million to $48.7 million. This means that the indicative budget for the Whau Local Board has now increased from $1.382 million to $2.039 million.

4. The local board has approved the allocation of $1,382,132 of the budget at its business meetings held on 25 October 2023 (WH/2023/137), and 27 March 2024 (WH/2024/17).

5. The local board has a new allocation of $656,998 for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund 2022-2025 to progress new projects.

6. At its workshop on 12 February 2025, the local board was presented with the following list of new projects along with indicative costs:

· Wayfinding Te Whau Pathway - $100,000

· Godley Road pedestrian improvements (Option 1) - $630,500

· Stottholm Road bus stop upgrade - $60,000

· Nikau Street pedestrian improvements - $375,000.

7. The local board also sought proposals from Te Whau Pathway Trust and the following two options were provided for analysis:

· Queen Mary Reserve new path - $516,672

· Queen Mary Avenue traffic calming - $245,325.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) toha / allocate $656,998 from its 2022-2025 Local Board Transport Capital Fund to the following projects:

i. Godley Road pedestrian improvements option 1 - $600,000.

ii. Te Whau Pathway Queen Mary Reserve to Archibald Park wayfinding - $56,998.

b) whakaae / approve as a first priority that any cost savings from its currently active projects and/or any new additional funding that becomes available be applied to its active projects if they require additional funding to complete within the current 3-year local board programme.

c) whakaae / approve as its second priority, that any further cost savings from the completion of currently active 2022-2025 Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects or any alternative funding that becomes available be applied to the following projects in this priority order:

i) Nikau Street pedestrian improvements - $375,000.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) is an Auckland Transport fund established in 2012 to allow local boards to deliver small projects in their local area that would not normally be prioritised by Auckland Transport.

9. After the finalisation of the 2024-2034 Regional Land Transport Plan, the budget was increased to $48.7 million of which $17 million is approved for 2024/2025 and $20.4 million is endorsed for 2025/2026.

10. The budget for Whau Local Board has been increased from $1.382 million to $2.039 million for the 2022-2025 term. The local board has allocated a portion of this budget to projects already and these projects have either been constructed or are now construction ready.

11. There is a new budget of $656,998 available for the local board to allocate new projects or to top up current projects where required.

12. This report requests the local board approves as its first priority, that any cost savings from its currently active Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects and/or any new additional funding that becomes available be applied to its active projects if they require additional funding to complete within the current three-year local board programme.

13. This report also requests that as a second priority, the local board approve projects to apply any further cost savings from the completion of currently active Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects or any alternative funding that becomes available.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Active projects

14. The following information recaps the status of current active projects in the programme:

Projects	Resolved Budget + AT approved budget	Project Status	Cost Savings	Funding required to be resolved to complete the project
South Lynn Road improvements	$359,600	Mitigation	-	-
Hepburn Road improvements	$250,000	Detailed Design	-	-
St Georges Road Pedestrian crossing	$375,000	External Consultation	-	-
Rosebank Road Pedestrian crossing	$380,000	Detailed Design	-	-
Godley Road crossing improvements	$17,532	Completed	-	-

New LBTCF Budget

15. Through the 2024-2034 Regional Land Transport Plan process, additional budget of $656,998 is now available for the board to allocate to new LBTCF projects.

16. Auckland Transport held a workshop with the Whau Local Board on 12 February 2025 to discuss the LBTCF and its allocation. The following projects were presented:

Projects	Project Description	High-level cost estimate
Wayfinding Te Whau Pathway	The local board requested to "prioritise wayfinding to connect finished portions of Te Whau Pathway e.g. from Queen Mary Reserve to Archibald Park to be funded from any cost savings or alternative funding that becomes available." (Resolution number WH/2024/17). Section 2 has been descoped from the current physical works due to budget constraints, i.e. only Section 5 - Areas 2 & 3 have funding.	$100,000 (recommended)
Godley Road pedestrian improvements	The project was requested by the school to relocate and upgrade the existing crossing to a raised crossing outside Green Bay Primary School. There were 4 options considered: Option 1: $630,500 Relocate zebra crossing on a speed table, parking bays and pedestrian refuge removal. Option 2: $1,352,000 Two mini roundabouts with two raised zebra crossings. Option 3: $845,000 Speed tables on La Rosa St and Cajero Place. Option 4: $17,532 New signs and marking to complement future Variable speed limit changes has been completed.	1: $630,500 (recommended) 2: $1,352,000 3: 845,000
Whau Bus stop upgrade	Public request to provide a new bus shelter on Stottholm Road.	$60,000
Nikau Street pedestrian improvements	Public request to provide a crossing facility on Nikau Street outside Manuka Park. There are bus stops located nearby and existing pedestrian demand. The scope of the project is to provide a raised zebra crossing at this location to also slow vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the park.	$375,000

17. The local board also sought proposals from Te Whau Pathway Trust (TWPT) that would align with the future Te Whau Pathway. Two proposals were received and assessed by Auckland Transport:

Projects

Project Description

High-level cost estimate

Queen Mary Reserve new path

TWPT proposal is to build a 130m x3m wide concrete path. Main alignment of Te Whau Pathway and will not be impacted by any future pathway construction. The path will activate the local park space providing inclusive access. Resource consent has been granted.

Auckland Transport assessment concludes that the project does not meet the funding criteria as the boardwalk section it links into is yet to be implemented. Thus, it does not qualify as having a transport outcome at this stage. An exception could be made if the boardwalk is funded and expected to be delivered ahead of June 2026. Auckland Transport recommends implementing this closer to potential boardwalk completion.

$516,672

Queen Mary Avenue traffic calming

TWPT proposal is to implement approximately 280m of on road traffic calming, which extends the connection through Ken Maunder Reserve. It will form part of the future main alignment of Te Whau Pathway. Auckland Transport has noted that the speed table will be removed from the design as it does not add much to speed reduction. Resource consent granted.

Auckland Transport assessment concludes that this project qualifies under the funding criteria as it is in the road corridor. However, the project will be very minimal if the speed table is removed from the design, only containing broken yellow and cycle sharrows. The indicative costs would be 50,000-60,000 (due to TCC process and other works needed to resolve markings).

Auckland Transport does not recommend implementing this without the boardwalk section as it would mislead cyclists from the Ken Maunder footbridge northward when there is nothing yet there. The recommendation is to implement this at a later stage.

$245,325

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. Auckland Transport engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities.

19. Auckland Transport reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. Auckland Transport’s work programme is influenced by council direction through Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Engagement with other parts of the council group will be carried out on an individual project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. Projects requested by the community have been included in the options presented in this report.

22. The Local Board Transport Capital projects were workshopped with the local board on 12 February 2025.

23. The local board sought proposals from Te Whau Pathway Trust that would align with the future Te Whau Pathway. Auckland Transport has analysed and provided advice on these proposals.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. Auckland Transport is committed to meeting their responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori. Auckland Transport’s Maori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. Auckland Transport also recognises mataawaka and their representative bodies and its desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the AT website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about.

25. The actions being considered do not have specific impacts on Māori. Any projects that require consultation with iwi will include that activity within its project plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. This report requires consideration of a significant financial commitment by the Whau Local Board.

27. The costs calculated above are based on estimates and it is possible that costs on some projects may be under or over the estimations.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. There is a risk that some projects may cost more than is budgeted in this report, but equally some projects may reduce in scope after further investigation work is carried out.

29. As resources and budgets are constrained, delaying decision-making means that there is less time for planning for the investigation, design, and subsequent delivery of the projects that the local board wishes to progress. Timely decision-making will provide the best opportunity for these projects to be delivered in the current political term.

30. Finally, future budgets are not confirmed meaning that there may be sudden changes to the programme next year after Auckland Council sets budgets through the Long-term Plan process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Auckland Transport will undertake feasibility and design investigations of the approved projects and report back on these to the local board.

32. Once designs are agreed, Auckland Transport will proceed to external engagement and delivery.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Peter Naber - Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie - Head Stakeholder & Community Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement

File No.: CP2025/04537

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive Auckland Transport’s proposed Forward Works Programme 2025/2026 (Attachment A to the agenda report) and confirm the level of engagement for the prioritised projects.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport has been building a more structured and effective process for local boards to engage with and influence transport projects and programmes.

3. The Kōkiri Agreement is the local board’s engagement plan with Auckland Transport’s work programme.

4. At this stage in the second year of Kōkiri (part of the Local Board Relationship Project), Auckland Transport is seeking formal views on the proposed work programme for 2025/2026 (Attachment A).

5. Auckland Transport workshopped the forward works programme with the local board on 13 November 2024 to aid developing views on priorities.

6. After the local board provides formal views, Auckland Transport will provide a response via memo to the local board before delivering the draft local board transport agreement (Kōkiri) to June 2025 business meetings for adoption.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) request Auckland Transport to apply the following levels of engagement to the projects in the Forward Works Programme 2025-2026 (Attachment A):

i) Collaborate

A) Kelston and New Lynn priority area for investment in active modes and safety.

B) Rosebank Road pedestrian Improvements.

C) Building a raised pedestrian crossing on Hepburn Road.

D) Building a new pedestrian crossing and moving the bus stop on South Lynn Road.

E) Pedestrian safety improvements on St Georges Road.

ii) Consult

A) Pedestrian safety improvements near 73 Hepburn Road.

B) Blockhouse Bay Bus improvements including new layovers and other measures to manage current and future bus volumes (implementation on Kinross Street)

C) Pedestrian safety improvements near Craigavon Park at 123 Kinross Street, Blockhouse Bay

D) Stock and Drury Street paid parking proposal.

E) Room to Move – Comprehensive Parking Management Plan (CPMP) for Avondale

F) Paid Parking changes to Metropolitan Centres – New Lynn

G) Paid Parking Light Industrial – Rosebank Road

H) Great North Road Corridor Productivity Improvements

I) New North Road Corridor Productivity Improvements

J) Margan Avenue – Northern side from Thom Street to Astley Avenue

iii) Inform

A) No stopping lines on Stock Street and Drury Street, New Lynn.

B) Maioro Street traffic flow, corridor improvements.

C) New footpath on Margan Avenue between Astley Avenue and Thom Street.

D) Cycleway connections west to Glen Eden and ultimately to the Twin Stream cycleway.

E) Improved public transport services, including bus services for areas not easily accessible in Whau. Specifically, around the Rosebank peninsula and train network including alternatives during Western Line closure and better signage throughout the network.

F) Feasibility of options to deliver a multi-storey New Lynn park-and-ride to increase transit use, reduce vehicle kilometres travelled, and encourage mode shift.

G) Rosebank Road Special Vehicle Lanes (Bus Lanes).

b) tono / request the following projects or programmes be considered for inclusion in Auckland Transport’s work programme in a future year:

i) Te Whau Pathway.

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

7. In mid-2023, Kōkiri was initiated to build a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport (AT).

8. The project was in part a response to the 2020 Review of Auckland Council’s Council-controlled Organisations which highlighted the need for local boards and Auckland Transport to work more meaningfully and collaboratively.

9. AT has taken steps to improve information flow and local board decision-making, including:

· instituting an annual forward works programme briefing for all local boards

· increasing the number of updates sent to local boards

· providing local board insights in all project engagement

· participating in Auckland Council’s CCO Engagement Plan reporting.

10. Auckland Transport aims to provide a better basis for communication and understanding of roles, responsibilities, limitations, and opportunities.

11. The overall purpose of this process is to identify local board interest in Auckland Transport projects and programmes and to clearly express the preferred levels of local board engagement.

12. The levels of engagement are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) doctrine; and are as follows:

Collaborate	Auckland Transport and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible.
Consult	Auckland Transport leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, Auckland Transport incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; or provides clear reasons if it is not able to.
Inform	Auckland Transport leads the project or programme informing the local board about progress. Local board members may be asked to provide their local insights, however there is no expectation that the project must be modified based on that input.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Auckland Transport has reviewed priorities identified in the Whau Local Board Plan 2023 aligned to transport goals and have considered these where possible.

14. Auckland Transport presented its 2025/2026 forward works programme at a workshop 13 November 2024.

15. This report seeks local board feedback on the proposed work programme and local board priorities on the levels of engagement (collaborate, consult and inform) for the list of projects and programmes.

16. Auckland Transport resource is limited. Projects in the collaborate and consult require significant staff and elected member time such as:

· providing quality advice, including technical advice on options and their costs as well as benefit analysis. Often this advice involves written advice and the opportunity to ask experts questions at a workshop.

· considering the advice, time is required for members to process and understand the advice provided.

· making a formal decision, i.e. feedback about a project or programme requires a report to be submitted and a resolution made at a public meeting.

17. Auckland Transport recommends the local board reserves categorising projects in collaborate and consult for the projects of highest priority, such as local board transport capital fund projects.

18. Other projects and programmes that may be at the ‘collaborate’ level include any projects which the local board has delegated financial control over either by Auckland Transport, council or by another government agency like New Zealand Transport Agency.

19. There may also be projects or programmes that a local board wants to deliver but is not currently identified in AT planning. Local boards may choose to advocate for these projects or programmes.

20. There may be projects or programmes that the local board considers are not supported by the community it represents. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to express its community’s concerns about proposed work. AT will consider and may decide not to proceed with these projects based on the local board’s feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. Auckland Transport engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities.

22. Auckland Transport reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. AT’s work programme is influenced by council direction through Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. In 2022, the mayor provided Auckland Transport with a Letter of Expectation which directed Auckland Transport to improve the relationship with local boards, including providing more opportunity to influence decision-making. Specifically, that:

“The Statement of Intent 2023-2026 must set out how Auckland Transport will achieve closer local board involvement in the design and planning stage of local transport projects that affect their communities.”

24. Auckland Transport’s ‘2023-26 Statement of Intent’ reflects this direction stating that:

“We (Auckland Transport) will engage more meaningfully and transparently with local boards, recognising that they represent their communities, and that they should have greater involvement in local transport projects that affect those communities. This means a genuine partnership where we seek to understand the unique and diverse needs of each local board at a regional level, not just by project. We will work in partnership to integrate those needs into our planning. We will support local boards to communicate integrated local transport planning to their communities.”

25. Project Kōkiri provides an annual process where local boards prioritise a group of key programmes or projects, identifying them to AT, and setting engagement levels that capture the local board’s expectations. This plan forms the basis for regular reporting on key programs and projects. Project Kōkiri will be supported by regular updates to provide transparency.

26. Project Kōkiri was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance Division. It has also been reported generally monthly to the Local Board Chair’s Forum and discussed with a reference group of local board chairs.

27. Further, this work relies on historical engagement with Auckland Council and other Council Controlled Organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The local board had a forward works programme briefing on 13 November 2024 to receive quality advice on the programme. The response from both elected members and staff supporting local boards has been positive. They have been specifically supportive of the large amount and quality of information provided, the detailed discussion with subject matter experts, and attendance at workshops by Auckland Transport executive leaders.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. Auckland Transport is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

30. AT’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. This decision has no financial implications for Whau Local Board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes.

32. Local boards do have a transport budget through the local board transport funds, and these projects are included in this report. However, their financial implications are reported separately.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. The proposed decision does carry some risk. First, the local board needs to be able to commit to the time required for the level of engagement requested. If decisions are not able to be made or are slowed down by local board decision-making, there can be significant financial costs to Auckland Transport and therefore the ratepayer.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. After receiving this report, Auckland Transport will review the formal feedback from all local boards.

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

36. By mid-May 2025, Auckland Transport will provide a memo outlining its response to this report. This memo will provide the basis for future engagement.

37. In June 2025, Auckland Transport will draft a report with an attached annual ‘Kōkiri’ (local board transport agreement) stating how Auckland Transport and the local board will engage over the next 12 months.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Works Programme 2025/2026 presentation	31

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Peter Naber - Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie - Head Stakeholder & Community Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Auckland Transport Kokiri / Local Board Transport Agreement Quarterly Update - October 2024 to December 2024

File No.: CP2025/04453

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on projects in the local board’s Kōkiri / Local Board Transport Agreement 2024/2025 (Kōkiri Agreement).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Kōkiri Agreement 2024/2025 is a local board’s engagement plan with Auckland Transport’s work programme.

3. Developing the agreement is an annual process. During this process Auckland Transport (AT) provides advice on its work programme, seeks feedback from the local board, responds to this feedback, and establishes an endorsed plan for engaging on work in the local board area.

4. This report provides an update on projects in the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement for the October 2024 to December 2024 period.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the October 2024 to December 2024 quarterly update on the Kōkiri / Local Board Transport Agreement 2024/2025.

Horopaki

Context

5. In mid-2023, development of the Kōkiri Agreement was initiated to build a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport. The Kōkiri Agreement is formed through an annual process that includes the following steps:

October/November	AT provides quality advice to local boards on the next financial year’s work programme.
March	Local boards provide their feedback, prioritise projects or programmes, and request levels of engagement for each project.
April/May	AT responds to that feedback, and a Kōkiri Agreement is written for each local board.
June/July	AT seeks formal endorsement of the Kōkiri Agreement from local boards.

6. Auckland Transport reports quarterly on the prioritised projects and programmes listed in the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement.

7. This process provides a clear annual structure for engaging with Auckland Transport. Local boards are able to influence Auckland Transport’s work programme through the annual Kōkiri Agreement process.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. Kōkiri Agreements prioritise the projects or programmes that are of most interest to the local board. Clear local board prioritisation provides Auckland Transport with expectations of transport related objectives, in addition to the objectives provided in the local board plan. This information helps Auckland Transport to either inform its planning or to offer better explanations for why certain projects or programmes cannot be delivered.

9. However, plans evolve and change, so Auckland Transport reports quarterly on progress of projects in the Kōkiri Agreement. This means that local boards are kept informed and have a regular opportunity to provide formal feedback to Auckland Transport about their work programme.

10. The levels of engagement in the Kōkiri Agreement are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) doctrine and are as follows:

Collaborate	AT and the local board work together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible.
Consult	AT leads the project or programme but works with the local board, providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, AT incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan, and if it is not able to, provides clear reasons for that decision.
Inform	AT leads the project or programme informing the local board about progress. Local board members may be asked to provide their local knowledge and insight by AT, however there is no expectation that the project must be modified based on that input.

11. Attachment A provides updates about all projects and programmes currently listed in this local board’s Kōkiri Agreement 2024/2025.

12. Attachment B provides updates on the road maintenance activities in the local board area.

13. Key updates for the quarter are:

i. Avondale Open Streets Project between Great North Road and Crayford Street West – project completed.

ii. Godley Road lines marking and signage improvements – project completed.

iii. Kelston and New Lynn priority area for investment in active modes and safety – project completed.

iv. St Jude Street and Blockhouse Bay Road intersection improvements – project completed.

v. Building a new pedestrian crossing and moving the bus stop on South Lynn Road – the project was completed in October 2024. Vibrations were reported after project completion by properties neighbouring the site relating to when heavier vehicles traversed the raised table, especially buses. A report was brought to the Whau Local Board on 26 February 2025 to approve changes to the project; to convert the facility into a flush zebra pedestrian crossing.

vi. A possible raised crossing on Tiverton Road between Blockhouse Bay Road and Pitcairn Place – can no longer be delivered due to reductions in budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

15. Auckland Transport engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities.

16. Auckland Transport reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. Auckland Transport’s work programme is influenced by council direction through Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. The Kōkiri Agreement is a product of the Local Board Relationship Project. Auckland Transport started the project in response to a 2022 ‘Letter of Expectation’ directive from the Mayor that stated in part that:

18. The Kōkiri Agreement gives effect to this intent. Auckland Transport receives local board feedback via regular engagement. Auckland Transport also surveys local board members quarterly about engagement, providing an indication of satisfaction.

19. The Kōkiri Agreement was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance and Engagement Department.

20. The Kōkiri Agreement is reported to the Local Board Chair’s Forum on a regular basis.

21. This work relies on historical engagement with both Auckland Council and with other major council-controlled organisations (CCO) through the previous joint CCO engagement plans.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. The local board endorsed the Kōkiri Agreement 2024/2025 at its business meeting on 24 July 2024. This report provides a quarterly update on projects in the agreement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. Auckland Transport is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

24. Auckland Transport’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

25. The Kōkiri Agreement is focused on Auckland Transport’s interaction with local boards, as such Māori input was not sought at a programme level. However, when individual projects or operational activities have impact on water or land, Auckland Transport engages with iwi to seek their views. These views are shared in reports seeking decisions from the local board.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. Generally, this report has limited financial implications for the local board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes. However, local boards do have a transport budget, called the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

27. Updates about Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects are included in this report, but financial implications are reported separately, in project specific decision reports.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. If a local board provides any formal direction on changes to the Kōkiri Agreement, there are risks to consider. The local board needs to be able to commit to the time required for the level of engagement requested. There can be significant financial costs if decisions are not able to be made or are slowed down by local board decision-making.

29. Auckland Transport suggests that this risk is mitigated by the local board providing sufficient workshop time to allow for timely discussion of activities listed in Kōkiri Agreement.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. The next quarterly report is planned for May 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kōkiri Quarterly Update - March 2025	103
b ⇩	Kōkiri Quarterly Maintenance and Renewals - March 2025	109

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Peter Naber - Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie - Head Stakeholder & Community Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

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.: CP2025/04268

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 Whau 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 or 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 Proposed AUP 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	117

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

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board views on the draft Contributions Policy 2025

File No.: CP2025/04758

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 Whau 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	129
b ⇩	Attachment B: Schedule 8 Asset for which development contributions (DCs) will be used	173
c ⇩	Attachment C: Consultation Document - Contributions Policy 2025	203
d ⇩	Attachment D: How we set Development Contributions – Cost Allocation Methodology	231
e ⇩	Attachment E: Funding area maps	299
f ⇩	Attachment F: Memorandum and Summary of consultation feedback	311

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Michael Burns - General Manager Financial Strategy

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

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

File No.: CP2025/03921

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 Whau 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

Adam Milina - 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	Kay Thomas
Deputy Chairperson	Fasitua Amosa
Members	Ross Clow
	Catherine Farmer
	Valeria Gascoigne
	Sarah Paterson-Hamlin
	Warren Piper

Authors	Liam Courtney - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager