Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board - Thursday, 27 March 2025

1 Nau mai | Welcome

The Chairperson, A Atkinson, will open the meeting with a Karakia.

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 27 February 2025, as a 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 Upper Harbour 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 Upper Waitematā Ecology Network - 2024 in review.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update from the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Rachael Pates, Network Manager, and Louis Foot, Pest Coordinator, Upper Waitematā Ecology Network, representing Upper Waitematā Ecology Network, will be in attendance to provide an update on the work achieved by the Upper Waitematā Ecology Network in the 2024 calendar year.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Rachael Pates, Network Manager, and Louis Foot, Pest Coordinator, Upper Waitematā Ecology Network, representing Upper Waitematā Ecology Network and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Upper Waitematā Ecology Network - 2024 in review presentation............... 127

8.2 Community feedback and youth facilities in Hobsonville Point.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update on community feedback and youth facilities in Hobsonville Point.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Renata Wiles, Hobsonville Point resident and Gavin Gunston, Venues Manager, Connected Neighbourhoods Trust, will be in attendance to present findings from a community survey regarding the need for more youth and community facilities in Hobsonville Point.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Renata Wiles, Hobsonville Point resident and Gavin Gunston, Venues Manager, Connected Neighbourhoods Trust and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

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.”

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 March 2025

Upper Harbour Local Board views on the draft Contributions Policy 2025

File No.: CP2025/04743

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek 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 (resolution number FIN/2021/119) and subsequent noting in April 2023 (resolution number 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 Upper Harbour 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 to this report. 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 to this report).

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 Long-term Plan (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 to this report: 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 to this report.

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 2025.

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 to this report.

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 ⇨	Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Schedule 8 Asset for which development contributions (DCs) will be used (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Consultation Document - Contributions Policy 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	How we set Development Contributions – Cost Allocation Methodology (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Funding area maps (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Memorandum and Summary of consultation feedback (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 March 2025

Proposed agreement to lease and ground lease to North West Toy Library Incorporated at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Reserve, West Harbour

File No.: CP2025/03732

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to grant an agreement to lease and ground lease to North West Toy Library Incorporated located at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. North West Toy Library Incorporated (the group) seeks a new community ground lease to formalise their occupancy at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour.

3. North West Toy Library Incorporated has not held a community lease with the council before but have been part of the local community since 2019.

4. Upon approval of their lease, North West Toy Library Incorporated plans to install a small house at Picasso Reserve, adjacent to the West Harbour Tennis Club (Attachment B to this report). This facility will serve as the new home for the North West Toy Library.

5. The investigation of new lease was identified and approved by the Upper Harbour Local Board as part of its Customer and Community Services: Community Leases Work Programme 2024-2025 at their 27 June 2024 local board meeting (resolution number resolution UH/2024/79).

6. The toy library will benefit the Upper Harbour community by providing local parents with affordable access to toys and play-based activities, fostering child development and engagement. This aligns with the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023 Objective: “Our Community - Upper Harbour has a range of fit for purpose multi-use sports, recreation and community amenities that serve a growing and diverse community”.

7. North West Toy Library Incorporated will pay for all ongoing maintenance and operational costs for the site as a condition of their lease.

8. Staff recommend a rent of $1300 plus GST per annum in accordance with the updated community occupancy charges under the Community Occupancy Guidelines (updated July 2023).

9. Staff from Parks and Places, Area Operations and Sports and Recreation have been consulted, and they have no objections to the proposed new lease and landowner approval for the group

10. Staff recommend that an agreement to lease and ground lease be granted to North West Toy Library Incorporated following the site visit and assessment of the group’s application.

11. As North West Toy Library Incorporated are not contemplated on the local parks management plan, iwi engagement took place in February 2025. No objections were received.

12. The proposed new community lease to North West Toy Library Incorporated for the land at Picasso Reserve was publicly notified. The notification appeared in the North Shore Times on 14 November 2024 and the Auckland Council website’s Have Your Say webpage with a submission deadline for 13 December 2024. No submissions or responses were received.

13. This report recommends that an agreement to lease and ground lease be granted to North West Toy Library Incorporated for a term of five (5) years commencing from 1 April 2025 with five (5) year right of renewal.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaae / grant, under Reserves Act 1977 an agreement to lease to the North West Toy Library Incorporated for an area comprising approximately 150m2 located at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour, on the land legally described as Lot 301 DP 128372 and is classified as a recreation reserve (as per Attachment A to the agenda report), on the following terms:

Permitted Use	North West Toy Library development
Location	Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour.
Prior to commencement of any works	The North West Toy Library to secure full funding to complete installation of a small house at Picasso Reserve.

b) whakaae / grant subject to fulfilment of all conditions of the agreement to lease, a community ground lease to the North West Toy Library Incorporated for an area comprising approximately 150m2 located at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour, on the land legally described as Lot 301 DP 128372 and is classified as a recreation reserve under Reserves Act 1977 (as per Attachment A to the agenda report), subject to the following terms and conditions:

Permitted use	To provide local parents affordable access to toys and play-based activities
Term	Initial term of five (5) years with one five-year right of renewal
Rent	Rent $1,300.00 plus GST per annum
Agreed Community Outcomes Plan to be appended to the lease.

c) whakaae / approve all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (updated July 2023) and the Auckland Council standard form community lease agreement.

d) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that public notification and iwi engagement for Auckland Council’s intention to grant a new community ground lease to the North West Toy Library Incorporated located at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour have been undertaken in November 2024 and February 2025 respectively.

e) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that no objections to the notified proposal of the new community ground lease to the North West Toy Library Incorporated located at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour were received.

Horopaki

Context

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

15. The Upper Harbour Local Board approved the 2024/2025 Customer and Community Services Community Leases Work Programme at their 27 June 2024 business meeting (resolution number UH/2024/79).

16. The progression of this lease to the North West Toy Library at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour was part of the approved work programme.

17. This report considers the proposed new community lease as approved on the work programme.

Land, building/s and lease

18. Picasso Reserve is located at 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour (refer to Attachment A to the agenda report) - The North West Toy Library, 31A Picasso Drive, Picasso Reserve, West Harbour).

19. The land is legally described as Lot 301 DP 128372 and is classified as a recreation reserve (refer to Attachment A to this report).

20. Lot 301 DP 128372 is held in fee simple (owned) by Auckland Council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

21. North West Toy Library Incorporated (the group) plans to install a $100,000 home at the proposed location once funding is secured. This new space will enable them to expand their toy collection and create a more comfortable and welcoming environment for children and parents.

22. Since March 2023, the group has been operating temporarily on the second floor of the West Harbour Tennis Club, which presents challenges related to accessibility and limited space. Prior to this, the toy library was based in Westgate for three years.

North West Toy Library Incorporated

23. The North West Toy Library Incorporated is a not-for-profit community organisation serving the wider North West Auckland area, spanning from Greenhithe to Massey (East-West) and from Hobsonville/West Harbour to Helensville (North-South).

24. Since its establishment in 2019, the group has been an integral part of the local community, offering a diverse selection of toys, games, and educational resources for children aged 0–5 years. Previously based in Westgate, the group relocated to its current premises at the West Harbour Tennis Club.

25. Currently, the group has 120 registered members, with a membership fee of approximately $7 per month. Their mission is to support families and whānau with young children by providing access to quality toys, an affordable and inclusive membership structure, flexible opening hours, and a centrally located facility.

26. The group continues to invest significantly in expanding its collection, now offering more than 800 toys

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

27. Based on the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (updated July 2023), the group meets the eligibility criteria for securing a community occupancy agreement with council.

28. The Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 (updated July 2023) recommend that newly established community groups receive a lease term of one year with a one-year right of renewal. While the group is new to council’s leasing, they have been operating for the past five years.

29. Given the groups planned investment in installing a building at Picasso Reserve, staff recommend an agreement to lease and ground lease be granted to North West Toy Library Incorporated for a term of five (5) years commencing from 1 April 2025 with five (5) year right of renewal. 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

30. As the North West Toy Library Incorporated is not contemplated on the recently adopted reserve management plan, public notification and formal iwi engagement is required under the Reserves Act 1977 prior to any lease being granted. Iwi engagement is also required under the terms of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 prior to any lease being granted. Iwi engagement is outlined in the ‘Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori Māori impact statement’ section of this report.

31. The proposed community ground lease to the North West Toy Library at Picasso Reserve, West Harbour was publicly notified. The notification appeared in the North Shore Times on 14 November 2024 and the Auckland Council website’s Have Your Say webpage with a submission deadline for 13 December 2024.

32. The cost of the public notification was met by the Parks and Community Facilities department of the council.

33. No submissions or objections to the notified proposal were received.

Assessment of the application

34. The group has submitted a comprehensive application supporting the new lease request and is able to demonstrate its ability to benefit Upper Harbour community by supporting local parents to access toys and play-based activities in an affordable way.

35. The North West Toy Library has consulted with the West Harbour Tennis Club, which has expressed its support for the proposal. Co-locating the building alongside the tennis club will foster community integration, while families visiting the toy library may also increase the club’s visibility, potentially boosting membership and facility usage.

36. The area proposed for lease to the group covers approximately 150m², as outlined in Attachment A to this report.

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

38. The group is financially stable with financial accounts provided. All management and operational costs are funded by the group through membership fees, grants from various organisations, fundraising, and hireage of party packs.

39. The group has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

40. A site visit has been undertaken; staff have no objection to providing an agreement to lease and subsequent lease to the group.

41. The group provides a valuable service to the local community by supporting local parents to access toys and play-based activities in an affordable way. The lease will allow the group to install a tiny house at Picasso Reserve, next to the West Harbour Tennis Club.

42. A community outcomes plan has been negotiated with North West Toy Library Incorporated to identify the benefits it will provide to the community. This will be attached as a schedule to the lease agreement and is attached as Attachment C to this report.

43. Staff recommend that an agreement to lease and subsequent lease be granted to North West Toy Library Incorporated for a term of five (5) years commencing from 1 April 2025 with five (5) year right of renewal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. It is anticipated that activation of the park 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

46. Climate change has an unlikely potential to impact the lease, as no part of the leased area is located in a flood-sensitive or coastal inundation zone.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47. Council staff from Area Operations, Active Recreation, Connected Communities, Land Advisory and Park Specialists have been consulted. They are supportive of the proposed lease as this new space will enable the group to expand their toy collection and create a more comfortable and welcoming environment for children and parents.

48. The proposed new lease has no identified impact on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49. The proposed lease will benefit the Upper Harbour local board area and its surrounding communities by enabling local parents to access toys and play-based activities in an affordable way.

50. The assessment of the application was discussed with the local board through a memo on 2 October 2024. The local board indicated its support to progress to next step including public notification and iwi engagement.

51. The delivered activities align with the following Upper Harbour Local Board 2023 outcome and objectives in Table 1.

Table 1: 2023 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan outcomes and objectives

Outcome	Objective
Outcome: Our Community	· Upper Harbour has a range of fit for purpose multi-use sports, recreation and community amenities that serve a growing and diverse community. · People of all abilities have access to well-maintained sports fields, parks, coastal and community facilities in Upper Harbour

Outcome

Objective

Outcome: Our Community

· Upper Harbour has a range of fit for purpose multi-use sports, recreation and community amenities that serve a growing and diverse community.

· People of all abilities have access to well-maintained sports fields, parks, coastal and community facilities in Upper Harbour

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

52. Iwi engagement about the council’s intention to grant a new community ground lease to North West Toy Library Incorporated at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour was undertaken with ten iwi groups identified as having an interest in land in the local board area. The engagement involved:

· an email was sent on the 30^th of January 2025 to ten iwi groups identified as having an interest in the area as captured in Attachment D to this report, containing detailed information on the land, the lessee, the lease proposal as per Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987. The submission deadline was 28 February 2025.

· a presentation at the name of Iwi Engagement Presentation - Te Kawerau a Maki held on the 24 February 2025 with Te Kawerau Iwi Tiaki Trust at TKaM Office Boardroom, Level 3, Henderson Civic Building, 1 Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland.

53. No objections or responses were received from the nine iwi and mana whenua groups who were emailed.

54. Te Kawerau Iwi Tiaki Trust indicated their support to grant a new community ground lease to North West Toy Library Incorporated at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour.

55. The lessee has agreed, via a community outcomes plan, to deliver Māori Outcomes that reflect their local community as per Attachment C to this report. The lease will benefit Māori and the wider community through improving Māori values, culture and traditions.

56. 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.

57. 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.

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

59. 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

60. On 8 June 2023 the 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 $1.00 per annum to $1300.00 plus GST per annum taking effect from 1 July 2023.

61. The group has been advised of the rent level of $1300.00 plus GST per annum and understands that this will be an additional cost incurred as part of this lease application.

62. Staff have included the new rent level ($1300.00 plus GST per annum) as a recommendation to the local board in accordance with the Community Occupancy Guidelines (updated July 2023).

63. Staff have consulted with the Financial Strategy and Planning department of the council. No concerns were raised regarding the financial implications for the proposed new lease to the group for the land at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour.

64. The group will cover ongoing maintenance costs for their new assets within the lease area granted to the group as an obligation under their lease agreement.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

65. Should the local board resolve not to grant an agreement to lease and subsequent lease to the North West Toy Library to install a tiny house at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour, 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.

66. The North West Toy Library is currently unable to secure full funding for the installation of the house at the proposed location, as their funder requires security of tenure before committing financial support. This presents a potential risk that the Toy Library may not obtain the necessary funding for the installation. To mitigate this risk, the council has stipulated that the North West Toy Library must secure full funding prior to the commencement of any works.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

67. If the local board resolves to grant the proposed agreement to lease and subsequent lease, staff will work with the North West Toy Library Incorporated to finalise a lease agreement in accordance with the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Map of Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour	27
b ⇩	Building Plans at Picasso Reserve, 31A Picasso Drive, West Harbour	29
c ⇩	North West Toy Library Inc - Community Outcome Plan.docx	31
d ⇩	North West Toy Library Inc - Iwi Engagement	35

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Angela Zafar - Community Lease Specialist

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 March 2025

Kōkiri - Setting priorities for Auckland Transport project and programme engagement

File No.: CP2025/04326

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on Auckland Transport’s proposed work programme for 2025-2026.

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. 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.

4. Auckland Transport workshopped the proposed forward works programme 2025-2026 with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 10 October 2024 and 20 March 2025 to aid developing views on priorities.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the Forward Works Programme brief as outlined in Attachment A.

b) tono / request Auckland Transport to apply the following levels of engagement to these projects:

Collaborate

i) Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway)

ii) Clark Road – Zebra Crossing Upgrade

iii) Picasso Drive Zebra Crossing

iv) Upper Harbour Wayfinding’s

v) Barbados Drive Pedestrian Crossing

vi) Totara Road Bus Stops Upgrade

vii) Apollo Drive Bus Stops Update

Consult

Auckland Cycling Programme

viii) Hobsonville Cycle Connection – Hobsonville Road – currently in design

ix) Community Response Projects

x) Rosedale Road, Jack Hinton Drive to new crossing, cycle protection – currently in design

xi) Oteha Valley Road SH1 to Cornerstone Drive Improvements - currently in design

xii) Constellation Drive shared path extensions - currently in design

xiii) Greville Road cycle lane upgrades and intersection improvements - currently in design

Capital Projects

xiv) Rosedale Bus Station – currently in design

xv) Supporting Growth Alliance - route protection of the North future strategic transport network

Network Optimisation

xvi) Dairy Flat Highway Dynamic Lane – investigation phase

xvii) Parking and Compliance Programme

xviii) Room to Move – Comprehensive Parking Management Plan (CPMP)- Albany – planning phase

xix) Room to Move – Comprehensive Parking Management Plan (CPMP)-West Harbour - – planning phase

Inform

Capital Projects

xx) Decarbonisation of Ferry Stage 1 - Landside – Hobsonville – currently in design

xxi) National Ticketing Systems (AT assets) - currently in design

Network Optimisation

xxii) Albany Highway Corridor between Sunset Road and SH18 interchange (Corridor Improvements)

Public Transport Minor Projects

xxiii) Bus Shelter Renewals – Renewals of end of life and damaged bus shelters - currently in selection/investigation

Road Corridor programme

xxiv) Footpath Renewals – FY 25/26

xxv) Road Resurfacing Renewals – FY 25/26

Road Safety

xxvi) Greenhithe Road Greenhithe School - Raised pedestrian crossing – currently in investigation

Storm Recovery Programme

xxvii) Upper Harbour Local Board area

Advocacy

Active Modes

xxviii) Strongly active modes, improving safety and encouraging mode shift through network planning, cycle skills training, events, activations and campaigns targeted at schools

Community Response Programme

xxix) East Coast Road/Spencer Road intersection – that delivers the most network benefits for safety, climate action, our economy, public health, and social outcomes and provides pedestrian safety

xxx) Sunset Road/Target Road/Caribbean Drive roundabout - that delivers the most network benefits for safety, climate action, our economy, public health, and social outcomes and provides pedestrian safety

xxxi) Launch Road zebra crossing – that delivers the most network benefits for safety, climate action, our economy, public health, and social outcomes and provides pedestrian safety

xxxii) Caribbean Drive / Sunset Road / Target Road intersection pedestrian improvements – that delivers the most network benefits for safety, climate action, our economy, public health, and social outcomes and provides pedestrian safety

xxxiii) Gills Road / Albany Heights Road / Lonely Track Road Intersection Improvements - that delivers the most network benefits for safety, climate action, our economy, public health, and social outcomes and provides pedestrian safety

Capital Programme

xxxiv) The Avenue / Dairy Flat highway intersection project – that delivers the most network benefits for safety, climate action, our economy, public health, and social outcomes and provides pedestrian safety

xxxv) request that Auckland Transport provide a better network of feeder bus services to manage demand at park and ride stations.

c) tuku / provide any projects or programmes for Auckland Transport to consider for inclusion in future work programmes

d) tuku / provide any projects or programmes for Auckland Transport to review that are not supported by the local community.

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

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

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

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

Collaboration	AT 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.
Consultation	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.
Informing	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.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. AT first provided quality advice on the forward works programme at a workshop on 10 October 2024.

13. The local board continued to workshop the forward works programme with their Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Partner on 20 March 2025.

14. This report seeks to confirm local board feedback on the proposed work programme and seek views on how the local board wants to work together with Auckland Transport.

15. Auckland Transport recommends that the local board prioritises work programme items aligned to transport goals stated in their local board plan.

16. The local board should prioritise a list of projects and programmes for each of the three levels of engagement (collaborate, consult and inform).

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 AT, council or by another government agency like the New Zealand Transport Agency.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. AT 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.

23. AT 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

24. In 2022, the mayor provided Auckland Transport with a Letter of Expectation which directed AT 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 AT will achieve closer Local Board involvement in the design and planning stage of local transport projects that affect their communities.”

25. AT’s ‘2023-26 Statement of Intent’ reflects this direction stating that:

“We (AT) 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.”

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Further, this work relies on historical engagement with both Auckland Council and with other CCOs.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. The local board had a forward works programme briefing on 10 October 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 AT executive leaders.

30. There was an additional workshop on 20 March 2025 with the AT Elected Member Relationship Manager to discuss the proposed programme and help support local boards to develop their views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. 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.

32. 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

33. This decision has no financial implications for Upper Harbour Local Board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes.

34. 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

35. 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 AT and therefore the ratepayer.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. After receiving this report, AT will review the formal feedback from all local boards.

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	2025 - 2026 Forward Works Programme Brief (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

John Gillespie – Head Stakeholder & Community Engagement, Auckland Transport.

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 March 2025

Auckland Transport Kōkiri Quarterly Update - March 2025

File No.: CP2025/04331

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on projects in the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement 2024-2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Kōkiri Agreement 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 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 Upper Harbour Local Board Kōkiri Agreement 2024-2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the March 2025 quarterly update on the Upper Harbour Local Board Kōkiri Agreement 2024-2025 as outlined in Attachment A to the agenda report.

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 (AT). The Kōkiri Agreement is 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, prioritising projects or programmes and requesting 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. AT 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 AT. Local boards are able to influence Auckland Transport’s work programme through the annual Kōkiri Agreement process and by providing any requests for changes through the quarterly reporting.

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 AT with expectations of transport related objectives, in addition to the objectives provided in the local board plan. This information helps AT 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 AT 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 AT 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:

Collaboration	AT 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.
Consultation	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.
Informing	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. This agenda report includes the following attachments:

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

· Attachment B - is a quarterly update on road maintenance activities.

12. At the February 2025 business meeting the local board allocated the remaining Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) for the 2024 – 2026 programme to the following projects:

· Barbados Drive pedestrian crossing

· Totara Road bus stops upgrade

· Apollo Drive bus stops upgrade.

13. The engagement level for LBTCF projects outlined in the Kōkiri Agreement 2024-2025 is “collaborate” therefore the new projects agreed in February 2025 have now been added to the agreement with the engagement level collaborate.

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. AT 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. AT 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

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

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

18. The Kōkiri agreement gives effect to this intent. AT receives local board feedback via regular engagement. AT 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 Upper Harbour Local Board endorsed the Kōkiri Agreement at their 25 July 2024 business meeting [resolution number UH/2024/105]. 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. AT’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 AT’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 Upper Harbour 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. 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.

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.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. After local boards receive this report, AT will respond to any resolutions.

31. In March 2025, AT will conduct its annual Forward Works Programme brief which starts the process to develop the Kōkiri Agreement 2025-2026.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Updates about all projects and programmes currently listed in the Upper Harbour Local Board's Kōkiri Agreement.	49
b ⇩	Quarterly update on road maintenance activities.	59

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster, Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport.

Authorisers

John Gillespie, Head Stakeholder & Community Engagement, Auckland Transport.

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 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.: CP2025/03725

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 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 Auckland Unitary Plan Schedule of Notable Trees (‘Schedule 10’), and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the Auckland Unitary Plan 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 the Policy and Planning Committee seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions. If authorisation is given by the Policy and Planning 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 Upper Harbour 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 Auckland Unitary Plan 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 Auckland Unitary Plan (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 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:

· heritage or historical association

· scientific importance or rarity

· ecosystem service or environmental function

· cultural association and accessibility

· 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 to this report. 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 Policy and Planning 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, Schedule 7, clause 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 their March 2025 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 Policy and Planning 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 ⇩	Proposed additions of trees and groups for the Upper Harbour Local Board area.	67

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ruth Andrews - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 March 2025

Local board views on plan change to amend Historic Heritage Schedule

File No.: CP2025/02646

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on a draft plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan historic heritage schedule in relation to two historic heritage places in the Upper Harbour local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. A draft plan change has been prepared, which proposes to delete three historic heritage places and amend one historic heritage place that are already identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan historic heritage schedule. The purpose of the plan change is to ensure the identification of four scheduled historic heritage places matches their values and results in the appropriate management of these places.

4. Two of the historic heritage places in the draft plan change are in the Upper Harbour local board area.

5. By providing its views on the draft plan change a local board can contribute to the content of the Auckland Unitary Plan. This report is the mechanism for the whole local board to pass a resolution providing its views on the draft plan change.

6. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on a draft plan change: Amendments to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule – deletion and/or amendment of two archaeological places in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Horopaki

Context

Decision making authority

8. 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. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents. Accordingly, local boards’ views are relevant to finalising a draft plan change, before it is notified for submissions.

9. This report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board chooses to express its views on the draft plan change. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views in finalising the draft plan change for public notification.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

10. The purpose of the plan change is to ensure the identification of four scheduled historic heritage places matches their values and results in the appropriate management of these places. There are known errors in the information and mapping of the four places subject to the draft plan change and questions about their integrity have been raised by their landowners for some time.

11. The changes proposed are to delete three historic heritage places from the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) and amend one place. These four places are archaeological sites of Māori origin. Engagement with iwi has been undertaken in the preparation of this plan change, as discussed in the Māori Impact Statement section of this report.

12. Two of the historic heritage places proposed to be amended are within the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Schedule 14.1 ID & name

Address

Proposed change

Information to support draft plan change

ID 00713 Pā site R10_3

159 and 161 Attwood Road, Paremoremo

Delete place from Schedule 14.1 and planning maps

No physical evidence of a Pā site in this locality.

Site subject to extensive residential development.

ID 00720 Settlement site R11_50

Tauhinui Historical Reserve, 9 Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe

Amend Schedule 14.1 to correctly identify the name, address, legal description and heritage values for this place and to identify a primary feature and exclusions.^{^[2]}

Amend GeoMaps to identify the spatial extent of the historic heritage place.

No physical evidence of a settlement site in this locality.

Site subject to extensive residential development.

Consultation with Mana Whenua has identified this place has historic heritage value as a lookout during Māori occupation of the area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

13. 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).

14. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirement for 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.

15. The draft plan change does not have any relevant climate considerations. The removal or amendment of historic heritage places from a property will not result in a change in intensity of development as it does not amend the underlying zoning.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. There has been no input into the draft plan change from other parts of Council. The four properties that are the subject of the plan change are all in private ownership and no expert input from Council, aside from historic heritage and planning advice, has been required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. The draft plan change relates to the Devonport-Takapuna and Upper Harbour Local Boards.

18. 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 the local board plan and local board agreement

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

19. This report is the mechanism for obtaining local board views.

20. 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, Schedule 7, clause 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.

21. The Policy and Planning 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

22. 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, well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

23. Council is required to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a plan change. Extensive consultation on the draft plan change has been undertaken with the relevant iwi authorities with no responses opposed to the removal of the places in principle. Iwi engagement, resulted in the amendment of the historic heritage place ID 00720 at 9 Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe, rather than the deletion of this place.

24. 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 views of iwi authorities on the draft plan change will be a particular matter of relevance.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. The plan change does not pose any financial implications for the Upper Harbour Local Board’s assets or operations.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. 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.

28. The local board will have another opportunity to comment on the plan change after it is notified, following the close of submissions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. 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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Authorisers

Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 March 2025

Local board views on Private Plan Change 107 for Whenuapai Business Park

File No.: CP2025/02739

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a private plan change by Neil Construction Limited, for 69-73 & 94-96A Trig Road and 141, 145, 151, 153, 155-157, 159 & 163 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai.

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. Neil Construction Limited (“the Applicant”) lodged a private plan change for 69-73 & 94-96A Trig Road and 141, 145, 151, 153, 155-157, 159 & 163 Brigham Creek Road. Private Plan Change 107 (“PC 107”) seeks to change the Auckland Unitary Plan by rezoning 47.5 hectares of land from ‘Future Urban zone’ to Business - Light Industry Zone (“MHU”). The purpose of the plan change is to achieve a high-quality built environment which supports business and employment opportunities in Whenuapai and wider north-west area by enabling a light industrial business area to be established.

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 plan change. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

5. PC 107 has had full public notification (20 working days) between 8 November to 6 December 2024. Key themes that have been raised in submissions received on PC 107 include effects on the transport network, infrastructure servicing, stormwater, and the operation of the Whenuapai Airbase.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on private plan change 107 Whenuapai Business Park by Neil Construction Limited for 69-73 & 94-96A Trig Road and 141, 145, 151, 153, 155-157, 159 & 163 Brigham Creek Road.

b) kopou /appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on private plan change 107.

c) tāpae / delegate authority to the chairperson of Upper Harbour 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

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. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (ss15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

7. 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 Auckland Unitary Plan.

8. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes local board views verbatim and addresses those views in the hearing report provided to the independent hearing commissioners appointed to consider PC 107 (alongside issues raised by submitters).

9. 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.

10. The consultation summary in Appendix J: Consultation Summary of the notified documents indicate that engagement with the local board was sought on 29 August 2023.

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

12. The report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board expresses its views on PC 107. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan Change overview

13. The private plan change applies to 69-73 & 94-96A Trig Road and 141, 145, 151, 153, 155-157, 159 & 163 Brigham Creek Road. The land is currently zoned Future Urban Zone as shown below in Figure 1 (red highlighted site).

1.Figure 1 Private Plan Change Site within the wider surrounding area.

14. Neil Construction Limited states that the purpose of PC 107 is to enable a light industrial business area to be established to support business and employment opportunities in Whenuapai. This will support the wider north-west area by providing land suitable for a range of business activities, including land extensive activities, that are serviced by key transport routes and are connected to surrounding residential areas.

15. PC 107 includes a proposed new precinct to align future subdivision and development with the provision of the necessary transport, wastewater and other infrastructure, stormwater management and ecological outcomes.

16. Figure 2 below shows the rezoning proposed by Neil Construction Limited in PC 107 from Future Urban Zone to Business-LIZ.

2.Figure 2 Proposed zoning of the Private Plan Change site

17. Neil Construction Limited’s application included technical reports that evaluate:

· Transport

· Infrastructure

· Ecology

· Acoustics

· Economics

· Flood risk

· Infrastructure

· Geotechnical

· Archaeology

· Urban Design

· Landscape

· Cultural Impact Assessment

· Stormwater.

18. These reports and other application details are available from council’s website at PC 107.

19. The council’s policy planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· the plan change

· submissions

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

Themes from submissions received

20. Key submission themes are listed below.

· Integration with infrastructure

· Effects on the transport network

· Flooding/stormwater management

· Reverse sensitivity effects on the NZDF Airbase.

21. Six submissions were received on PC 107:

3.Table 1 Submissions received on Private Plan Change 107

22. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from council’s website: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

24. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirement for 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.

25. Consequently, any local board views on climate adaptation and/or climate mitigation will be considered by the plan change decision-makers.

26. The land subject to the plan change is currently identified as being subject to natural hazards in council’s geospatial system. Climate change effects are anticipated to worsen the effects of natural hazards.

Local board views – climate

27. 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 plan change impact on greenhouse gas emissions and what is the approach to reduce emissions? Consider in/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?

Submitters’ views

28. Two submissions raised concerns in relation to climate change and climate adaptation.

29. Auckland Council’s submission (submitter 05) addressed matters relating to the effect of flooding on access to properties outside of the private plan change site. Council seeks to understand how the Precinct provisions will ensure that any necessary mitigation measures to avoid creating new risks to people, property and infrastructure outside the plan change area will be implemented.

30. Watercare Services Limited’s (Watercare) submission (submitter 04) considers that the plan change provisions are inadequate to protect the Whenuapai Transmission Pump Station at 161 Brigham Creek Road from increased flood risk. Watercare considers that the Applicant's Flood and Flood Hazard Risk Assessment Report does not properly account for the effects of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. Discussions have been held between the Applicant and a number of council departments including Planning and Resource Consents, Healthy Waters and Flooding Resilience, Environmental Services (Ecology). These departments, along with Parks and Community Facilities and Engineering, Assets and Technical Advisory (Geotech) have also considered PC 107 and had input into the requests for additional information made prior to public notification under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

32. The Applicant has had discussions with Auckland Transport (AT). AT have reviewed PC 107 and provided comments to the council regarding the mitigation of transport effects proposed in the precinct provisions. AT consider that the infrastructure works proposed by the Applicant that are within the boundaries of Notice of Requirement (NoR) W1 and W2 (upgrades to Trig and Brigham Road), are consistent with the future works planned through those NoRs. The letter from the Applicant dated 24 September 2024 sets out the company’s commitment to funding of relevant infrastructure and work co-operatively with the council, its departments and CCOs.

33. Watercare (submitter 04) have been directly consulted by the Applicant and discussions will be ongoing through the private plan change process, and if the private plan change is ultimately approved, at the design and construction phase.

34. Auckland Council and Watercare made submissions. The key matters raised are:

· The strategic integration of transport, water and wastewater infrastructure, and the planning / funding of such infrastructure, with the land use proposed in the plan change

· Concerns related to flood risk to properties and infrastructure outside the plan change area, including the Whenuapai Wastewater Pump Station

· Alignment of the private plan change with the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and Future Development Strategy (FDS)

· The safe functioning of Trig Road as an arterial road in the future.

35. Staff from Healthy Waters, Auckland Transport, and Parks and Community Facilities will also review the submissions and provide expert input into the hearing report that the independent hearing commissioners will consider.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. The PC 107 is within the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

37. This plan change relates to the Upper Harbour Local Board area only.

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

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

39. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The independent hearing commissioners will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on PC 107.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. If the local board chooses to provide its views on PC 107 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). 6.1% of residents in the Upper Harbour Local Board area identify as Māori, in 2023 census results.

41. Neil Construction Limited has consulted with mana whenua and correspondence was sent to the following 9 iwi authorities. The following iwi groups were contacted:

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Trust Board

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Te Ākitai Waiohua.

42. Of the above Mana Whenua groups, responses from Ngāti Te Ata (confirmed no engagement is required), Ngāti Manuhiri (deferred to Te Kawerau ā Maki) and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua (expressed interest in the application but no confirmation on whether a Cultural Impact Assessment (‘CIA’) is to be provided) have been received. No response has been received to date from the remaining Mana Whenua groups.

43. It is noted that under the previous Fast-track application, the Applicant has fostered an on-going relationship with Te Kawerau ā Maki and acknowledges the connection that Te Kawerau ā Maki has, as Mana Whenua, with the Whenuapai area. Under the Fast-track application, Te Kawerau ā Maki provided a CIA for the previously proposed development on land that is now included as part of this PPC. A summary of that has been included by the Applicant, which addresses matters raised by Te Kawerau ā Maki. These are:

· Te Wai te matā o Kahu

· Whenua (Soils)

· Te Waiarohia o Ngariki (and tributaries)

· Native Vegetation

· Lizards

· Avifauna

· Aquatic Fauna

44. Another matter that was raised during the previous Fast-track consent process was in regard to wastewater discharges, more particularly, the effects of emergency overflow discharge from the proposed pump station to facilitate future development. The Applicant previously agreed (and maintains that agreement) to consult with Te Kawerau ā Maki on the detailed engineering design for any future pump station.

45. Te Kawerau ā Maki do not oppose the proposal, provided that the mitigations discussed above are incorporated.

46. The section 42A hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. PC 107 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).

47. No iwi authority has made a submission on PC 107.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. PC107 does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

49. Costs associated with processing PC107 will be recovered from the applicant. Effects on infrastructure arising from PC107, including any financing and funding issues will be addressed in the hearing report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on PC 107, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides:

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

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

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

52. 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

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

54. The policy planner will advise the local board of the decision on PC 107 by memorandum, if local board views are provided.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Letter from NCL	83

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Myles Anderson - Policy Planner

Authorisers

Eryn Shields - Team Leader - Planning

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 March 2025

Local board views on Private Plan Change 109 - Whenuapai Green - 98-100 & 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai

File No.: CP2025/03816

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a private plan change (PC109) by Neil Construction Limited, to rezone 16.36 hectares of land located at 98-100 and 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai from Future Urban Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone, introduce a new Precinct, apply a Stormwater Management Area Control and remove an Historic Heritage Overlay – Extent of Place.

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. Neil Construction Limited (“the Applicant”) lodged a private plan change (PC109) to rezone 16.36 hectares of land located at 98-100 and 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai from Future Urban Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone, introduce a new Precinct, apply a Stormwater Management Area Control, and remove an Historic Heritage Overlay – Extent of Place.

5. PC109 has had full public notification (20 working days) from 23 January 2025 to 21 February 2025. Key themes that have been raised in submissions received on PC109 include effects on the transport network, infrastructure servicing, stormwater and flooding effects, amenity and noise effects, and the operation of the Whenuapai Airbase.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on private plan change 109 Whenuapai Green by Neil Construction Limited for the rezoning of land at 98-100 & 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai.

b) kopou / appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on private plan change 109.

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

Horopaki

Context

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. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (ss15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

9. 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.

10. The Applicant prepared a consultation summary in Appendix F: Consultation Summary of the notified documents. This indicates that initial engagement with the Upper Harbour Local Board was sought on 23 October 2023.

11. This report provides an overview of PC109, and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

12. This report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board expresses its views on PC109. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. PC109 applies to the land at 98-100 & 102 Totara Road, Whenuapai. The land is currently zoned Future Urban Zone as shown below in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Location of PC109 area (with red outline) within in wider Whenuapai Future Urban Zone area

Source: Auckland Council Geomaps

14. Figure 2 below shows the rezoning proposed by Neil Construction Limited in PC109 from Future Urban Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone.

Figure 2: Proposed Zoning Plan – FUZ to MHU Zone

Source: Applicant’s Lodged Documents

15. PC109 includes a proposed new precinct, the Whenuapai Green Precinct. This aims to align future subdivision and development with the provision of the necessary transport, wastewater and other infrastructure; stormwater and flood management. It also seeks to; manage and mitigate noise effects and reverse sensitivity effects on the New Zealand Defence Force Airbase at Whenuapai and enable ecological outcomes within the plan change area.

16. Neil Construction Limited’s application included technical reports and information to support the plan change as follows:

· private plan change request, including proposed rezoning, overlay, control and precinct plans and drafted proposed Precinct provisions;

· planning and section 32 evaluation report;

· specialist reports including:

· Ecological Impact Assessment prepared by Viridis;

· Site Investigation Reports prepared by Geosciences Ltd;

· Integrated Transport Assessment prepared by Abley Ltd;

· Water and Wastewater Servicing Memo prepared by Water Acumen;

· Stormwater Management Plan prepared by The Neil Group;

· Acoustic Assessment prepared by Earcon;

· Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared CMW Geosciences;

· Archaeological/Historic Heritage Assessment prepared by Clough & Associates Ltd;

· Urban Design Statement prepared by Urban Acumen;

· Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects prepared by LA4 Landscape Architects;

· Correspondence with Te Kawerau ā Maki;

· Cultural Impact Assessment by Te Kawerau ā Maki;

· Te Kawerau ā Maki Resource Management Statement;

· Consultation Summary; and

· Clause 23 responses to further information requested.

17. These reports and other application details are available from council’s website at PC109.

18. The council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· the plan change;

· submissions; and

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

Themes from submissions received

19. Key submission themes are listed below.

· Effects on the transport network;

· Infrastructure integration and servicing;

· Stormwater and flooding management;

· Amenity and noise effects; and

· Reverse sensitivity effects on the operation of the RNZDF Airbase Whenuapai.

20. Ten submissions were received on PC109, including one late submission:

Table 1: Submissions received on PC109

Submissions	Number of Submissions
In support	4
In opposition	4
Neutral	2

21. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, will be available from council’s website: PC109 from 14 March 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. Te 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).

23. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirement for 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.

24. Consequently, any local board views on climate adaptation and/or climate mitigation will be considered by the plan change decision-makers.

25. The land subject to PPC109 is currently identified as being subject to natural hazards, such as a number of overland flow paths and a flood plain, in council’s geospatial system. Climate change effects are anticipated to worsen the effects of natural hazards.

Local board views – climate

26. 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:

Submitters’ views

27. Two submissions raise specific concerns in relation to climate change and climate adaptation. These are as follows.

28. The submission by Akhil Argal (submission 04) considers that the development enabled by PC109 would result in extensive impervious surfaces which could exacerbate local flooding issues; and while the stormwater design proposed includes a 13.2 – 16.8% increased allowance for climate change, the submission considers that the unprecedented rainfall patterns experienced suggest this may be insufficient.

29. The submission by Chun-Kai Tseng (submission 09) considers that amendments to the proposed wastewater capacity assessments undertaken in PC109 are required in order to create a more holistic approach, so that the principle of integration can be observed in the wider Whenuapai area, and so that reduced greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. Discussions have been held between the Applicant and a number of council departments including Planning and Resource Consents, Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience, and Environmental Services (Ecology). These departments, along with Parks and Community Facilities, and Engineering, Assets and Technical Advisory (Geotech) have also considered PC109 and had input into the requests for additional information made prior to public notification under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

31. The Applicant has also had discussions with Auckland Transport (AT). AT have reviewed PC109 and provided comments to the council regarding the mitigation of transport effects and the proposed precinct provisions. AT has some concerns about the mitigations proposed, particularly the intersections identified for upgrade. However, these are considered to be matters of detail that can be worked through during the hearing process, rather than fundamental issues.

32. Watercare (submission 08) have been directly consulted by the Applicant and discussions will be ongoing through the private plan change process, and if the private plan change is ultimately approved, at the design and construction phase.

33. A letter from the Applicant dated 25 November 2024 sets out the Applicant’s commitment to funding of relevant infrastructure and advises they are willing and ready to enter into an Agreement for Infrastructure Works with Auckland Transport and/or Watercare (Refer to Attachment A to this report).

34. Auckland Council and Watercare have made submissions on PC109. The key matters raised are:

· the out of sequence timing of PC109 and the strategic integration of water and wastewater infrastructure, and the planning / funding of such infrastructure, with the land use proposed in the plan change

· alignment of the private plan change with the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and Future Development Strategy (FDS)

· the adverse noise effects on future development from the existing and future operation of the Royal New Zealand Air Force Airbase Auckland (Whenuapai) (RNZDF)

· health, safety and amenity effects on residents and users of the PC109 land as a result of existing and future operations at RNZAF Airbase Auckland (Whenuapai)

· whether residential zoning is the most appropriate zone and whether a business zone would be more appropriate given the noise concerns raised.

35. Council staff will also review the submissions and provide expert input into the hearing report that the independent hearing commissioners will consider.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. The PC109 is within the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

37. This plan change relates to the Upper Harbour Local Board area only.

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

· interests and preferences of people in local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

39. This report is the mechanism for obtaining formal local board views. The independent hearing commissioners will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on PC109.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the PC109 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). 6.1% of residents in the Upper Harbour Local Board area identify as Māori, in 2023 census results.

41. Neil Construction Limited has consulted with mana whenua and correspondence was sent to the following nine iwi authorities:

· Te Kawerau ā Maki;

· Ngāti Manuhiri;

· Ngāti Maru;

· Ngāti Paoa;

· Ngāti Te Ata;

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara;

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Trust Board;

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua;

· Te Ākitai Waiohua; and

· Te Ākitai Waiohua.

42. Of the above iwi authorities, the response from Ngāti Manuhiri deferred to Te Kawerau ā Maki. While the response from Te Kawerau ā Maki advised that the cultural impact assessment (CIA) prepared for the COVID Fast Track Application could be repurposed for the private plan change request. This CIA has been provided with the request.

43. The CIA prepared by Te Kawerau ā Maki included the following conclusion:

“The site sits on relatively productive soils within a cultural landscape focused on coastal settlements and resource extraction around the upper Waitematā harbour. The site is in very close proximity to Te Rarawaru historic kāinga site and the Rarawaru, Waionoke, and Ratara streams. A total of five impacts are noted in relation to the development (not including individual potential animal impacts which are not covered in this report), most of which could be minor to moderate beneficial (one would be negligible adverse) if mitigations discussed are incorporated, which would be a net benefit from a cultural perspective. Without mitigation minor (but not less than minor) adverse cultural effects would occur. Mitigations include a mixture of stream restoration, native planting, stormwater treatment, and place naming/interpretation.”

44. Furthermore, Te Kawerau ā Maki did not oppose the COVID Fast Track proposed development but sought the following recommendations in order to endorse it. These included:

· the adoption of 100% native eco-sourced plantings for all streetscape, reserve or public spaces within the development

· the adoption of a combination of tree pits, vegetated swales, proprietary devices or other methods such as to develop a secondary or tertiary (three-step) stormwater treatment process for the development

· stream restoration (including in order of preference daylighting/use of bridge/decently sized culvert with fish passage design) within the property footprint including riparian planting

· that the developer encourages neighbouring properties to undertake stream restoration works, and, where possible, coordinate efforts for a net positive outcome

· retain or reinter cut soils within the Site as much as possible, including through landscaping or other means

· work with Te Kawerau ā Maki on incorporating wāhi tohu and history into the development through things like street naming, park/reserve naming, and naming the new school.

45. Te Kawerau ā Maki also sought that the Precinct includes a robust and agreed cultural context.

46. The Applicant advises that they have strived to include many of the above recommendations in the private plan change request and/or they will provide for the recommendations as part of any future development enabled by PC109. Furthermore, the Applicant identifies that the proposed precinct provisions respond to the recommendations via ensuring native plants are eco-sourced where possible; a range of stormwater management tools are provided for in the Stormwater Management Plan and stormwater runoff will be sufficiently treated before entering any water bodies. In addition, riparian and wetland areas will be restored and enhanced from their current degraded state via setbacks for development and extensive planting.

47. The Applicant has also advised that they are committed to ongoing collaboration with Mana Whenua and will continue to engage throughout the plan change process and beyond.

48. The section 42A hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

49. No iwi authority has made a submission on PC109.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50. Financial implications PC109 could have a financial implications for the local board. The developer has proposed to fund infrastructure to mitigate the immediate local effects of the proposed development that would be enabled as part of PC109. The council does not have enough information to accurately assign a fair proportion of future transport costs to the proposed development. This information will be included in the Development Contributions Policy 2025 and that is expected to be approved in the middle of this year.

51. The Applicant has confirmed in the section 32 report that they are capable and willing to cover the costs and develop the necessary new and upgraded infrastructure to enable the development requested by PC109. The Applicant has provided a letter of commitment to fund the infrastructure required to enable PC109 (refer to Attachment A to this report).

52. While the Applicant has expressed its intention to fund the infrastructure, this will need to be worked through and formalised in an agreement with the council’s Infrastructure and Development Strategy team.

53. PC109 includes a new precinct with site specific provisions, including staging triggers, to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided prior to subdivision and development.

54. Full costs of the infrastructure for the wider network are unable to be determined at this time and are likely to take some time to be calculated. The FDS acknowledges that private plan change requests will occur and identifies that the timing for development can be brought forward if a private plan change Applicant funds the prerequisites or identifies alternate funding tools which limit impacts on Council's financial position and commitments. Impacts on infrastructure arising from the private plan change request, including any financing and funding issues will be addressed in the hearing report prepared for the independent hearing commissioners.

55. Costs associated with processing PC109 will be recovered from the Applicant.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

56. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on PC109, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides:

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

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

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

58. 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

59. The council’s planner will include, and report on, any resolution(s) of the local board in the section 42A of the RMA hearing report. The local board member appointed to speak in support of the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and will be invited to the hearing for that purpose.

60. The council’s planner will advise the local board of the decision on PC109 by memorandum, if local board views are provided.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Infrastructure Funding Letter	99

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jo Hart - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Eryn Shields - Team Leader - Planning

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

27 March 2025

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

File No.: CP2025/03895

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 2025. The submission closing date is 17 April2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour 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 favoured 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 2025.

37. Submissions close on Thursday, 17 April 2025.

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

Lesley Jenkins - 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.

[2] Schedule 14.1 identifies ‘Exclusions’, which are features that do not contribute to or detract from the historic heritage values of a place.

Chairperson	Anna Atkinson
Deputy Chairperson	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
Members	Callum Blair	Kyle Parker
	John Mclean	Sylvia Yang

Author	Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager