Agenda of Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

22 April 2025

Deliberation on the proposed changes to local dog access rules

File No.: CP2025/06589

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To assist the Board’s decision-making on whether to adopt proposed changes to local dog access rules in its local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To assist the Board’s decision-making on whether to adopt the proposed changes, staff have summarised public feedback and provided a structure for deliberations.

3. The proposed changes aim to respond to structural problems with the current rules (problems that place responsible dog owners, their dogs, other people, animals or property at significant risk or unreasonably restrict responsible dog owner access).

4. The Board received 244 public feedback responses across the proposed changes.

5. A summary of all feedback is in Attachment D, an extract of feedback by proposal is in Attachment E and a copy of individual feedback in its original form is in Attachment F.

6. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic and description	Topic and description
· Proposal 1 Gooseberry Flat and Pah Beach (121 responses)	· Proposal 2: Sandhills Reserve (123 responses)
· Other matters

7. Staff recommend the Board consider all public feedback on the proposed changes and then decide whether to adopt the proposed changes in accordance with its decision-making requirements. This approach will complete the statutory process the board must follow.

8. There is a reputational risk that some people or organisations who provided feedback may not feel that their views are addressed. This risk can be mitigated by the board considering all public feedback contained in this report and providing reasons for its decision.

9. Following a final decision of the Board, staff will publicly notify the decision and publish any changes as part of a regional process and install any updated signage funded by the Board. Animal management staff will provide compliance services for any changes and community facilities staff will maintain any signage, within existing budgets.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

[NOTE: Local board to pass resolution (a) BEFORE commencing deliberations]

a) mihi / thank those people and organisations who gave feedback on the proposed changes to local dog access rules in the local board area.

[NOTE: Local board to pass remaining resolutions AFTER deliberations]

b) whai / adopt the decisions contained in the deliberations table attached to this resolution in the minutes of this meeting of the local board that:

i) respond to the public feedback on the proposed changes

[NOTE: Text ii) to iv) to be amended as required to reflect decisions in deliberations table]

ii) adopt the proposed changes as publicly notified at [insert locations, delete iii) if not applicable]

iii) adopt with amendments, the proposed changes at [insert locations, delete iii) if not applicable]

iv) reject the proposed changes and retain the current rules at [insert any locations, if not applicable].

[NOTE: Delete (c), (d), (e) and (f) if no changes made]

c) whai / adopt amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 contained in the comparison table attached to this resolution in the minutes of this meeting of the local board that gives effect to the decisions in b), with a commencement date of 1 August 2025

d) whakaū / confirm that the amendments to the policy in c):

i) are consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for deciding dog access rules in the Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kuri | Policy on Dogs 2019

ii) are not inconsistent with any decision in relation to region-wide dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kuri | Policy on Dogs 2019

iii) are in accordance with all relevant legislative requirements, in particular the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996.

e) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the manager responsible for the policy on dogs to make editorial changes or to correct errors or omissions to the amendments in c).

f) allocate up to $48,000 from the local board’s capital budget for costs to implement the amendments in the policy in c) and request advice from Parks and Community Facilities staff to incorporate the cost as part of the 2025/2026 work programme.

Horopaki

Context

Local dog access rules provide spaces for dogs and their owners that are safe for everyone, are adopted by local boards and enforced by council staff

10. The Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kuri | Policy on Dogs 2019 contains dog access rules that seek to provide a balanced use of public places for dogs and their owners that is safe for everyone. This includes people, animals, the environment and property.

11. The Board has delegated authority to decide dog access rules on local park, beach and foreshore areas in their local board area (GB/2012/157).

12. Council’s Animal Management Team uses a modern regulator approach to increase voluntary compliance. This includes a focus on education through website information, signage and interactions with dog owners during patrols. Where appropriate Animal Management can issue $300 infringement fines.

The Board proposed changes to local dog access rules for public consultation

13. On 10 December 2024, the Board adopted a proposal to amend local dog access rules in the local board area contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 (GBI/2024/154).

14. The proposal arose in response to requests for changes to local dog access rules that met regulatory criteria contained in the Board’s delegated authority, Policy on Dogs 2019, Dog Control Act 1996 and Local Government Act 2002 (See Attachment C)

15. The proposal seeks to improve rules that balance the needs of dogs, people, animals, the environment and property in public places in the local board area by amending rules at:

· Gooseberry Flat and Pah Beach

· Sandhills Reserve.

16. Details on the current and proposed rules are contained in Attachment A.

The proposal received 244 public feedback responses

17. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 20 January to 23 February 2025. During that period, council received 244 feedback from individuals and two organisations.

18. Public consultation initiatives for proposed changes to local dog access rules were combined with public consultation for proposed changes to local dog access rules in nine other local board areas and proposed changes to matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019.

19. The consultation initiatives had a media reach to an audience of over 3.7 million (print, online, TV, Radio) and the ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage received about 29,000 visits.^{^[1]}

20. The Table below summarises public consultation initiatives and responses.

Public awareness initiatives

· Notification in New Zealand Herald and local papers^{^[2]}

· Articles on ‘Our Auckland’ on 3 December 2024, 4 December 2024, 21 January 2025

· Email notification of known registered dog owners by using email or mailing address provided to council

· Email notification to external stakeholders (e.g. SPCA)

· Email notification to mana whenua and mataawaka

· Appearance on radio and TV interviews^{^[3]}

· Information ‘drop-in’ sessions and ‘Have Your Say’ events^{^[4]}

· Information on the akhaveyoursay website

Public feedback opportunities

· In writing online, by email or post from 20 January to 23 February 2025

· In person or online at ‘drop-in’ sessions or at ‘Have Your Say’ events

· The Aotea / Great Barrier drop-in session was on 10 February and Have Your Say event was on 11 February 2025

· Verbally by phone.

Public responses

· The local board received 244 feedback responses from people and organisations through the online feedback form or by email.

· One person attended the Aotea / Great Barrier ‘Have Your Say’ event. The verbal feedback was submitted on the individuals’ behalf.

21. Attachments A to G in this report contain a deliberations table (A), proposal (B), summary of regulatory decision-making requirements (C), consultation feedback summary (D), extract of feedback by proposal (E), full copy of public feedback received online or by email, post or verbally (F), at ‘drop-in’ sessions and ‘Have Your Say’ events (G).

22. Note there is a separate report on the agenda that provides summary feedback for the proposed changes to matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019 to seek the Board’s feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Public feedback generally supported one proposed change but opposed the other

23. To assist the Board in its deliberations, staff have summarised the public feedback into topics in Attachment A. This enables the Board to deliberate and record its decisions on each topic to meet statutory requirements.

24. The statutory requirements also include publishing the date, time and venue of the deliberation. This information will be placed on the ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage, making it available for submitters and public who can attend the deliberations to observe (noting there are no speaking rights at deliberations).

25. The majority of public feedback opposed the proposed changes for Gooseberry Flat and Pah Beach, but supported the proposed changes for Sandhills Reserve.

Topic

Total support from local board area

Total support from people across Auckland

Proposal 1: Gooseberry Flat and Pah Beach

38 per cent support (6 of 16 responses)

38 per cent do not support

26 per cent

(31 of 121 responses)

Proposal 2: Sandhills Reserve

79 per cent support (11 of 14 responses)

21 per cent do not support

61 per cent

(75 of 123 responses)

The Board must comply with regulatory decision-making requirements when considering public feedback and making a final decision

26. The Board must comply with regulatory requirements in the Local Government Act 2002, Dog Control Act 1996, Policy on Dogs 2019 and its delegated authority (See Attachment C). This includes the Board:

· giving all public feedback due consideration with an open mind

· being consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules

· not being inconsistent with any region-wide dog access rule

· having regard to the matters in section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996

· providing a clear record or description of the decisions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Input from relevant council teams was sought to inform the development of the proposal and the deliberations report, and those teams are aware of the impacts of any final decision and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Local dog access rules have a direct impact on the use of public places of local significance.

30. A total of 30 responses identifying with the local board area provided feedback on the proposed changes (Summary in Attachment D, extract of feedback by proposal in Attachment E and copy in Attachment F).

31. The Board has delegated authority to decide local dog access rules in their area. This means the Board must consider all public feedback before making a final decision.

32. Staff have summarised public feedback and provided a structure for deliberations to assist the Board in making a decision on whether to adopt the proposed changes (Attachment A).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Local dog access rules support whanaungatanga (vibrant communities), manaakitanga (quality of life) and kaitiakitanga (sustainable futures) in Houkura | the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and Schedule of Issues of Significance by helping to protect the safety of people and the environment.

34. Staff engaged with mana whenua and mataawaka during the public consultative process to ensure Māori are able to provide their views on the proposal.

35. No particular impact on mana whenua and mataawaka has been identified. Feedback from individuals who identified themselves as Māori shows no marked difference to the feedback provided from non-Māori. The summary of feedback from individuals who identified themselves as Māori are provided below:

Topic	Total support from Māori
Proposal 1: Gooseberry Flat and Pah Beach	14 per cent support (1 of 7 responses) 71 per cent opposed
Proposal 2: Sandhills Reserve	43 per cent support (3 of 7 responses) 43 per cent opposed

Topic

Total support from Māori

Proposal 1: Gooseberry Flat and Pah Beach

14 per cent support (1 of 7 responses)

71 per cent opposed

Proposal 2: Sandhills Reserve

43 per cent support (3 of 7 responses)

43 per cent opposed

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. There may be financial cost to the Board of up to $48,000 if all the proposed changes were adopted as publicly notified:

· $3000 for the Gooseberry Flat and Pah Beach proposal - this covers five large signs and two detailed signs with maps, installation and the courier cost.

· $45,000 for the Sandhills Reserve proposal - this covers three new signs and 300 metre fencing.

37. The Board would need to fund the cost, most likely out of capital budgets.

38. The Board should progress this discussion with Parks and Community Facilities staff as part of the 2025/2026 work programme development budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39. The following risks have been identified:

If…	Then…	Mitigation
Some people or organisations feel their feedback was not considered or addressed	There may be a reputational risk of negative public perception about the decision-making process.	The Board ensures it considers all public feedback contained in this report and records its decisions (with reasons).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. Following a final decision of the Board:

· staff will publicly notify the decision and publish any changes on council’s website and Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 as part of a regional process that includes changes adopted by the Governing Body and other local boards

· staff will install any updated signage funded by the Board

· animal management staff will provide compliance services for any changes and community facilities staff will maintain any signage, within existing budgets.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Deliberations table	13
b ⇩	Statement of Proposal	21
c ⇩	Local board decision-making criteria	47
d	Summary of public feedback (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇩	Extract of feedback by proposal	49
f	Copy of individual feedback (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇩	Drop-in sessions and Have Your Say sessions feedback	63

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nancy Chu - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea Boat Wash Project Update 2024 - memo by Morphum Environmental	67

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea Fish project business plan 2025	121

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier Play survey results - overall presentation	143
b ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier Play survey results - summary of online feedback	155

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

22 April 2025

Allocation of decision-making responsibilities for council-controlled organisation activities coming in house

File No.: CP2025/06412

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the proposed approach to allocating decision-making responsibilities between the Governing Body and local boards as part of Annual Budget 2025/2026 decisions. In particular, for urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities which move into Auckland Council as a result of council-controlled organisations (CCO) reform decisions.

2. To identify any additional matters requiring review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The CCO reform package in the Mayoral proposal, considered whether CCOs and the Auckland Council Group are structured in the best way to deliver on the long-term plan and its broader vision for Auckland. The goals of the reform included improving democratic accountability, strategic direction and council group effectiveness and efficiency.

4. In December 2024 the Governing Body confirmed structural changes to move urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities into Auckland Council no later than 1 July 2025.

5. This means that decision-making responsibility for the activities currently governed by the Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) boards needs to be allocated by the Governing Body to either the Governing Body or local boards in accordance with section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. This will be recorded in the allocation of decision-making table (allocation table) for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

6. For urban regeneration, staff recommend decision-making for the overall programme and associated budgets, and the city centre and waterfront programme sit with the Governing Body. Decision-making responsibility for implementing agreed priority location programmes would sit with local boards.

7. It is recommended that decision-making responsibility in relation to property and marina management also sit with the Governing Body, noting that further work is underway through the Group Property Review which might result in changes in the future.

8. In the future, new urban regeneration or development programmes could be established. The council proposes to undertake further work to clarify how these processes can best reflect the principle of subsidiarity.

9. For economic development activities staff do not consider that substantive changes to the existing allocation table are required. The allocation table already outlines that decisions on the regional economic development strategy, business improvement district (BID) policy, city centre and Auckland-wide economic development programmes sit with the Governing Body. Local boards have always held decision-making responsibilities for influencing local BID programmes, local economic development plans, projects and other local initiatives.

10. Staff are aware that legislative change is proposed to bring several Auckland Transport functions into the council parent and the matters covered in this report should assist with the process of allocation of those decisions to the Governing Body or local boards in the future.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on staff proposals relating to the allocation of decision-making responsibility for:

i. the urban regeneration and property management activities currently governed by the Eke Panuku board

ii. the economic development activities currently governed by the Tātaki Auckland Unlimited board

to either the Governing Body or local boards in accordance with section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

b) tuhi tīpoka / note that staff recommendations and feedback from local boards will be considered at the Governing Body meeting on 29 May 2025 and associated changes to the allocation of decision-making table will be implemented as part of Annual Plan 2025/2026 decisions

c) tuhi tīpoka / note that further work is required in relation to determining the future decision-making allocation on:

i. funding of new priority urban regeneration or development locations as additional programmes are identified

ii. how anticipated demand from local boards for local economic development and urban regeneration advice is to be addressed

iii. property management decisions (undertaken as part of the Group Property Review)

d) tuku / provide feedback on any other matters requiring review.

Horopaki

Context

CCO reform decisions included moving urban regeneration, property and economic development activities in-house

11. The CCO reform included analysis on the rationale for and performance of the current CCO model, and structural reform options for three CCOs – Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited. The goals of the reform are to improve:

i. democratic accountability over projects and services delivered to Aucklanders by CCOs

ii. strategic alignment between council decision making and what CCOs do for Aucklanders

iii. the effectiveness and efficiency of how the Auckland Council Group operates.

12. Decisions on CCO reform were made on 12 December 2024 (GB/2024/179) and included transferring and integrating urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities into council. Key reasons for this integration include:

· Urban regeneration – strengthening council’s ability to coordinate planning, strategy and delivery in a place-based way, including around strategic growth opportunities, large-scale developments and urban regeneration.

· Property management – improving processes for buying, managing and selling council assets and improving collaboration across the council group to achieve greater financial and strategic value from property assets.

· Economic development – increasing the council’s economic policy capability, identifying new opportunities and integrating advice on economic development issues into broader decision-making.

13. As a result, there may be some additional decisions to be made by the Governing Body or local boards, that were previously made by the Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited Boards.

Legislation sets how decision-making is allocated, including the use of the subsidiarity principle

14. The basis on which decision-making responsibility is allocated is what is known as the subsidiarity principle, as set out in Section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA). This states that decision-making should be local unless the nature of the activity is such that decision-making on an Auckland-wide basis will better promote the well-being of communities across Auckland because:

· the impact of the decision will extend beyond a single local board area, or

· effective decision-making will require alignment or integration with other decisions (that sit with the GB), or

· the benefits of a consistent or co-ordinated approach across Auckland will outweigh the benefits of reflecting the diverse needs and preferences of the communities within each local board area.

15. The Governing Body is responsible for allocating decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities in accordance with the principles outlined above, after considering the views and preferences expressed by each local board. The allocation of decision-making responsibility is then recorded in the Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards Policy, which is included in each year’s Annual Plan (or the long-term plan every third year). The core part of this policy is what is generally known as the allocation table, which lists the non-regulatory activities for which the Governing Body and local boards have decision-making responsibility.

16. The allocation table, with proposed changes shown, is included at Attachment A. Also included at Attachment B is a list of the current Eke Panuku activities in the local board area, to provide current context.

17. These proposals were workshopped with the Governing Body on 26 March 2025 and a recording of that meeting was emailed to all local board members on 28 March and can be found here. The presentation is available here.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. This section is divided into the three key activities being transferred to Auckland Council: urban regeneration, property management and economic development. It outlines where decision-making responsibility currently sits or is proposed to sit and the rationale.

Allocation of decision-making responsibility for urban regeneration (new section in allocation table)

19. While activities that enable urban regeneration (such as planning, development streetscape improvements) are already covered in the allocation table, staff are proposing identifying urban regeneration as a stand-alone activity to enhance clarity.

20. Given the complexity and advanced state of council’s priority location urban regeneration programme, there is a need to minimise the risk of implementation being slowed down. Staff propose that this change is managed using the following principles:

· delivery of approved urban regeneration programmes will continue, using current business cases and detailed budgets (approved by the Eke Panuku board)

· the Governing Body will allocate budgets to these programmes.

21. The proposed allocations relate to current programmes and in part are in recognition that these must continue without issues despite the structural change. Further decisions will need to be made for new programmes that will be developed over time which cannot be accommodated prior to 1 July. This includes the governance and budget allocation of any new programmes.

Proposed additions to the allocation table

22. The principles set out in Section 17 of the LGACA (set out at Paragraph 14 above) have been applied to existing urban regeneration activities. Table One sets out the proposed additions to the allocation table, with the reasoning for Governing Body or local board decision-making set out below. Note that the high-level wording is consistent with conventions in the existing allocation table.

Table One – Proposed additions to the allocation table for urban regeneration

Proposed Governing Body decision-making

Proposed local board decision-making

· Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme outcomes and objectives

· Urban regeneration in city centre and waterfront

· Overall funding plan for priority locations

· Allocation of budget for priority location plans including sequencing of urban regeneration projects within annual budget envelopes

· Identification of priority locations for urban regeneration programme

· Implementation of priority location plans, within parameters set by the Governing Body

· Local urban regeneration projects that are not part of the Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme, for example streetscape improvements or local service property optimisation projects

Proposed allocation to Governing Body: decision-making over urban regeneration programmes

23. Decision-making responsibility for regional urban regeneration activities is proposed to be allocated to the Governing Body as follows:

· Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme outcomes and objectives – the overall programme has region-wide outcomes, such as commercial and housing development. Therefore, the Section 17 principles of taking a consistent and coordinated approach across Auckland and enabling alignment with other decisions that sit with the Governing Body, are considered to be met.

· Urban regeneration in the city centre and waterfront – these programmes are recommended to sit with the Governing Body because the scale, influence and impact of these programmes extend beyond just the Waitematā Local Board area. The success of the city centre is important for Aucklanders, New Zealanders and visitors as a regional destination.

· Overall funding plan for priority locations – the Governing Body will allocate overall funding for the lifetime of programmes, often over 10-20 years or more.

· Allocation of budget for priority location plans including sequencing of urban regeneration projects within annual budget envelopes - the nature of revenue and funding available for urban regeneration and the manner in which programmes progress, is based on elements such as market forces, and regulatory processes. This means that budgets cannot easily be apportioned to local boards and need to sit with the Governing Body, at least initially.

· Identification of priority locations for urban regeneration programme – decision-making over identification of priority locations for the overall programme is proposed to sit with the Governing Body as new locations and programmes will form part of the Auckland-wide network.

Proposed allocation to local boards: decision-making over urban regeneration programmes

24. The following activities are proposed to be allocated to local boards:

· Implementation of priority location plans, within parameters set by the Governing Body – this will include an annual work programme specifying projects, sites and/or activities in the local board area.

· Local urban regeneration projects that are not part of the Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme, for example streetscape improvements or local service property optimisation projects – these may be projects that a local board has identified as a local priority in its local board plan and has allocated local funding to.

Further work to be done to review urban regeneration decision-making activity

25. In alignment with council’s direction to empower local boards to carry out their local leadership role, staff consider that it may be possible to allocate further responsibilities to local boards. However, further work is required to test this assumption.

26. Staff propose that the current work being overseen by the Joint Governance Working Party also consider ways to give local boards a meaningful role in shaping the case for any new urban regeneration or development priority areas.

Practical application of decision-making for urban regeneration in 2025/2026

27. Table Two outlines how the allocation of urban regeneration responsibilities would work in practice. The table also includes a column outlining the work and decisions that staff would undertake under delegation.

Table Two – Proposed urban regeneration programme decision-making in practice

Governing Body (or Committee)

Local Boards

Staff via Chief Executive general delegation (from GB and local boards)

· Approves Auckland Plan, land use and infrastructure policy

· Approves urban regeneration investment through the LTP/Annual Plan, including:

o Urban regeneration budget

o Revenue target from asset recycling (property sales)

o City Centre Targeted Rate programme

· Approves new priority locations or regional urban regeneration programmes

· Approves parameters for investment in priority locations including strategic outcomes, high-level costs, benefits, and delivery timeframes.

· Decision-maker for city centre and waterfront programmes

· Approves acquisition of property

· Approves disposal of non-service property

· Consulted prior to LTP, annual plan, new priority locations and for city centre and regional programmes

· Endorses high-level programme business case for priority locations, including masterplan

· NEW Approves annual work programme specifying projects, sites and/or activities in the local board area

· NEW Approves annual placemaking and activation plans and budget for its area

· NEW Approves urban regeneration project plans within the parameters set out within approved programme business cases (i.e. scope, cost, location, benefits delivered)

· Provides advice to Governing Body and local boards to inform their respective decisions in relation to urban regeneration

· Implements approved urban regeneration programme business cases and projects in accordance with delegations

· Executes property transactions, including preparing go-to-market strategies for development sites (within parameters set by local boards)

· Provides regular delivery performance reporting to Governing Body and local boards

· Works closely with local boards, both formally and informally, from urban regeneration plans, to design of public realm projects to property optimisation, regular workshops, meetings and site visits

Allocation of decision-making responsibilities for property and asset management

28. Auckland Council will become responsible for Eke Panuku functions including the management of commercial properties, property transactions (sales and acquisitions) and management of significant assets like the city centre marinas.

29. Table Three sets out the statutory decision-making responsibilities of the Governing Body, which may be delegated to local boards. This is outlined in the first section of the Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards Policy.

Table Three – Property and marina management statutory decision-making

Governing Body statutory decision-making	Local board decision-making that is delegated from the Governing Body
· Regulatory decisions and statutory responsibilities e.g. disposals	· Service optimisation decisions over local service property

30. Table Four sets out non-regulatory decisions, which can be allocated to local boards, reflected in the allocation table.

Table Four – Property and marina management non-regulatory decision-making (new text in the ‘facilities and asset management section)

Governing Body decision-making (statutory and non-regulatory activities)

Local board decision-making (non-regulatory and delegated decisions)

· Commercial property and marina management

· Management of the non-service property infrastructure as identified in the Infrastructure Strategy

· Acquisition of new local community facilities (including local libraries, local sport and recreation facilities, local parks and reserves), and their specific location, design, build and fit out within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body

Governing Body decision-making over property and asset management

31. The Governing Body has an overarching statutory responsibility for managing the network of facilities and overall financial oversight of the council.

32. Commercial property and marina management are allocated to the Governing Body because these properties are not delivering local council services and are an important financial contributor to council budgets. This is also the case with management of non-service property in line with the Infrastructure Strategy.

Local board decision-making over property and asset management

33. Local boards oversee the delivery of community services (such as libraries and community services), in ‘local service properties’. The Governing Body has delegated some decision-making to local boards enabling them to oversee the disposal of local service properties and reinvest this to achieve other community outcomes. This is called service property optimisation, for example by merging two council services into one building and selling the other property. Local boards also have decision-making over the acquisition of new local community facilities including their specific location, design, build and fit out within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body.

The Group Property Framework is intended to provide principles, guidance and recommendations which will assist in improving decision-making on council’s property portfolio

34. The group property framework is intended to provide an overarching guide to the management of property across the council group, based on robust principles and agreed definitions. The scope of the group property review was agreed by the Revenue and Expenditure Committee in September 2024 (link to scope).

35. Some local boards have previously expressed concerns around a lack of information and advice on local service and non-service properties, including how property classifications are changed. The draft framework is expected to include recommendations that may address these concerns, for example:

· clarifying whether properties are service, non-service, local and non-local to ensure that local boards are given clear advice and decision-making over optimisation opportunities

· recommending a matrix team be established consisting of key property staff across council to present the full options to local boards for property optimisation options in their area.

Allocation of decision-making for economic development activities

36. Economic development activities currently delivered by TAU are being transferred to Auckland Council. There are no substantive changes proposed for the decision-making responsibility for these activities, as reflected in Table Five.

37. While the allocation of decision-making is not proposed to change, council will need to make additional decisions on economic development initiatives, for example in areas such as the Auckland Innovation Network and the Te Puna creative precinct. This change is intended to increase democratic accountability.

Table Five – Economic development decision-making (no new allocations, some minor changes proposed)

Governing Body decision-making

Local board decision-making

· Regional economic development strategy and Business Improvement District (BID) Policy

· Auckland-wide and city centre economic development programmes and initiatives

· Business improvement district (BID) programmes including establishment of new BIDs within parameters set by the BID Policy and recommending BID targeted rates to the Governing Body

· Local economic development plans, projects and initiatives within parameters set by regional strategies, policies and plans

Business improvement district (BID) programmes

38. In relation to the BID Programmes, the BID Policy outlines key decision-making responsibilities that sit with local boards and expressly recognises that within Auckland Council, local boards are the primary relationship lead with BID operating business associations. Other responsibilities that sit with local boards in relation to BIDs include:

· approval of the establishment of a new BID programme and boundary area

· approval of any changes or amendments to an existing BID programme boundary area

· annually recommending BID programme targeted rate grant amounts to the Governing Body

· recommending to the Governing Body proposed changes to a BID targeted rate mechanism.

39. Local boards may provide additional support to BID-operating business associations and BID programme delivery through their local board annual work programmes and budgets. In business districts or town centres that are not part of (or not big enough to form) a BID programme, some local boards actively partner with local businesses to develop or deliver initiatives that promote local economic development.

Local economic development plans and initiatives

40. In 2024, the reference to local economic development plans, projects and initiatives in the allocation table was removed from the allocation table after TAU funding for local economic development support ceased. The proposal to reinstate this in the allocation acknowledges that budget and resources support an activity rather than define its existence as a council function.

41. Local boards have in the past expressed interest in receiving greater support for developing and implementing local economic development initiatives in their areas. While there is currently no additional resource for local economic development activities, it is anticipated that local boards will continue to seek staff advice on these activities, and this will need to be addressed. Note that some local boards have funded economic brokers to deliver local economic development outcomes.

Clarifications around economic development in the allocation table

42. Staff also propose the following minor edits to the allocation table to bring it up to date with current policies, which are shown in Attachment A:

· removing reference to BID strategic direction in the allocation to local boards. The removal of this acknowledges that the business association is a membership based incorporated society in structure and it is the members of that society who set the strategic direction of the association and its activities. Council can advocate for a common strategic direction between the local BID programme and local board but is not the decision maker of the BIDs strategic direction.

· removing reference to Auckland Economic Development Action Plan 2021-2024 and investment framework from the Governing Body’s allocation because this action plan is out of date.

· removing reference to regional business events, and branding and marketing for the city centre, metropolitan centres and spatial priority areas as set out in the Future Development Strategy from the allocation to Governing Body because these examples aren‘t reflective of current and planned activity delivered by the economic development function.

Other amendments to the allocation table

43. As shown in Attachment A, other changes to the allocation table are designed to enhance clarity. These include formatting changes that separate activities that have been, to date, clustered together in the allocation table e.g. separation of planning and development activities from economic development activities, creation of a facilities and asset management category/activity, incorporating the existing allocation of asset renewals and upgrade responsibilities (currently at the end of the table) into the facilities and asset management section.

44. The changes also include new explanatory notes for new activities e.g. clarification of the purpose of the urban regeneration programme.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

45. No climate impacts have been identified as a result of the changes proposed in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

46. The transfer of urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities to Auckland Council will have a range of impacts on the Auckland Council Group. These include direct political direction to staff, improved integration of activities and outcomes and efficiency gains.

47. While there are no new resources or budgets proposed as a result of the transfer of these activities, it is likely that demand for advice and support may increase with direct political decision-making.

48. The Governing Body will make a decision on the proposed allocation of decision-making responsibility for the transferred Eke Panuku and TAU activities on 29 May 2025, and these will be reflected in the allocation table as part of Annual Plan 2025/2026.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49. Existing urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities are coming in house from 1 July. The major change local boards will see, is where staff come to them seeking approval of urban regeneration activities, rather than support, endorsement, or for information.

50. As noted elsewhere in this report, when existing urban regeneration programmes are completed, new programmes and activities will be considered. It is expected that local boards will have a greater role in decisions on those.

51. Greater clarity around property management decision-making will be provided in the Group Property Framework.

52. Local economic development remains under local board decision-making responsibility. Until additional resource and/or budget is provided advice on new local economic development activity will not be possible, unless local boards fund this themselves.

53. Changes to decision-making may result in increased local board member workloads, which will be assessed as activities are integrated into council.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. There are no specific Māori impacts identified with the proposals outlined in this report. Engagement with Māori in relation to urban regeneration, property management and economic development is expected to continue in line with current practices.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. No direct financial implications are anticipated from the reallocation of decisions to the Governing Body or local boards. Staff advice to support decision-making will continue, even if the decision-maker changes (for example some decisions made by the Eke Panuku Board will now be made by local boards).

56. There will be financial implications if new urban regeneration or economic development programmes or projects are started. Local boards wishing to undertake new programmes or projects will need to fund them.

57. The financial implications of integration of urban regeneration, property management and economic development functions into council (for example the dis-establishment of Eke Panuku as an entity) are being addressed by other workstreams under in CCO Reform programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. The proposals in this report are intended to ensure a seamless transfer of urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities into council. Any issues that arise are not anticipated to be significant and will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

59. With activities coming in house, political scrutiny and oversight may increase and create the need to change direction. This is considered to be more likely with new programmes than with current programmes but will need to be monitored and managed. This risk is balanced against the benefits of improved democratic accountability.

60. As outlined in this report, a number of decisions will need to be made as existing urban development programmes advance to a point where resources are freed up to develop new programmes. As part of this it is anticipated that a review of current decision-making will be undertaken to ensure particularly local boards have the right degree of decision-making over local programmes and associated budgets. Staff consider there is time to manage this change and in terms of the allocation of decision-making, any further change can be reflected in Annual Plan 2026/2027.

61. Some local boards may advocate for additional or new urban regeneration and/or economic development programmes in their areas. This may be reflected in local board plans which new local boards will develop post-Election 2025. A process to manage that will need to be established. Some local boards may also wish to fund such programmes to support commencement and resource needs will need to be carefully considered to respond to this.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

62. The Governing Body will make decisions on the allocation of decision-making responsibility on 29 May 2025. Local board feedback and resolutions will be reflected in the staff report. Any changes to the allocation table will be included in the Annual Plan 2025/2026, which is due to be adopted by the Governing Body on 26 June 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed changes to the allocation table of decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards	203
b ⇩	Eke Panuku projects overview – as outlined in agreed local board engagement plan 2024-2025	221

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Nash - Programme Manager

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Memorandum	225

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

22 April 2025

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board views on the draft Contributions Policy 2025

File No.: CP2025/04884

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier 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^{^[5]}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. The key changes include:

· Level crossings – Takanini ($550 million)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion of investments in IPA areas beyond 2034

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

Inner Northwest

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

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

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

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

Māngere Auckland Housing Programme area

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

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

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

Mt Roskill Auckland Housing Programme area

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

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

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

Tāmaki Regeneration area

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

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

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

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

Other proposed changes to the policy

Funding areas

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

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

· a new local funding area at Avondale.

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

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

Other changes

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

Consultation

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

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

· Attachment A: Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025

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

· Attachment C: Consultation Document - Contributions Policy 2025

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

· Attachment E: Funding area maps.

Feedback received

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

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

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

Updates for Final Policy for Adoption

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

· Auckland Transport

· Public Law

· Policy

· Planning and Resource Consents

· Eke Panuku Development Auckland

· Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience

· Service Strategy and Partnerships

· Chief Economist Unit

· Spatial Analysis and Modelling.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025	241
b ⇩	Schedule 8 Asset for which development contributions (DCs) will be used	285
c ⇩	Consultation Document - Contributions Policy 2025	315
d ⇩	How we set Development Contributions – Cost Allocation Methodology	343
e ⇩	Funding area maps	411
f ⇩	Memorandum and Summary of consultation feedback	423

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Andrew Duncan – Manager, Financial Policy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Michael Burns - General Manager, Financial Strategy

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

22 April 2025

Public feedback on proposal to amend dog policy and bylaw

File No.: CP2025/06583

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Dog Policy and Bylaw.

2. To delegate one or more local board members to represent local board views on the public feedback to the Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Staff have prepared a summary of public feedback to enable the local board to provide its views on how the Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Dog Policy and Bylaw.

4. The Governing Body adopted a proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Kaupapa mo ngā Kurī | Policy on Dogs 2019 and Ture a Rohe Tiakina Kurī | Dog Management Bylaw 2019 in December 2024, and appointed a Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel to consider all public feedback and make recommendations, before a final decision is made.

5. The proposal to adopt an amended policy and bylaw seeks to improve council’s approach to dog management in Auckland by minimising the risk of danger and distress to people, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife, nuisance to people, damage to property and environment, risk of not meeting the needs of dogs and their owners and the inherent risk of conflict between users of shared spaces in Auckland.

6. Council received responses from 5,207 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 23 February 2025. All public feedback is summarised in Attachment A. Feedback related to the local board area is in Attachment B. A user-friendly view of the feedback related to the local board by proposal can be viewed on council's AKHaveYourSay web page.

7. All feedback is summarised by the following topics:

· Proposal 1: Limit to number of dogs walked (six on leash, with maximum three of the six off leash at any one time)	· Proposal 12B: Muriwai Regional Park
· Proposal 2: Auckland Botanic Gardens	· Proposal 12C: Tāwharanui Regional Park
· Proposal 3: Hunua Ranges Regional Park	· Proposal 12D: Wenderholm Regional Park
· Proposal 4: Long Bay Regional Park	· Proposal 13A: Restructure the policy to more clearly show its goal, focus areas, council actions, and rules
· Proposal 5A: Mahurangi Regional Park East	· Proposal 13B: Clarify rule that all dogs classified as menacing must be neutered
· Proposal 5B: Mahurangi Regional Park West	· Proposal 13C: Clarify who can provide behavioural assessments in relation to menacing dog classifications
· Proposal 5C: Mahurangi Regional Park Scott Point	· Proposal 13D: Clarify what areas in Auckland require a license to keep multiple dogs on a property
· Proposal 6: Pākiri Regional Park	· Proposal 13E: Clarify how dog access rules are set
· Proposal 7: Shakespear Regional Park	· Proposal 13F: Clarify Auckland-wide dog access rules
· Proposal 8: Tāpapakanga Regional Park	· Proposal 13G: Clarify or correct errors in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules
· Proposal 9: Te Ārai Regional Park	· Proposal 13H: Remove outdated information in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules
· Proposal 10: Waitawa Regional Park	· Proposal 13I: Update dog access rules for Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)
· Proposal 11: Whakanewha Regional Park	· Proposal 13J: Remove outdated/duplicated bylaw content
· Proposal 12A: Ambury Regional Park

8. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Panel should address feedback from people in the local board area, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel in making recommendations to the Governing Body about whether to adopt the proposal.

9. There is a reputational risk that the feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and does not reflect the views of the whole community. This report mitigates this risk by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

10. Local boards can (if they wish) present their views to the Panel on 23 May 2025. The Panel will consider local board views and all public feedback before making recommendations to the Governing Body in June 2025. The Governing Body will make a final decision mid-2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback from people in the local board area to the Governing Body proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Kaupapa mo ngā Kurī | Policy on Dogs 2019 and Ture a Rohe Tiakina Kurī | Dog Management Bylaw 2019 in the agenda report.

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback to the proposal in (a) to assist the Panel in its deliberations.

c) whakatuu / appoint one or more local board members to present the views in (b) to the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel.

d) tuku mana / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint a replacement to any appointed member in (c) who is unable to present to the Panel.

Horopaki

Context

The local board has an opportunity to provide its views on public feedback

11. The local board in accordance with council’s collaborative governance model^{^[6]} now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal.

12. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Panel at a meeting scheduled for 23 May 2025.

13. The nature of the local board views is at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board:

ü could indicate support for matters raised in public feedback

ü could recommend how the Policy and Bylaw Panel address matters raised in public feedback

û should not express its views on the proposal itself (that opportunity was provided prior to public consultation, the focus now is on how to respond to public feedback).

Council is required to have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to implement the policy

14. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires Auckland Council to have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to give effect to it by specifying rules that dog owners must comply with.

15. Council’s objective is to ‘keep dogs a positive part of the life of Aucklanders’ by:

· maintaining opportunities for owners to take their dogs to public places

· adopting measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs (including by promoting responsible dog ownership)

· protecting dogs from harm and ensuring their welfare.

16. The rules are enforced by the Animal Management unit using a modern regulator approach to compliance (for example information, education and enforcement).

17. The policy and bylaw are part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the following:

· The Dog Control Act 1996 manages matters relating to dog ownership, including their care, control and owner responsibilities for damage caused by their dog.

· The Animal Welfare Act 1999 ensures that owners of animals and persons in charge of animals attend properly to the welfare of the animal.

· The Code of Welfare for Dogs 2018 provides information to the owners and persons in charge of dogs about the standards they must achieve to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

The Governing Body proposed amending matters of regional significance in the policy and bylaw for public feedback

18. On 12 December 2024, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to amend matters of regional significance in the Auckland Council Kaupapa no ngā Kurī / Policy on Dogs 2019 and Ture ā Rohe Tiakina Kurī / Dog Management Bylaw 2019 (GB/2024/181). It also appointed a Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel to consider all public feedback and make recommendations, before a final decision is made by the Governing Body.

19. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Dog Policy and Bylaw (see figure below).

20. The proposal seeks to improve council’s approach to dog management in Auckland by minimising the risk of danger and distress to people, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife, nuisance to people, damage to property and environment, risk of not meeting the needs of dogs and their owners from irresponsible dog ownership and the inherent risk of conflict between users of shared spaces in Auckland.

21. The main proposals are outlined in the Table below:

Main proposals

Set a limit to the number of dogs a person may ‘walk’ in a council-controlled public place at one time (maximum of six dogs of which no more than three may be under control off a leash at any one time)

Auckland Botanic Gardens

· Change the off-leash area to align with the current signposted off-leash boundaries, to provide for temporary changes for events and to transition to on-leash as parts of the off-leash area are developed in accordance with the Gardens Master Plan.

· Prohibit dogs from waterways.

· Prohibit dogs from the Huakaiwaka Visitor Centre, Café area (except the western café terrace), designated food concession areas and Potter Children’s Garden.

· Clarify rules in other areas.

Hunua Ranges Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs from tracks and roads that connect to the Kohukohunui track, the Kokako Management Area and Piggott’s Habitat and on single use mountain bike tracks (currently on-leash).

Long Bay Regional Park

· Amend the summer daytime rule for the beach south of Vaughan Stream from on-leash to prohibited (off-leash access before 10am and after 5pm in summer and at any time in winter unchanged).

· Clarify rules in other areas, including access to beach from southernmost carpark and prohibited tracks and bays.

Mahurangi Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on Cudlip Point Loop Track (currently on-leash).

· Allow dogs on-leash at all times at Scott Point (currently on-leash time and season).

· Clarify rules in other areas (including dogs prohibited at Mahurangi Regional Park (East) and heritage grounds at Scott Point.

Pākiri Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on the associated beach.

Shakespear Regional Park

· Apply an on-leash time and season rule to the open grass areas between Army Bay and Okoramai Bay (currently off-leash).

· Clarify rules in other areas (such as boundary of Army Bay and Okoramai Bay beaches, on-leash tracks and prohibited areas).

Tāpapakanga Regional Park

· Provide off-leash access on beach and on-leash access on area between beach and car park at any time (currently prohibited during lambing season)

· Clarify rules in other areas (such as prohibited at the campgrounds and bach, and during lambing).

Te Ārai Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on Forestry Beach (Te Ārai Beach South to Pakiri Beach) and associated coastal tracks.

· Clarify access to off-leash area at disused quarry.

Waitawa Regional Park

· Change eastern part of Mataitai Beach from off-leash to on-leash.

· Change Waitawa Beach from off-leash to on-leash.

· Prohibit dogs on single use mountain bike tracks.

· Clarify other areas where dogs are prohibited (such as farm paddock during lambing, campground and bach).

Whakanewha Regional Park

· Provide on-leash access on tracks from Omiha (Rocky Bay) to the on-leash area of the Park.

Ambury, Muriwai, Tāwharanui and Wenderholm regional parks

· Clarify current rules (no change to dog access).

Reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, including:

· using a goal, focus area, action and rule structure

· clarifying approach to setting dog access rules

· clarifying the policy to neuter classified dogs and who can provide behavioural assessments

· clarifying Auckland-wide dog access rules such as for council carparks and camping grounds, working dogs, dogs in vehicles and private ways

· removing outdated information in Schedule 2 for example outdated landmarks

· updating dog access rules on Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)

· removing Bylaw content that is covered in the Policy or is outdated.

22. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 20 January until 23 February 2025.

23. Council received feedback from 5,186 people and 30 organisations (5,207 in total)

· 4,046 on the proposal to limit the number of dogs walked and the general policy and bylaw matters and

· 3,084 on the proposal to clarify or change regional park dog access rules.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. A total of 26 people from the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board area provided feedback to the proposal.

25. There was majority support for the proposal to limit the number of dogs walked, proposals to reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, and proposals to change or clarify dog access rules at Shakespear and Tāwharanui Regional Parks, split support for proposals to change or clarify dog access rules at Long Bay, Mahurangi, Pākiri, Tāpapakanga, Te Ārai, Waitawa, Whakanewha, Ambury and Muriwai Regional Parks, and majority opposition for the remaining proposals to change or clarify dog access rules at other regional parks.

26. Key themes from the Auckland-wide feedback highlighted concerns with limiting the number of dogs and clarifying or changing the dog access rules at most of the regional parks.

27. While some proposals may not be supported, public feedback also seeks alternatives other than the status quo. For example:

· for Proposal 1: limit to number of dogs walked, of the 66 per cent (2,397) of Auckland-wide feedback opposed to the proposal:

o six per cent (146) supported a limit of four dogs, with no more than two off-leash

o five per cent (113) supported a limit of four dogs, with no more than two off-leash unless licence obtained

o four per cent (100) supported a limit of eight dogs, with no more than four off-leash

o 638 comments (around 30 per cent) supported introducing a dog walker license for qualified dog walkers.

· for proposed changes to regional park rules, Auckland-wide individuals who opposed the changes:

o generally wanted council to provide more dog-friendly or off-leash areas

o some were not opposing the proposals, but instead expressing the view that the current rules are too restrictive.

Overview of local board area and Auckland-wide support for proposed changes

Topic (Proposals P1 - P13)		Local board feedback		Auckland-wide feedback
Topic (Proposals P1 - P13)		Support	Opposition	Support	Opposition
P1	Limit the number of dogs walked (six on leash, with maximum three of the six off leash at any one time)	83 per cent	17 per cent	33 per cent	66 per cent
P2	Auckland Botanic Gardens	0 per cent	100 per cent	34 per cent	62 per cent
P3	Hunua Ranges Regional Park	0 per cent	100 per cent	33 per cent	56 per cent
P4	Long Bay Regional Park	0 per cent	0 per cent	26 per cent	70 per cent
P5A	Mahurangi Regional Park East	0 per cent	0 per cent	27 per cent	62 per cent
P5B	Mahurangi Regional Park West	0 per cent	0 per cent	28 per cent	60 per cent
P5C	Mahurangi Regional Park Scott Point	0 per cent	0 per cent	29 per cent	61 per cent
P6	Pākiri Regional Park	0 per cent	0 per cent	15 per cent	81 per cent
P7	Shakespear Regional Park	100 per cent	0 per cent	39 per cent	51 per cent
P8	Tāpapakanga Regional Park	0 per cent	0 per cent	34 per cent	55 per cent
P9	Te Ārai Regional Park	0 per cent	0 per cent	18 per cent	76 per cent
P10	Waitawa Regional Park	0 per cent	0 per cent	30 per cent	61 per cent
P11	Whakanewha Regional Park	0 per cent	0 per cent	35 per cent	51 per cent
P12A	Ambury Regional Park	0 per cent	0 per cent	37 per cent	55 per cent
P12B	Muriwai Regional Park	0 per cent	0 per cent	46 per cent	47 per cent
P12C	Tāwharanui Regional Park	100 per cent	0 per cent	43 per cent	45 per cent
P12D	Wenderholm Regional Park	0 per cent	100 per cent	42 per cent	44 per cent
P13A	Restructure the policy to more clearly show its goal, focus areas, council actions, and rules	88 per cent	0 per cent	71 per cent	17 per cent
P13B	Clarify rule that all dogs classified as menacing must be neutered	100 per cent	0 per cent	81 per cent	13 per cent
P13C	Clarify who can provide behavioural assessments in relation to menacing dog classifications	100 per cent	0 per cent	83 per cent	6 per cent
P13D	Clarify what areas in Auckland require a license to keep multiple dogs on a property	88 per cent	0 per cent	74 per cent	17 per cent
P13E	Clarify how dog access rules are set	88 per cent	0 per cent	75 per cent	13 per cent
P13F	Clarify Auckland-wide dog access rules	88 per cent	0 per cent	76 per cent	17 per cent
P13G	Clarify or correct errors in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	63 per cent	0 per cent	67 per cent	12 per cent
P13H	Remove outdated information in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	100 per cent	0 per cent	80 per cent	9 per cent
P13I	Update dog access rules for Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)	43 per cent	0 per cent	49 per cent	26 per cent
P13J	Remove outdated or duplicate bylaw content	88 per cent	0 per cent	81 per cent	7 per cent

Note: percentages do not add up to 100. For example, ‘I don’t know’ responses are not included in Table.

28. The proposal, proposed policy and bylaw can be viewed in the links. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A and a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area to meet council’s statutory requirements is in Attachment B. A more user-friendly view that consolidates the comments from all public feedback related to the local board by proposal can be viewed on council's AKHaveYourSay web page.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

29. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Governing Body Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel on 23 May 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. The Dog Policy and Bylaw do not directly address the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. For example, the Policy and Bylaw focuses more on keeping dogs as a positive part of the lives of Aucklanders.

31. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. The Dog Policy and Bylaw impacts the operations of several council departments, including Animal Management, Biodiversity, Regional Parks and Natural Environment teams. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. The Dog Policy and Bylaw impact local governance and are of high interest.

34. Views from all local boards on a draft proposal were sought in October 2024 and are summarised in the 3 December 2024 Regulatory and Safety Committee agenda (Attachment C to Item 11).

35. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal, before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. The Dog Policy and Bylaw support manaakitanga, whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga in the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by providing regulations that help protect people and the environment from harm caused by dogs.

37. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person.

38. Six per cent (369) of the public feedback received was from people who identified as Māori. Of that feedback:

· 74 per cent (166) did not support the proposal to limit the number of dogs that could be walked, with 58 per cent preferring no change to the current rule

· there was general overall support (more than 50 per cent) to reorganise, simplify and clarify the Policy and Bylaw content, however there was less support (47 per cent) to update dog access rules for Tupuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)

· there was generally opposition to proposed changes to regional park dog access rules.

39. Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Trust supported the majority of the proposals to simplify and clarify the Policy and Bylaw content and proposed changes to Long Bay, Mahurangi, Pākiri, Shakespear, Tāwharanui, Te Ārai and Wenderholm Regional Parks.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure and Dog Policy and Bylaw implementation will be met within existing budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited number of people.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. The Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body in June 2025. The Governing Body will make a final decision mid-2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Summary of public feedback to the proposed changes to the dog policy and bylaw (Under Separate Cover)
b	Public feedback from people in Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill – Principal Advisor Regulatory Practice

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

22 April 2025

Proposed changes to the draft Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy

File No.: CP2025/06594

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board endorsement of the amended Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy following public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 10 December 2024, the Policy and Planning Committee approved public consultation on the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy [PEPCC/2024/131 and PEPCC/2024/132].

3. A total of 402 pieces of feedback were received, through consultation and a People’s Panel survey. Overall, there is strong support for the draft strategy but also opportunities to make changes. A detailed feedback report is provided in Attachment A.

4. Having considered public feedback, as well as local board resolutions on the draft strategy, staff propose changes to the draft strategy, the most significant being:

· more explicitly emphasising the importance of equity and accessibility in providing open spaces and play, sport and recreation opportunities (including in the strategic directions, investment principles and policies)

· greater emphasis on the importance of environment and biodiversity outcomes (including in the investment principles and Policy one)

· greater emphasis on the purpose and benefits of regional parks (in Policy two)

· including the capacity-focused approach (Option package two) for open space provision standards (in Policy two)

· refining the strategic directions based on a range of other consultation feedback

· making the decision-making responsibilities of local boards clearer

· clarifying the meaning of ‘value for money’

· providing clearer direction in the policy section to ensure local boards receive the necessary advice for decision-making

· clarifying that the council attempts to acquire land early in the development process as budget is available.

5. The proposed changes are reflected in the amended strategy (see final draft in Attachment B with track changes).

6. Local boards have called for a better understanding of local impacts. Staff have developed examples of implementation scenarios, existing good practices and potential local applications of the new open space provision standards (see Attachment C), noting that much of how the strategy is implemented is at the discretion of each local board.

7. In addition, staff are working with local board advisors to scope how advice to local boards could be improved to deliver on the strategy. To date, we have identified potential improvements: consolidating information provided to local boards, involving local boards earlier in planning processes, improving alignment between regional and local planning cycles, funding and budgets and providing information on trade-offs (see Attachment D).

8. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider adopting the final amended strategy in May 2025. The agenda report will contain the local board resolutions.

9. If the final amended strategy is adopted, staff will develop an implementation and monitoring plan, including tools and guidance, to support delivery by local boards and the Governing Body. Staff will also continue to scope improvements to local board advice.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) ohia / endorse the final amended Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy in Attachment B

b) ohia / endorse updating the open space provision standards in the strategy with Option package two – capacity-focused approach: provide more open space than currently enabled in high- and medium-density areas where residents have low or moderate levels of provision.

Horopaki

Context

The draft strategy outlines how we will provide open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities

10. As a regional public policy, the draft of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy sets the strategic directions we seek to achieve for open space, sport and recreation in Auckland and against which we will monitor progress. It forms a unifying roadmap for the council group to deliver and for other non-council organisations and community groups to contribute.

11. It brings together five existing strategies, policies and plans and provides a refreshed and consolidated approach to planning and investment. It aims to provide open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities to benefit all Aucklanders, now and in the future, to improve the health of Tāmaki Makaurau.

The development of the draft strategy was supported by an advisory structure

12. The development of the draft strategy was informed by a strong evidence base and supported by an advisory structure that met regularly to provide input and direction.

13. The advisory structure includes the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group (featuring two councillors, two local board members and one Houkura member), an advisory and Māori rōpū (with mana whenua, mataawaka and sector representatives) and key kaimahi from across the council group.

14. Local boards were also engaged throughout the development of the draft strategy via memos, presentations, briefings, workshops and business meetings (refer Attachment A, pages 3-4).

Gathering Aucklanders’ views provides an opportunity to further refine the draft strategy

15. On 10 December 2024, the Policy and Planning Committee approved public consultation on the draft strategy [PEPCC/2024/131 and PEPCC/2024/132].

16. Consultation was designed to seek Aucklanders’ views on the draft strategy and identify any relevant questions, concerns or additional information to strengthen or modify it.

17. Consultation took place from 10 February to 10 March 2025 and was advertised on Our Auckland and in libraries. Staff also requested that local board engagement advisors and key stakeholders share the consultation opportunity with their communities and networks. The engagement approach involved online submissions via the Have Your Say project page, by email or postal mail, as well as in person drop-in sessions at libraries and Pasifika Festival and hui with the demographic advisory panels, key stakeholders and mataawaka.

18. Staff also ran a People’s Panel survey in December 2024.

19. The five topics we asked for feedback on were:

· Where we are heading (strategic directions)

· Our approach to investment (investment principles)

· Making the most of our open spaces (policy one)

· Providing the right open spaces in the right places (policy two), including two options for open space provision outlined below

· Supporting Aucklanders to be more active more often (policy three).

20. The consultation included the following two option packages to update the open space provision standards:

· Option package one – High-density focused: provide more open space than currently enabled in high-density areas

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

21. These two option packages are explained in more detail from paragraph 31.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The consultation feedback shows we are on the right track

22. We received 149 pieces of consultation feedback, as well as 253 responses to the People’s Panel survey. Attachment A provides a detailed summary of the feedback.

23. Submitters included members of the public, a range of partners and stakeholders (including organisations such as Aktive, Forest and Bird, Healthy Auckland Together, Property Council New Zealand and Te Whānau o Waipareira) and members of the council’s demographic advisory panels.

24. There is strong support for:

· the draft strategy overall

· the five draft strategic directions, with the highest support for Strategic direction five: support Aucklanders to live healthy, active lives

· the four draft investment principles, with the highest support for investment principle one: taking a benefits-led approach to improve the holistic wellbeing of people, places and the environment

· all three policies, with the highest support for Policy one: making the most of our open spaces.

25. Overall, submitters prefer a capacity-focused approach (Option package two) – taking an equity lens to deliver more open space where it is needed most in high- and medium-density areas – rather than a high-density-focused approach (Option package one) – delivering more open space in high-density areas – for open space provision standards.

26. Analysis of the qualitative feedback outlined a range of key themes:

· open and green spaces are essential for mental and physical health

· all Aucklanders must have access to safe, well-maintained open spaces

· open space planning needs to be an integral part of urban planning

· open spaces must serve a wide range of functions

· our resources should be used efficiently.

Staff propose changes to the draft strategy in response to the feedback

27. Staff considered the feedback received and are proposing amending the strategy as a result (see Attachment A, pages 38-47).

28. A summary of the most significant proposed changes is shown in Table One. In addition, staff have made minor changes to address specific feedback, clarify intent and meaning or update technical information.

Table One: Proposed changes to the draft strategy based on consultation feedback

· More explicitly emphasise the importance of equity and accessibility in the strategy on pages 7, 8, 11, 34, 46, 81, 82, 85 and in the glossary

· Include greater emphasis on the importance of environment and biodiversity outcomes on pages 14, 20, 25, 29, 31, 44, 45 and 46

· Include greater emphasis on the purpose and benefits of regional parks on page 78

· Include the capacity-focused approach (Option package two) for open space provision standards and delete the high-density focused approach (Option package one) on pages 46, 48, 49 and 52

· Refine the strategic directions based on a range of other consultation feedback on pages 11, 12 and 14.

Staff also propose changes to the draft strategy in response to local board resolutions

29. Staff have also amended the draft strategy in response to local board feedback received in November and December 2024. The key changes are presented in Attachment A (pages 48-49) and summarised in Table Two below.

Table Two: Proposed changes to the draft strategy in response to local board feedback

· Make the decision-making responsibilities of local boards clearer, moving the table previously on page 23 to page 9

· Clarify the meaning of ‘value for money’ in the strategy on page 17 and in the glossary

· Provide clearer direction in the policy sections to ensure local boards receive the necessary advice for decision-making on page 28

· Clarify that the council attempts to acquire land early in the development process on page 58.

30. All proposed changes are included in track changes in the amended strategy (Attachment B).

Staff recommend a capacity-based approach to open space provision standards

31. As part of the strategy development, staff are proposing updated provision standards for pocket parks and neighbourhood parks to provide better open space outcomes in high- and medium-density areas and greenfield areas. The provision standards help us to ensure we are providing the right open spaces in the right places so Aucklanders can play, be active and enjoy nature.

Summary of option packages analysis – for more details refer CP2025/06594

A report to local boards and to the Policy and Planning Committee in late 2024 provided detailed analysis of the two option packages. Staff recommended Option package two as the preferred option.

Both packages are outlined below. They reflect different ways of adding to our existing open space network across Auckland to continue serving the needs of a growing population.

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

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

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

Both packages involve trade-offs, as shown below.

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


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

32. To illustrate how the two open space provision option packages would apply on the ground, staff have developed some case studies (with maps), which are provided in Attachment C.

Consultation feedback supports the capacity-based approach

33. Overall, respondents expressed the importance of open space for mental and physical wellbeing and their desire for open space provision to be an integral part of neighbourhood planning. Feedback highlighted the importance of taking an equity lens to open space provision, targeting areas where it is needed most.

34. Consultation feedback (see Attachment A, page 33) shows an overall preference for a capacity-focused approach to open space provision (Option package two). The support for Option package 2 amongst Have Your Say submitters is similar across Auckland, and slightly higher in the north area.

Figure One: Preference for open space provision standards

35. Stakeholders and partners also favour Option package two over Option package one.

36. Property Council New Zealand, however, expressed concerns that either package was too rigid and that they would increase the cost of the council’s development contributions levy and ultimately development. The development sector also wishes for more delivery partnerships with the council. This can be investigated at implementation stage.

37. Based on previous analysis and consultation feedback, staff recommend that the final amended strategy includes Option package two.

Staff will continue work to support implementation of the strategy

38. Both local boards and the Governing Body have decision-making responsibilities for the provision of open space, sport and recreations services and assets.

39. Staff have developed examples of local board planning and delivery scenarios and case studies of what good practice looks like (see Attachment C). They provide an overview of how key parts of the strategy could be applied locally and examples of things that are already being done well and we would like to see more of. These are included to aid local board understanding of what delivery could look like. How the strategy would be implemented if adopted would be at the discretion of local boards and the Governing Body in accordance with their decision-making responsibilities.

40. Following feedback from local boards on the draft strategy prior to consultation, staff have been working with local board advisors and operational staff to understand opportunities to improve advice and support to local boards for implementation of the strategy.

41. The multitude of documents, information and processes owned and managed by a range of teams across the council currently makes it difficult to provide concise, consistent and up-to-date advice to local boards. This impacts their ability to understand trade-offs and prioritise decisions to deliver for their communities.

42. Preliminary findings point to potential improvements, such as consolidating information provided to local boards, involving local boards earlier in planning processes, improving alignment between regional and local planning cycles, funding and budgets and providing information on trade-offs (see Attachment D).

43. Staff will continue investigating potential improvements to the advice local boards receive, which will inform the development of an implementation and monitoring plan for the strategy (if adopted).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

45. The draft strategy outlines what we will do to make this happen, including developing the blue-green network, accelerating the use of nature-based solutions, improving the environmental performance of our open spaces and facilities and adapting our open spaces and facilities on the coast and in flood-prone areas.

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

50. If the final amended strategy is adopted, an implementation and monitoring plan will be developed to support delivery. Kaimahi from across the council group will continue to provide input into this plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

51. Levels of support for the draft strategy was broadly similar among Have Your Say respondents across the region. Attachment A provides sub-regional breakdowns of the results.

52. Local boards have been engaged throughout the development of the draft strategy. Two local board members were in the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group: Member Sandra Coney and Member Margi Watson. In addition, staff provided memos and briefings and presented at workshops and business meetings.

53. Local boards provided resolutions on the draft strategy going for consultation at their November / December 2024 business meetings.

54. While there was general support for the strategic directions and investment principles in the draft strategy, local boards made a range of resolutions seeking better guidance from staff on open space matters, particularly the understanding of local impacts.

55. Staff have attempted to respond to local boards’ request for more targeted advice (see paragraphs 38 to 43 and Attachment C and Attachment D).

56. Local boards will consider how to deliver on the strategy, if adopted, as part of their local board plans and work programmes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

· The Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group includes one Houkura member, first Tony Kake, replaced subsequently by Pongarauhine Renata.

· Both the advisory and Māori rōpū included mana whenua and mataawaka representatives. All iwi were invited to join the rōpū or engage in the manner that best suited them.

· Mana whenua and mataawaka organisations were kept up to date with progress and invited to provide feedback during the consultation process.

58. Guided by the Māori rōpū, the draft strategy incorporates a te ao Māori lens, one of the expectations of success set by the Governing Body and a key theme identified in the background paper. It is adapted from the te ao Māori framework developed for Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri – Auckland Climate Plan, and builds on a single value, manaakitanga. It includes a focus on investing in ‘by Māori for Māori’ solutions, building the capacity and capability of mana whenua and mataawaka and partnering with mana whenua to co-design our spaces and places.

59. Consultation feedback on the draft strategy highlighted the importance of focusing on equity and addressing barriers to participation for Māori. This can be achieved by targeting investment, supporting Māori-led initiatives, aligning delivery with Māori health providers to improve overall wellbeing and providing spaces and places that are safe, affordable and accessible.

60. Feedback also called for embedding Māori leadership at decision-making and implementation levels, including support for co-governance arrangements which is reflected in the strategy.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61. The strategy will be implemented using available budgets set during long-term plan and annual plan processes. When constrained by resourcing, the investment principles will support decision-makers in prioritising investment.

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

65. Potential risks and mitigations are outlined below:

If…	Then…	Possible mitigations…
Local boards do not think the final amended strategy addresses their concerns	They will be less likely to support it, and the committee will be less likely to adopt it. Medium reputational, strategic and delivery risk.	· Staff have proposed changes to the draft strategy to reflect local board feedback. · Delivery of the strategy will be also supported by an implementation and monitoring plan. The three-yearly plan will set out what we will deliver and track progress against the five strategic directions. As part of this, staff are working to improve advice and support to local boards.
The final amended strategy does not provide clear enough direction to implementers	The strategy may not be incorporated into business as usual. Low reputational, strategic and delivery risk.	· Implementers provided regular input into development of the final amended strategy. · The implementation context, including financial constraints, has also informed the final amended strategy. · Staff are working with local boards on the advice and support they need for implementation. · Staff will continue to work with colleagues in planning for and supporting delivery, and monitoring progress.
The final amended strategy is perceived as unfunded.	Decision-makers may be less likely to adopt it. Medium financial, reputational and strategic risk.	· The final amended strategy sets strategic directions and investment principles to guide prioritisation and enable better informed discussions on future budget allocation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

66. Staff will include local board views when seeking adoption of the strategy from the Policy and Planning Committee in May 2025. The five existing strategies, policies and plans forming Auckland Council’s open space, sport and recreation policy framework would be rescinded.

67. Staff will present the consultation feedback and proposed changes to the strategy to the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group at its meeting on 11 April 2025. Input and direction from the joint political working group will be reflected in the agenda report to the Policy and Planning Committee.

68. Staff will also present the consultation feedback and proposed changes to the strategy to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum on 14 April 2025.

69. If the final amended strategy is adopted, staff will develop an implementation and monitoring plan for committee’s approval. The plan will be developed with input from relevant staff across the council group, including Governance and Engagement. The plan would help embed the strategy’s investment principles into how we work, deliver on the strategic directions and monitor and evaluate delivery against the directions.

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

71. Staff will continue working with local boards on improvements to advice, recognising that different local boards and / or clusters of local boards may require different and bespoke advice, and that the organisation is pivoting to support this.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Feedback analysis report (Under Separate Cover)
b	Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy (final draft version with track changes) (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	Putting things into practice – scenarios, examples of good practices and applications of the two open space provision option packages (with maps)	457
d ⇩	Preliminary findings for improving advice to local boards	471

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager, Community Investment

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

[1] The ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage included proposed changes to the Dog Policy and Bylaw and local dog access rules in 10 local board areas. The website had around 29,000 visits over the consultation period, comprised of over 6000 ‘engaged’ participants (people who completed the online survey). Overall there were also over 18,000 ‘informed’ participants (people who downloaded a document) which included around 1700 people who downloaded the statement of proposal for proposed changes to local dog access rules).

[2] Franklin County News, Manukau and Papakura Courier, Central Leader, Eastern Bays Courier, North Shore Times, Rodney Times, Western Leader, The Times, Gulf News, Waiheke Weekender, Pohutukawa Coast Times

[3] NZTV (1 time), Media Works (11 times) and Radio NZ (10 times)

[4] An online drop-in session and an in-person Have Your Say event (at Town Hall) were held for proposed changes to matters of regional significance in the Dog Policy and Bylaw and plus 11 in-person drop-in sessions and ten Have Your Say sessions were held for the proposed changes to local dog access rules.

[5] 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.

[6] The Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws – Agreed Principles and Processes 2019

Chairperson	Izzy Fordham
Deputy Chairperson	Chris Ollivier
Members	Laura Caine
	Patrick O'Shea
	Neil Sanderson

Date	Subject
11 April 2025	MEMO: Local board community emergency preparedness dashboards (appended as Attachment A)
10 April 2025	MEMO: Achieving better environmental outcomes for the Manukau Harbour (appended as Attachment B)
8 April 2025	MEMO: Enhanced Tsunami Resilience Project update (appended as Attachment C)
4 April 2025	MEMO: LGNZ's Electoral Reform Working Group (appended as Attachment D)
27 March 2025	MEMO: Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Office monthly update (appended as Attachment E)
25 March 2025	Charging Policy for Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) (appended as Attachment F)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	MEMO: Local board community emergency preparedness dashboards	523
b	MEMO: Achieving better environmental outcomes for the Manukau Harbour (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	MEMO: Enhanced Tsunami Resilience Project update	527
d	MEMO: LGNZ's Electoral Reform Working Group (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇩	MEMO: Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Office monthly update	529
f ⇩	Charging Policy for Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA)	539

Author	Kat Ashmead – Local Interests Lead
Authoriser	Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager

Author	Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Tristan Coulson - Local Area Manager