Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board - Thursday, 24 April 2025

1 Nau mai | Welcome

The Chairperson will open the meeting with a Karakia.

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 27 March 2025 as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

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

8.1 Northcross Elderly Chinese Club - Additional supporting facilities at the Harrowglen Drive playground.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a request for additional facilities at the Harrowglen Drive playground.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Zhu Ying Yan and Eva Ying, representing the Northcross Elderly Chinese Club, will be in attendance to request improvements to the Harrowglen Drive playground by the addition of some supporting facilities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Zhu Ying Yan and Eva Ying, representing the Northcross Elderly Chinese Club, and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

8.2 James Rainey - Hobsonville / Scott Point pump track proposal.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a proposal for a Hobsonville / Scott Point pump track.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. James Rainey will be in attendance to propose the setting up of a pump track in Hobsonville at the Scott Point sports park.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from James Rainey and thank him for his attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Hobsonville needs a pump track presentation....................................... 255

8.3 Sustainable Pāremoremo - Investing in Sanders House: A Community Emergency Hub for Pāremoremo.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update from Sustainable Pāremoremo on investing in Sanders House, a community emergency hub for Pāremoremo.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Phoebe Balle, community resilience activator, will be in attendance to request that the first floor of Sanders House be made available as a community resource, primarily for emergency response.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Phoebe Balle and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Investing in Sanders House: A Community Emergency Hub for Pāremoremo...................................... 263

8.4 Keith Aldous - Greenhithe Muli-use Court Options and Club Rooms at Wainoni Park

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update on further information and options on the proposed multi-use court.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Keith Aldous, Volunteer, Girls, Woman’s and Youth Co-Ordinator, Greenhithe Football Club, will be in attendance to provide an update on further information and options on the proposed multi-use court.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Keith Aldous, Volunteer, Girls, Woman’s and Youth Co-Ordinator, Greenhithe Football Club and thank him for this attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Greenhithe FC Wainoni Park presentation....................................... 273

8.5 Terry Randell - 11 Te Kawau Pass Heritage Claim.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update from Terry Randell on the 11 Te Kawau Pass Heritage Claim.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Terry Randell will be in attendance to clarify points made at the 27 March 2025 Upper Harbour Local Board business meeting through recent findings.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Terry Randell and thank him for his attendance and presentation.

8.6 Cameron Harrison - Greenhithe Multi-use Court - Option 4

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a deputation from Cameron Harrison on Greenhithe Multi-use Court option four.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Cameron Harrison will be in attendance to provide an update on the Greenhithe Multi-use Court option four.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Cameron Harrison and thank him for his attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Cameron Harrison - Greenhithe Multi-use Court Option Four - Presentation............................................................. 285

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local board views on plan change to amend Historic Heritage Schedule

File No.: CP2025/05923

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. A draft plan change has been prepared, which proposes to delete three historic heritage places and amend one historic heritage place that are already identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan historic heritage schedule. Two of the historic heritage places in the draft plan change are in the Upper Harbour Local Board.

4. The purpose of the plan change is to correct inaccuracies in how historic heritage places are identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan, which will ensure the places are appropriately managed, according to their heritage values.

5. The draft plan change was initiated by the Auckland Council as part of its ongoing review of the AUP historic heritage schedule. Inquiries from landowners have been received by council about the integrity of the historic heritage places that are proposed to be amended. Errors have also been identified in relation to the scheduling of the places.

6. The historic heritage places have been subject to a review of their historic heritage values in accordance with the Auckland Unitary Plan criteria and thresholds. These criteria and thresholds are set out in the Regional Policy Statement section of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

7. The review includes consideration of the Mana Whenua values of the two historic heritage places, as they are identified in the historic heritage schedule as being a place of Māori interest or significance. The consideration of Mana Whenua values has involved consultation with the relevant iwi authorities. Council staff understand that this is the first time that iwi authorities have been asked about the Mana Whenua values of the places.

8. Council staff have engaged with landowners in relation to the draft plan change. One landowner is opposed to the proposed amendments in relation to his property at 11 Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe. The landowner’s primary concerns are understood to be errors relating to the scheduling of the place and privacy considerations.

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on a draft plan change: Amendments to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule (which proposes the deletion of one historic heritage place and the amendment of one historic heritage place in the Upper Harbour Local Board area), included as Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

Decision making authority

12. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents. Accordingly, local boards’ views are relevant to finalising a draft plan change, before it is notified for submissions.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Historic heritage scheduling in the Auckland Unitary Plan

14. The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) contains objectives, policies and rules to protect Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland's significant historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. The provisions also enable historic heritage places to be used appropriately.

15. The provisions are contained in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the Historic Heritage Overlay sections of the AUP and in the historic heritage schedule (Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps).

16. Significant historic heritage places in the AUP are identified in the historic heritage schedule (Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage). The location and spatial extent (where identified) of each place is shown in the AUP maps by the Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place (EOP or extent of place, shown spatially as purple cross-hatching) or by the Historic Heritage Overlay Place (shown as a purple dot, where no spatial extent has been identified).

17. The historic heritage places that are identified in the AUP are subject to the objectives, policies and rules of the Historic Heritage Overlay. The overlay is a management approach where activities anticipated to have a greater effect on the values of a historic heritage place are subject to more rigorous management.

Rollover of legacy historic heritage schedules into the Auckland Unitary Plan

18. The historic heritage places that are the subject of the draft plan change were first identified in a historic heritage schedule in the North Shore City Council District Plan 2002. They were “rolled over” into the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) in 2014.

19. The rollover process was undertaken by qualified heritage experts. Site visits were undertaken to confirm whether places still existed and whether location information was correct. However, many historic heritage places of archaeological origin were unable to be visited during the preparation of the PAUP due to accessibility issues (e.g., they were located on private land and/or in difficult to access locations) that could not be resolved within the time frame of the PAUP preparation. This resulted in some errors in the AUP maps and/or some archaeological places having no spatial extent defined (they were instead mapped in the AUP maps with a dot only).

20. The historic heritage places that are the subject of this plan change were not visited during the preparation of the PAUP. Council staff have for some time acknowledged there are errors in relation to the way these historic heritage places are identified in the historic heritage schedule of the AUP.

Background to the plan change

21. The draft plan change was initiated by council as part of its ongoing review of the AUP historic heritage schedule and following inquiries from landowners about the integrity of the historic heritage places that are proposed to be amended.

22. The Upper Harbour Local Board (UHLB) was first advised about the review of the historic heritage places within their local board, including the two places included in the draft plan change, on 17 April 2024.

23. The errors relating to the historic heritage places in the UHLB are set out below.

24. For ID 00713, Pa site R10_3, at Attwood Road:

· No evidence of the reported pā site or any other archaeological evidence has been found at the location during archaeological investigations dating back to 1980.

· Earthworks were consented within the scheduled extent of the historic heritage place in 2014, to support the residential development on the property. These works substantially modified the area.

25. For ID 00720, Settlement site R11_50, at Te Kawau Pass:

· The site was first recorded in 1961 in the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA) site record database as being within the Taihinui Historical Reserve, close to the southern boundary of what is now 11 Te Kawau Pass.

· At the time it was first recorded, the site was recorded as a headland settlement and noted as already destroyed through residential development (i.e., no archaeological evidence was found on the site).

· In 2001, archaeologist Russell Foster was commissioned by the former North Shore City Council (NSCC) to complete a desktop review of NSCC archaeological sites. His findings were incorporated into a report that recommended the site be removed from the NSCC's heritage schedule.

· During the development of the PAUP, the scheduled place was retained, with the mapping moved from Taihinui Historical Reserve onto the adjacent property, which at that time was 9 Te Kawau Pass, being a move of approximately 116 metres. The reasons for moving the location of the place are not fully known. Information was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet that was used to manage high level information on the PAUP rollover; a column in the spreadsheet titled ‘Flag (reason)’ states “Site remnant centroid estimated from contours and description”. This is the only information on file that indicates a reason for the change in location.

· The PAUP was notified on 30 September 2013. The place was identified in the PAUP with a dot, and with a notation (#) in the historic heritage schedule that the extent of place was yet to be defined. Where a historic heritage place is annotated with a # in the historic heritage schedule, it means that the rules of the Historic Heritage Overlay apply to all land or water within 50 metres of the identified feature (i.e., within 50 metres of the dot on 11 Te Kawau Pass).

· No submissions on the PAUP were received in relation to the proposed scheduling of this place. The place was therefore identified in the AUP as proposed.

· A preliminary review of the historic heritage values of this place was undertaken by council staff in September 2016. It recommended the place be removed from the historic heritage schedule provided it was subject to an assessment of Mana Whenua values.

· Resource consent was granted in 2017 in relation to 9 Te Kawau Pass for changes to the existing dwelling, the construction of two new dwellings and a three-lot subdivision. This resulted in the site where the historic heritage place is shown in the AUP becoming known as 11 Te Kawau Pass. Given the known errors associated with the two places, a review of the historic heritage values of the places, as well as a review of the name, address and location, has been undertaken. The review of their historic heritage values has been undertaken in accordance with the AUP RPS criteria and thresholds. The review reports are included as Attachment C and Attachment D to this report.

26. The reviews have sought and considered, for the first time, the Mana Whenua historic heritage values of the places. The two places are recorded as archaeological sites of Māori origin and are identified in the historic heritage schedule as being a place of Māori interest or significance. Engagement with iwi authorities has been undertaken in the preparation of this plan change, as discussed in the Māori Impact Statement section of this report. Information provided by iwi authorities through this engagement has informed the Mana Whenua values of the historic heritage places. This engagement has resulted in the retention (with amendments) of ID 00720 at 11 Te Kawau Pass and the proposed deletion of ID 00713 at 159 and 161 Attwood Road.

27. Council staff have engaged with landowners in relation to the draft plan change. Landowners were advised that council was reviewing the historic heritage place on their property. Approval for site visits was sought where it was necessary to enter private land. Landowners were sent the draft review report relating to their property.

28. The owner of 11 Te Kawau Pass (Mr Terry Randell) is opposed to the proposed amendments in relation to his property. Council staff have met with Mr Randell and his neighbour (the owner of 9 Te Kawau Pass) to discuss their concerns. Their primary concerns were understood to be:

· How an error relating to a recorded archaeological site on the reserve adjacent to 11 Te Kawau Pass has led to a historic heritage place being scheduled on 11 Te Kawau Pass, and

· Privacy concerns centred around a worry that members of the public will seek to access the property if there is a scheduled historic heritage place identified on it.

Plan change overview

29. The purpose of the plan change is to correct inaccuracies in the identification of historic heritage places in the AUP and ensure the places are appropriately managed, according to their heritage values.

30. The draft plan change proposes to amend Chapter L, Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps of the AUP (included as Attachment A to this report) and the AUP maps (included as Attachment B to this report).

31. Two of the historic heritage places proposed to be amended are within the UHLB:

Schedule 14.1 ID & name	Address	Proposed change	Information to support draft plan change
ID 00713 Pā site R10_3	159 and 161 Attwood Road, Paremoremo	Delete place from Schedule 14 and planning maps	No physical evidence of a Pā site in this locality. Site subject to extensive residential development.
ID 00720 Settlement site R11_50	Tauhinui Historical Reserve, 9 Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe	Amend Schedule 14 to correctly identify the name, address, legal description and heritage values for this place and to identify a primary feature and exclusions.^{^[1]} Amend GeoMaps to identify the spatial extent of the historic heritage place.	No physical evidence of a settlement site in this locality. Site subject to extensive residential development. Consultation with Mana Whenua has identified this place has historic heritage value as a lookout and communication point used during Māori occupation of the area. Place has overall considerable historic heritage value.

Schedule 14.1 ID & name

Address

Proposed change

Information to support draft plan change

ID 00713 Pā site R10_3

159 and 161 Attwood Road, Paremoremo

Delete place from Schedule 14 and planning maps

No physical evidence of a Pā site in this locality.

Site subject to extensive residential development.

ID 00720 Settlement site R11_50

Tauhinui Historical Reserve, 9 Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe

Amend Schedule 14 to correctly identify the name, address, legal description and heritage values for this place and to identify a primary feature and exclusions.^{^[1]}

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

No physical evidence of a settlement site in this locality.

Site subject to extensive residential development.

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

Place has overall considerable historic heritage value.

Impact of historic heritage scheduling

32. The AUP approach to the management of scheduled historic heritage places is an approach where activities anticipated to have a greater effect on the values of a historic heritage place are subject to more rigorous management.

33. Activities such as the maintenance and repair of buildings and structures, and of gardens, lawns, driveways and parking areas are a permitted activity. Activities that may have a greater impact on the values of a historic heritage place, such as demolition or destruction, or the construction of a new building, require a landowner to apply for a resource consent for these activities.

11 Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe

34. In the case of 11 Te Kawau Pass, the Historic Heritage Overlay is proposed to apply to a small (less than 40m²) area on the edge of the 1.2-hectare property, adjacent to the Taihinui Historical Reserve (refer to Attachment D).

35. The reason the address is proposed to be changed from 9 Te Kawau Pass to 11 Te Kawau Pass is to reflect the 2017 subdivision referred to above.

Figure 1: Part of 11 Te Kawau Pass showing: 2016 contours (orange lines), showing the high point and steep gradient of the adjacent reserve; proposed Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place (aqua polygon); and operative Historic Heritage Overlay Place dot (red dot in driveway) (Source: Auckland Council GeoMaps).

36. The Historic Heritage Overlay is proposed to apply to an area of 11 Te Kawau Pass and the adjacent Taihinui Historical Reserve. The small, flat area is the high point, as shown by the contours in Figure 1. The area proposed to be subject to the overlay contains landscaped gardens, a Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) trig station and a beacon associated with Whenuapai Air Base. The maps included as Attachment E show 11 Te Kawau Pass within the wider context of Taihinui Historical Reserve and the location of the property boundary and the trig and beacon.

37. The proposed Historic Heritage Overlay is not the only AUP control that manages land use in this part of the property. This part of the property has been identified in AUP Plan Change 78: Intensification as being within an area subject to coastal erosion. Under this proposed rule, the construction of buildings and structures within this area would require a resource consent under AUP Chapter E36 Natural hazards and flooding.

Privacy concerns

38. It is understood that Mr Randell is concerned about the privacy of his property arising from the proposed amendments to the historic heritage place. As proposed, the amendments include the address and legal description of his property being identified in the AUP historic heritage schedule.

39. The presence of a scheduled historic heritage does not enable public access to a property; landowners are not required to enable public access.

40. While the concerns of Mr Randell are acknowledged, the issue of public access onto private property is not an issue that has been raised in relation to scheduling other historic heritage places (approximately 1,400 of the around 2,300 historic heritage places included in the historic heritage schedule are in private or partial private ownership).

Consideration of landowner’s views

41. The landowners’ views are being considered as part of the preparation of the draft plan change. Council staff are corresponding with Mr Randell to help him get access to all available information on the legacy, operative and proposed scheduling of the historic heritage place.

42. At this stage, council staff do not recommend amendments to the draft plan change arising from the landowner’s concerns.

43. The report to the Policy and Planning Committee seeking the approval for the public notification of the draft plan change will include the concerns of the landowner and any resolution from the local board, should the draft plan change proceed to approval to be publicly notified.

44. If the draft plan change is publicly notified, the landowner may provide their views on the plan change via a submission. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires a local authority to hold a hearing on submissions on a proposed plan, when any submitter wishes to be heard. Any matters raised by the landowner in a submission will be considered by the hearings panel in their decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48. There has been no input to date into the draft plan change from other parts of the council (such as Parks or council-controlled organisations). The properties that are the subject of the plan change are predominantly in private ownership and no expert input from the council in relation to the draft plan change, aside from historic heritage and planning advice, has been required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49. The draft plan change relates to the Devonport-Takapuna and Upper Harbour local boards.

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

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

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

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

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

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

53. The Policy and Planning Committee will be provided with the local board’s resolution when considering whether to authorise notification of the draft plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

55. The RMA requires council to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a draft plan change.

56. Consultation on the draft plan change has been undertaken with the relevant iwi authorities (those authorities whose rohe (tribal boundary) includes the land subject to the draft plan change). The historic heritage places that are the subject of the draft plan change are all identified as being a place of Māori interest or significance, so the feedback from iwi authorities has been sought in relation to the Mana Whenua values of the historic heritage places.

57. One of the eight criteria set out in the AUP RPS for the identification and evaluation of historic heritage places is (c) Mana Whenua:

(c) Mana Whenua: the place has a strong or special association with, or is held in high esteem by, Mana Whenua for its symbolic, spiritual, commemorative, traditional or other cultural value.

58. There are 13 iwi authorities whose rohe overlaps with the two historic heritage places in the draft plan change that are within Upper Harbour (refer to Attachment F). Council staff have engaged with these iwi authorities to seek information about whether the two historic heritage places have value under criterion (c).

59. Feedback was received from four iwi authorities in relation to 159 and 161 Attwood Road and from five iwi authorities in relation to 9 Te Kawau Pass (refer to Attachment F to this report). There was no specific information provided to demonstrate the historic heritage values of ID 00713 at Attwood Road has considerable Mana Whenua value. The feedback about ID 00720 at Te Kawau Pass from Te Kawerau ā Maki was that the place has considerable Mana Whenua value as a historic lookout and communication point. This value, in addition to its historic and context values, resulted in a recommendation that the place has considerable overall historic heritage value under the criteria and thresholds of the AUP (refer to Attachment D to this report). This is reflected in the proposed amendments to the place, including its name and the extent of scheduling, that are shown in the draft plan change.

60. Later in the plan-making process, the planner will analyse Part 2 of the RMA which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The views of iwi authorities on the draft plan change will be a particular matter of relevance.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61. The plan change does not pose any financial implications for the UHLB’s assets or operations.

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

64. There are known errors in the historic heritage schedule. A plan change is required to correct these errors and make any amendment to the AUP historic heritage schedule and maps. Until a plan change is notified, the properties will continue to be subject to the AUP Historic Heritage Overlay. For the property at 11 Te Kawau Pass, this means the place would continue to be subject to management under the overlay of a 50-metre circle which covers the residence on the property.

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

66. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to council’s Planning and Policy Committee to seek authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Proposed amendments to Chapter L Schedules: Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage	21
b ⇩	Attachment B - Proposed amendments to GeoMaps (planning maps)	23
c ⇩	Attachment C - Review of ID 00713 Pa site R10_3	29
d ⇩	Attachment D - Review of ID 00720 Settlement site R11_50	41
e ⇩	Attachment E - Maps	53
f ⇩	Attachment F - Engagement with iwi authorities – summary of consultation and feedback	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Authorisers

Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

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

File No.: CP2025/06332

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 reform decisions.

2. To identify any additional matters requiring review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The council-controlled organisations reform package in the Mayoral proposal, considered whether council-controlled organisations 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 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 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 business improvement district 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on staff proposals relating to the allocation of decision-making responsibility to either the Governing Body or local boards in accordance with section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 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

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 council-controlled organisation (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 (TAU). 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 Governing Body (GB), or

· the benefits of a consistent or coordinated 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 to this report. Also included at Attachment B to this report 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 2025. 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

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

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 to this report:

· 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 to this report, 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 2025. 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	71
b ⇩	Eke Panuku projects overview – as outlined in agreed local board engagement plan 2024-2025	89

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Nash - Programme Manager

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan for consultation

File No.: CP2025/05102

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan 2025-2030 for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023 contains a strategic objective to support “Our diverse communities are enabled to achieve their goals and aspirations” which includes the key initiative “Work with the ethnic communities to develop and deliver on an Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan to inform how we may best support them”

3. Each financial year the local board adopts a work programme to deliver on the local board plan. This included the development and implementation of the Upper Harbour Ethnic People Plan (UHEPP) in Customer and Community services work programme for 2023/2024 (resolution number UH/2023/80) and 2024/2025 (resolution number UH/2024/79).

4. The Upper Harbour Ethnic People Plan is a strategic initiative designed to address the diverse needs and aspirations of ethnic people and support ethnic communities in the local board area. It draws from the community-led priorities and outcomes of the Ngā Hapori Momoho /Thriving Communities Strategy 2022-2032, and the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023-2026.

5. The overall goal of the Upper Harbour Ethnic People Plan is to implement systemic changes, eventually integrating engagement and programme consideration for ethnic communities into future Upper Harbour local board plans and eliminating the need for a separate strategy.

6. The Asian Network Incorporated were commissioned in May 2024 to develop the plan with support from council officers. Between May 2024 and February 2025, they carried out extensive research and community engagement activity. This included literature review of approximately 14 local, regional and national strategies and plans, 21 qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and 575 community survey responses from residents of the local board area.

7. On 13 March 2025, the Asian Network Incorporated presented the draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan at a workshop for local board for views. Local board views have been considered in the final draft version of the plan with track changes outlined in Attachment B of this report and the final draft version for consideration outlined in Attachment A to this report.

8. Staff are seeking approval of the draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan to enable the next stage of community consultation. Following approval, the findings will be incorporated into the final draft and presented back to the local board at a workshop in June 2025.

9. The local board will consider the final Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan at the business meeting on 24 July 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan (Attachment A to the agenda report) for public consultation.

Horopaki

Context

10. The Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan (UHEPP) is a strategic initiative designed to address the diverse needs and aspirations of ethnic communities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

11. The overall goal of the UHEPP is to implement systemic changes, eventually integrating engagement and programme consideration for ethnic communities into the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan and eliminating the need for a separate strategy.

12. The term ‘ethnic peoples’ refers to individuals of various ethnic backgrounds, whereas ‘ethnic communities’ emphasizes the collective identity and organised presence of these groups within New Zealand.

13. According to the 2023 census, ethnic people make up 54.7 per cent of Upper Harbour's population, including 45.5 per cent Asians, 3.6 per cent Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African (MELAA), and 5.6 per cent Continental Europeans.

14. Upper Harbour's population grew by 14,118 from 2018 to 2023, with Asian communities increasing by 40.7 per cent, particularly Chinese, Koreans, and Indians. Upper Harbour has the highest percentage of Korean residents among all Auckland local boards.

15. In May 2024, the Asian Network Incorporated (TANI) were commissioned to develop the plan with support from council officers. Between May 2024 and February 2025, they carried out extensive research and community engagement activity. This included literature review of approximately 14 local, regional and national strategies and plans, 21 qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and 575 community survey responses from residents of local board area.

16. The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023-2026 provided a foundational framework for the UHEPP, ensuring alignment with broader local board priorities and strategic directions.

17. The following Auckland Council documents were considered in the development of the UHEPP:

· Auckland Plan 2050

· The Thriving Communities Ngā Hapori Momoho Strategy 2022-2032

· Ethnic Communities Advisory Panel Strategic Priorities 2022-2025 Term

· I Am Auckland - the Children and Young People's Strategic Action Plan

· Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan, 2022-2027

· Auckland's Climate Plan

18. The following national strategies taken into consideration are outlined below:

· Ministry for Ethnic Communities Strategy (2021) which prioritises diversity and inclusion, equitable access to government services, economic outcomes, and community empowerment.

· The Former Refugees, Recent Migrants, and Ethnic Communities Employment Action Plan which addresses employment barriers faced by these communities and aims to improve career progression and inclusion in workplaces.

· Te Korowai Whetu which focuses on fostering social cohesion through six action areas, including tackling discrimination, encouraging participation, and supporting well-being.

· The New Zealand Migrant Settlement and Integration Strategy and the New Zealand Refugee Resettlement Strategy share five key settlement outcomes: participation and inclusion, health and well-being, housing, education and language development, and employment.

19. Integrating these strategies into local plans ensures consistency with national objectives and enhances opportunities to secure resources through partnerships with central government.

20. The Whau Local Board Ethnic People Plan, Devonport-Takapuna Ethnic Communities Plan (May 2024), and the Welcoming Communities framework were also considered in the development if the UHEPP.

21. The consideration of national strategies and regional frameworks ensured consistency with their objectives while tailoring the UHEPP strategies to the specific context and challenges faced locally.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. The insights gathered through the community engagement phase have informed the development of six focus areas, 21 objectives, and 53 initiatives. Local board, stakeholder and community feedback will continue to shape and strengthen the document.

23. The six focus areas are:

· enhance belonging, participation, and access

· celebrate cultural diversity and strengthen intercultural connections

· support ethnic peoples’ health and wellbeing

· connect and empower ethnic community groups

· improve economic outcomes and address barriers to employment

· increase local climate resilience and sustainability.

24. Each focus area has several objectives with several clear initiatives aligned to it to them to ensure achievement of sustainable outcomes which have specific measures.

25. An initiative refers to a programme, project, or activity that brings an objective and its intended outcome to life. These initiatives should be deliverable (actionable) and meaningful, although they do not specify exact solutions.

26. The measures created in the plan focus on the sustainability of outcomes achieved rather than just outputs e.g. services, programmes and activities.

27. Following approval of the draft UHEPP, six community consultation workshops will be held in May 2025. These workshops will be held across the local board area and will engage with key stakeholders and the grass roots community. They will provide an opportunity to feedback on the objectives and initiatives, specifically to identify any gaps and to ensure diverse voices and aspirations are represented.

28. The findings will then be incorporated into the final draft and presented back to the local board June 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri is Tāmaki Makaurau’s climate action plan. It sets out goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

30. The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023 outlines the local boards commitment to ensure our communities are resilient to adversity and change. It contains a specific objectives and initiatives that commit to restoration, protecting the environment and building resilience to climate change.

31. Focus area six of the draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan, “Increase local climate resilience and sustainability”, demonstrates a direct strategic commitment to supporting a positive climate impact in the Upper Harbour local board area.

32. Focus area three, “Support ethnic peoples’ health and wellbeing” also highlights key objectives and initiatives that will support community resilience and preparedness for emergencies and climate-induced events.

33. See attachment A to this report for more details on the objectives and initiatives in the plan.

34. The UHEPP outlines a commitment from the local board to advocate for increased engagement with ethnic peoples by local environmental groups and Auckland Council Governing Body.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. In developing the plan, several strategies and plans were reviewed. This ensured alignment with all relevant regional priorities and actions emerging from other engagement and planning processes that were relevant for ethnic peoples.

36. The UHEPP most closely contributes to the outcomes of the following plans:

· Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023

· Auckland Plan 2050

· The Thriving Communities Ngā Hapori Momoho Strategy 2022-2032

· I Am Auckland - the Children and Young People's Strategic Action Plan

· Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan, 2022-2027

· Auckland's Climate Plan.

37. Ngā Hapori Momoho Thriving Communities Strategy 2022-2032 is Auckland Council’s core strategy for community wellbeing. The UHEPP speaks to all six key objectives of Thriving Communities:

· increase whanau and community financial security

· improve health outcomes

· grow community and intercultural connection

· increase access and participation

· enable Local Leadership and innovation

· increase local climate resilience and sustainability.

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

Local impacts and local board views

38. The UHEPP closely aligns with the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023, acknowledging that Upper Harbour is a vibrant and rapidly growing area with diverse communities across multiple distinct neighbourhoods. It also acknowledges several challenges including:

· our growing population and changing demographics mean community needs are changing - almost 8 per cent of Upper Harbour residents do not speak English

· low levels of engagement and understanding of what local boards do weakens local democracy and decision-making.

39. According to the 2023 Census, Upper Harbour has the second highest population growth amongst all local boards in Auckland.

40. The most significant increase in this area between 2018 and 2023 was observed in the Asian ethnicities, which grew by 10,116 individuals, or a 40.7 per cent increase.

41. This also means that 71.6 per cent of the total population growth in Upper Harbour was of people of Asian ethnicity.

42. The Chinese communities are the single largest population group within the Asian communities, with 26.6 per cent of the total population, followed by 7.1 per cent Korean and 5.4 per cent Indian.

43. Upper Harbour has the highest percentage of Korean residents among all local boards in Auckland.

44. The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023 expresses a strong strategic commitment to respond to these changes and continue to create an inclusive community where everyone feels valued, welcomed sense of belonging.

45. The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023 contains a specific objective to support this strategic commitment: “Our diverse communities are enabled to achieve their goals and aspirations” which includes the key initiative “Work with the ethnic communities to develop and deliver on an Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan to inform how we may best support them”

46. By approving the draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan for community consultation, the local board will be supporting the achievement of this key objective and initiative of the local board plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

48. The Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan aligns with Kia Ora Tāmaki Makarau - Auckland Council’s Māori outcomes performance measurement framework, supporting outcomes under:

· Kia ora te whanau- Whānau and tamariki wellbeing

· Kia ora te Ahurea – Māori Identity and Culture

· Kia or ate taiao Kaitiakitanga

· Kia hāngai te Kaunihera- An empowered organisation.

49. The Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi through the strategic objective “Celebrating Culture and Building Vibrant Communities.”

50. The Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan commits the local board to investing in strengthening relationships between ethnic communities and tangata whenua. It includes actions that create educational opportunities to understand the importance of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It also supports ethnic community groups in building positive relationships with mana whenua and Kaupapa Māori organisations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

51. As part of the local board annual work programme, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved $80,000 in 2023/2024 (resolution number UH/2023/80) and $50,000 in 2024/2025 (resolution number UH/2024/79) from the locally driven initiatives operational budget (LDI Opex) to the Customer and Community Service work programme line ‘Upper Harbour Ethnic People Plan’ (Activity ID:4015).

52. Approving the draft UHEPP will enable the continued development and implementation of this work programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

53. There here are no perceived risks with the local board approving the draft version of the plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. Following approval of the draft UHEPP, it will go to community consultation in May 2025.

55. There will be six community consultation events run in collaboration between Auckland Council, TANI and He Toa Taua Harbour Sport.

56. The findings from the community consultation will be presented to the local board for further feedback at the workshop on 12 June 2025.

57. The local board will consider adoption the final version of the UHEPP at the business meeting on 24 July 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan 2025-2030 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Draft Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan with tracked changes (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jo Cocker - Advisor

Authorisers

Kate Holst – Acting Head of Community delivery North / West

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025

File No.: CP2025/05806

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025, which provides guidance on emerging play issues and opportunities for non-playground play projects.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 provides Upper Harbour Local Board with general information and specific project suggestions to increase the range of play opportunities it offers.

3. The play plan has been developed with community and council staff guidance. The local board has provided feedback on an earlier draft of the document. The final version of the draft Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 for local board consideration is set out in Attachment A.

4. A supplementary information document has also been provided in Attachment B. It includes relevant demographic information for the local board area, and insights from Regional Sports Trusts and the council’s advisory panels. This information has informed the advice staff provide to Upper Harbour Local Board regarding play.

5. The play plan does not commit the local board to funding any particular play project. Instead, it will serve as a tool to support work programme development each year.

6. The report recommends that local board adopt the Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 and use it as a resource for the future development of play.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whai / adopt the Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

7. Auckland Council’s play advocacy function promotes play opportunities beyond investment in traditional playgrounds, with play regarded as ‘an everywhere activity’.

8. The play advocacy approach complements local boards’ capital investments in play. It does not however replace the ongoing need for investment in playgrounds.

9. Staff engaged with Upper Harbour Local Board at various workshops in 2023 and 2024. A play advocacy activity was included in the local board’s annual work programme in the 2023/2024 and the 2024/2025 financial years. In the 2023/2024 financial year a budget of $10,000 was allocated. This budget was increased initially to $20,000 for the 2024/2025 financial year. The budget was further increased to $70,000 for the 2024/2025 financial year in October 2024.

10. In the 2023/2024 work programme, staff committed to delivering a ‘play plan’ for Upper Harbour Local Board. This document provides advice on how play outcomes can be achieved with operational expenditure (OPEX) funding. It also provides guidance on relevant play issues that the local board might like to consider.

11. A draft version of the Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 was circulated to the local board in December 2024. Elected member feedback was incorporated into the final draft. Staff are seeking adoption of the plan which is attached to the report as Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 (‘the play plan’) is aligned with the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023. It is intended to be a live document for the life of the local board plan. The play plan will be revised throughout the 2026 – 2029 term of the local board.

13. The play plan complements previous staff advice about play and other council work programmes that provide play outcomes. This includes play provision assessments and play network gap analyses completed by the Specialist Operations team, and the activation programme delivered by the Out and About Auckland team.

14. The play plan highlights the need to engage effectively with rangatahi regarding play. The gap in play provision for rangatahi is well known across Tāmaki Makaurau, and the play plan offers suggestions about how this can be addressed through both operational (OPEX) and capital (CAPEX) investment.

15. Accessible play is a growing focus within the play sector. The play plan provides guidance to Upper Harbour Local Board about the different needs of tamariki with invisible and visible disabilities. It also discusses ways that the council can address these groups’ play requirements.

16. All-ages play is also a topic of interest to most local boards. The play plan addresses this by highlighting opportunities for intergenerational play. It also advocates for greater engagement with rangatahi to learn more about this demographic’s play interests. It provides some suggestions for ways to better provide play for rangatahi and adults in formal play spaces.

17. The play plan presents elected members with specific project ideas to increase play provision across Upper Harbour, and suggestions of local board advocacy for broader play outcomes. The project suggestions are indicative only and do not commit the local board to funding any particular project. Language has been added to the play plan to this effect.

18. In response to feedback from a range of local boards, the Upper Harbour play plan has been revised as follows:

· a message from the local board has been included at the beginning of the document

· operational details such as proposed project costs have been removed, to better reflect the strategic nature of the play plan and the local board’s governance-level decision-making role

· a page has been inserted to acknowledge the opportunity for play to support the wellbeing of older adults

· the document has been divided into two separate parts: the Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025, which is action-focused; and the Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 Supplementary Information document, which includes supporting insights and other reference materials.

19. The Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 was edited at the local board’s request to provide an English translation of any te reo Māori words or phrases.

20. Staff intend for the play plan to inform discussions during work programme development. Each year, the local board may choose to allocate a budget toward play through its annual work programme development process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. The play advocacy approach has an enduring positive climate impact. It encourages whānau to embrace their streets, local parks and public spaces as sites for play. This reduces the need to drive to playgrounds.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. The play plan has been written with input from the council’s Activation and Events teams within the Community Wellbeing department. Further review and feedback has been provided by staff in the Pools and Leisure and the Parks and Community Facilities departments.

23. The play plan highlights the value of integrating play into other council work programmes, and in the work of council-controlled organisations like Auckland Transport and Watercare.

24. The Supplementary Information document includes insights from the council’s various advisory panels, which each represent different groups in the community. Staff engaged directly with the advisory panels and sought their feedback regarding play issues relevant to them.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. Play is of perennial interest to the wider community, with most families aware of its benefit to their tamariki. As freedom to roam and play without adult supervision has declined for tamariki in Tāmaki Makaurau during the past three decades, there has been growing pressure on the council to build and maintain playgrounds. The play advocacy approach, as set out in the play plan, both acknowledges the importance of playgrounds, and offers other ways to provide opportunities to play.

26. Tāmaki Makaurau’s four Regional Sports Trusts have the capacity to engage directly with tamariki in a school setting, and the Play Leads at each Regional Sports Trust have done so at several primary schools. The insights gathered have informed staff advice to Upper Harbour Local Board about how to provide play beyond a playground setting. In particular, tamariki voice has identified a widespread appetite for more adventurous play.

27. The Supplementary Information document contains demographic information from the 2023 Census, highlighting changing ethnic demographics in Upper Harbour. Analysis of the local board’s demographic data has contributed to staff advice to Upper Harbour Local Board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The play plan references the Māori outcomes identified in the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023. It highlights several ways that play can support Māori outcomes, including:

· using Te Aranga Māori Design principles in the design of playgrounds, to communicate iwi narratives through colour choices, cultural motifs, and other elements

· developing and installing māra hūpara – Māori playgrounds that draw on pre-colonial play traditions from local iwi

· exploring ways that the Te Kete Rukuruku dual naming project could create opportunities for playful interpretation of the narratives behind gifted te reo names

· providing Māori play activations through the Out and About Auckland programme.

29. The play plan acknowledges the importance of taking an iwi-led approach for any play provision that is aligned with Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. Although the play plan includes potential play projects, it is not a prescriptive document and does not commit the local board to funding any of the projects. Language has been included in the play plan to make this clear to all readers.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The following table identifies risks associated with Upper Harbour Local Board adopting its play plan and sets out appropriate mitigation measures.

Risk	Mitigation
Adopting the play plan raises community expectations regarding investment in new play projects	Language within the play plan to emphasise the non-prescriptive nature of the document and its purpose as a guide for potential play investment only
Adopting the play plan results in concern from the community that investment in CAPEX play will not continue	Language within the play plan to confirm that non-playground play is intended to complement and not replace wider investment in play assets

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Staff will participate in annual work programme planning, drawing on the play plan to advise the local board of project opportunities.

33. The Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 will be revised on a three-year basis, to ensure it remains aligned with the Upper Harbour Local Board’s local board plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Upper Harbour Play Plan 2025 Supplementary Information (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacquelyn Collins - Play Portfolio Lead

Authorisers

Pippa Sommerville - Manager Sport & Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Kōkiri Update - Hobsonville Road Cycleway Project

File No.: CP2025/06945

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board support for the Hobsonville Road Cycleway project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Funding has been allocated from the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR) to deliver a cycleway along Hobsonville Road. The CATTR provides funding for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the impact of transport and climate change.

3. Hobsonville Road is an important connection for the cycle network, linking up cyclists to the north and to the west, including the Northwestern Path to the City Centre and beyond. It also links local users to bus stations, ferry terminals, schools, businesses and retail or entertainment.

4. A number of workshops have been held with the Upper Harbour Local Board since February 2023 – March 2025 as this project has been developed to seek local board views and input.

5. This report seeks support from Upper Harbour Local Board for the Hobsonville Road Cycleway project and design found here: Hobsonville Road Cycleway design

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) ohia / support the Hobsonville Road Cycleway project as outlined on the Auckland Transport website here: Hobsonville Road Cycleway design .

Horopaki

Context

6. Auckland Transport (AT) manages Auckland’s Transport network on behalf of Auckland Council. AT’s Kōkiri Agreement provides a structured annual process for local boards to engage with and influence transport projects and programmes. Every year local boards and AT work together to set ‘levels of engagement’ for projects and programmes that Auckland Transport (AT) is delivering. This process clearly defines the board’s expectations and AT’s responsibilities.

7. The levels of engagement noted in the Kōkiri Agreement are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) doctrine, were agreed between Auckland Council and Council Controlled Organisations in 2020; and are as follows:

Collaborate - AT and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible.

Consult - AT leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, AT incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; and if it is not able to provides clear reasons for that decision.

Inform – AT leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, AT incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; and if it is not able to provides clear reasons for that decision.

8. AT notes that the level of engagement with the local board on the Hobsonville Road Cycleway project is “Consult.” The project team consulted the local board throughout the project, from pre- engagement on the options, through to detailed design. The Upper Harbour Local Board provided views at workshops held on:

· 2 February 2023 – Options, pre-engagement and consultation direction

· 12 October 2023 – Consultation summary and design direction based on consultation feedback

· 5 September 2024 – Update on design progress, and engagement with community

· 6 March 2025 – Final design update

9. Hobsonville Road Cycleway is a protected cycle and micromobility lane on either side of the road. Its delivery includes removing kerbside parking, and installing crossings on raised tables at side road intersections for pedestrians and cyclists at:

· Oriel Avenue.

· Fitzherbert Avenue.

· Cyril Crescent.

· Luckens Road.

· Laurenson Road.

· Suncrest Drive.

· Brigham Creek Road.

· Wiseley Road.

10. Hobsonville Road is a high priority route for cycling investment because it supports other existing, and committed cycleways, filling a missing link in the cycle and micromobility network and improving network connectivity. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1 – Missing link in cycling network.

A map with orange lines

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. AT provided updates and opportunity for feedback to the local board about this project that aims to improve safety and connectivity of the protected cycle network, at workshops on 2 February 2023, 12 October 2023, 5 September 2024 and 6 March 2025.

12. Hobsonville Road Cycleway has the potential to attract high volumes of local bike trips for journeys to work, education, schools, social, economic and cultural opportunities, along with integration with the public transport network.

13. AT presented the options considered for the design of the cycleway, to the Upper Harbour Local Board. Several options were considered. The benefits and disadvantages were discussed on all options and are shown below in Figure 2 with the local board.

Figure 2 – Options that were considered and presented.

Typical Existing Cross Section

Option 1: narrow uni-directional

Option 2: wide uni-directional

Option 3: bi-directional (north side or south side of road)

14. Targeted pre-engagement was undertaken in February 2023 – April 2023 with schools, residents’ associations, cycling groups, church and other community groups, sharing the options considered, and obtaining feedback.

15. Public consultation took place in June 2023 on the emerging preferred option, a uni-directional cycleway, maintaining a flush median where possible. Mailers were delivered to the communities of West Harbour, Hobsonville, Hobsonville Point and Scott’s Point. Targeted social media directed people who travelled through the area to the consultation, and three public open days were held at the Hobsonville RSA.

16. Artist’s renders were used to illustrate the proposal (such as the one in Figure 3), along with photographs of different types of potential cycleway separators, concrete, rubber/plastic or flex posts.

17. Figure 3 – Artist’s render of the cycleway

18. The overview of engagement included:

· 469 online survey responses.

· 79% of these were from locals

· Targeted engagement with 7 stakeholder groups.

· Three open days held at Hobsonville RSA.

19. The summary of consultation themes:

· Concrete separators are the preferred separator type (50 per cent ) versus plastic / rubber (15 per cent) or flexi posts (10 per cent)

· 71 per cent of respondents believe the cycleway will make it easier for people to access local destinations on their bike

· 75 per cent comments in support of removal of flush median space to enable the safe cycleway (25 per cent comments opposed)

· 71 per cent comments in support of removal of on-street parking to enable the safe cycleway (29 per cent comments opposed)

· Requests for a safer connection to Oriel Ave and the shared path overbridge to the Northwestern shared path

· Useful suggestions around bike parking locations and pedestrian crossing locations

20. Post consultation the project team updated the local board on progress through the design phases, incorporating feedback into the design at their workshops on 12 October 2023, 5 September 2024 and 6 March 2025.

21. Te Tupu Ngātahi – Supporting Growth Alliance‘s long-term plan for Hobsonville Road includes widening Hobsonville Road, in 10 to 15 years. The cycleway will be built between the existing kerb lines. This project will not widen the road and will not need to disrupt the current services such as power, fibre, water and stormwater in the berm space (see cross section in Figure 4.) Road widening is planned as a part of the future plans of Te Tupu Ngātahi – Supporting Growth Alliance.

Figure 4 – Cross section of Hobsonville Road with Cycleway

A car on the road

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

22. The project will also deliver non-infrastructure initiatives to make cycling more accessible to local people. The package of non-infrastructure initiatives will be developed in parallel with the cycle-lane design. This includes bike skills training, establishing bike hub, bike events and activations.

23. The design includes sections of shared paths near intersections so that cyclists can be separated from traffic. Confident road cyclists can choose to continue to cycle through on the road. At each intersection where there is no signalised crossing, a shared pedestrian and cycle crossing on a raised table will be installed. (see figure 5)

Figure 5 – Example of intersection treatment on side road

24. AT’s advice is that the Hobsonville Cycleway will bring a range of economic and transport benefits to the Upper Harbour local board area. Additionally. this project is synchronised with Supporting Growth, Auckland's regional plan for infra-structure development. Therefore, AT’s recommendation is that the Upper Harbour Local Board support the project.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The Hobsonville Road Cycleway is funded by the CATTR Fund (Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate) which supports the delivery of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan with aims to halve Auckland’s regional emissions by 2030 and plan for the impacts of climate change.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The Hobsonville Road Cycleway project was workshopped with local board prior to this report being submitted. At workshops, local board members informally expressed support for the proposals outlined by the project team at different stages of the project.

29. Likewise, the local community has been engaged with and provided feedback on the proposed projects. This is outlined in the consultation feedback report, which is available on the Auckland Transport website for the project.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

32. In this case, this does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water so specific Māori input was not sought.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. This project was identified by Auckland Council as one of the key projects for CATTR Funding, and therefore this is not a decision of the board, but AT do seek support from the local board on the project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. The proposed decisions do have some risk, any construction project can be affected by a range of factors including weather, contract availability or discovery of previously un-identified factors like unmapped infrastructure.

35. AT manages risk by retaining a 10% contingency on projects.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. The following activities or actions are planned:

· The Hobsonville Road Cycleway project will move to construction phase in mid-2025.

· Activations and engagements to support the growth of cycling in the area will be supported and led by the Auckland Transport Sustainable Mobility Team.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board presentation 2 February 2023.	109
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board presentation 12 October 2023.	123
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board presentation 5 September 2024.	135
d ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board presentation 6 March 2025.	155

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

John Gillespie, Head of Stakeholder and Community Engagement, Auckland Transport.

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

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

File No.: CP2025/06613

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local board views on 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 to this report.

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 to this report with tracked 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 to this report), 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 to this report).

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on the final amended Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy in Attachment B of the agenda report

b) tuku / provide local board views on the proposal to update 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 to this report, 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 to this report, 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 to this report (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 to this report).

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 CP2025/06613

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 to this report.

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 to this report, 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 to this report). 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 to this report).

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 to this report 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 to this report).

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) (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Preliminary findings for improving advice to local boards (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Public feedback on proposal to amend dog policy and bylaw

File No.: CP2025/06621

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 Governing Body 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 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.

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 Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel to consider all public feedback and make recommendations, before a final decision is made.

5. The proposal to adopt and 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 to this report. Feedback related to the local board area is in Attachment B to this report. 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 Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address feedback from people in the local board area, and if it wishes, present those views to the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw 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 Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel on 23 May 2025. The Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / 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) tuku / 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 Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel in its deliberations.

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

d) tāpae / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint a replacement to any appointed member in (c) who is unable to present to the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw 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^{^[2]} now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel (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 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.

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 2025 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 216 people from the Upper Harbour Local Board area provided feedback to the proposal.

25. There was majority support for proposals to reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, and to change or clarify dog access rules at Shakespear and Muriwai Regional Parks, split support for proposals to clarify dog access rules at Tāwharanui and Wenderholm Regional Parks, and majority opposition for the proposal to limit the number of dogs walked and 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)	28 per cent	72 per cent	33 per cent	66 per cent
P2	Auckland Botanic Gardens	35 per cent	60 per cent	34 per cent	62 per cent
P3	Hunua Ranges Regional Park	32 per cent	61 per cent	33 per cent	56 per cent
P4	Long Bay Regional Park	25 per cent	71 per cent	26 per cent	70 per cent
P5A	Mahurangi Regional Park East	23 per cent	62 per cent	27 per cent	62 per cent
P5B	Mahurangi Regional Park West	27 per cent	62 per cent	28 per cent	60 per cent
P5C	Mahurangi Regional Park Scott Point	28 per cent	60 per cent	29 per cent	61 per cent
P6	Pākiri Regional Park	22 per cent	78 per cent	15 per cent	81 per cent
P7	Shakespear Regional Park	50 per cent	36 per cent	39 per cent	51 per cent
P8	Tāpapakanga Regional Park	31 per cent	56 per cent	34 per cent	55 per cent
P9	Te Ārai Regional Park	32 per cent	65 per cent	18 per cent	76 per cent
P10	Waitawa Regional Park	20 per cent	73 per cent	30 per cent	61 per cent
P11	Whakanewha Regional Park	38 per cent	50 per cent	35 per cent	51 per cent
P12A	Ambury Regional Park	32 per cent	60 per cent	37 per cent	55 per cent
P12B	Muriwai Regional Park	57 per cent	39 per cent	46 per cent	47 per cent
P12C	Tāwharanui Regional Park	43 per cent	50 per cent	43 per cent	45 per cent
P12D	Wenderholm Regional Park	48 per cent	40 per cent	42 per cent	44 per cent
P13A	Restructure the policy to more clearly show its goal, focus areas, council actions, and rules	68 per cent	13 per cent	71 per cent	17 per cent
P13B	Clarify rule that all dogs classified as menacing must be neutered	86 per cent	11 per cent	81 per cent	13 per cent
P13C	Clarify who can provide behavioural assessments in relation to menacing dog classifications	87 per cent	6 per cent	83 per cent	6 per cent
P13D	Clarify what areas in Auckland require a license to keep multiple dogs on a property	70 per cent	21 per cent	74 per cent	17 per cent
P13E	Clarify how dog access rules are set	79 per cent	13 per cent	75 per cent	13 per cent
P13F	Clarify Auckland-wide dog access rules	75 per cent	17 per cent	76 per cent	17 per cent
P13G	Clarify or correct errors in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	62 per cent	13 per cent	67 per cent	12 per cent
P13H	Remove outdated information in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	85 per cent	7 per cent	80 per cent	9 per cent
P13I	Update dog access rules for Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)	52 per cent	21 per cent	49 per cent	26 per cent
P13J	Remove outdated or duplicate bylaw content	79 per cent	6 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.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

28. The proposal, proposed policy and bylaw can be viewed in the links. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A to this report and a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area to meet council’s statutory requirements is in Attachment B to this report. 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.

29. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the 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 Auckland Council Dog Policy and Bylaw does 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 Auckland Council 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 Auckland Council Dog Policy and Bylaw impacts 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 Auckland Council 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 Auckland Council Dog 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 Auckland Council Dog 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 the Auckland Council 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 Upper Harbour Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Public feedback on proposed changes to cemetery bylaw

File No.: CP2025/06427

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal to amend Auckland Council’s Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw and to revoke the Code of Practice.

2. To delegate one or more board members to present those views to the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria 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 Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal to amend the Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw and revoke the Code.

4. The Governing Body adopted a proposal to amend the Auckland Council Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 and to revoke the Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014.

5. The proposal seeks to improve council’s administrative efficiency, and to better minimise public safety risks, cemetery misuse, obstruction, and damage to property, heritage and the environment through structural changes to the Bylaw and Code framework.

6. Council received responses from 33 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 23 February 2025. All feedback is summarised by the following topics:

· Proposal 1: Use a bylaw to set cemetery rules and to revoke the Code of Practice.

· Proposal 2: Clarify when council approval is required (2A) and to clarify rules about adornments (2B), maintenance (2C), preparing a casket or shroud for burial and cremation (2D) and monument work and physical works (2E).

· Proposal 3: Update the bylaw structure, definitions, and wording for clarity.

7. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the appointed Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel should address feedback from people in the local board area. Taking this approach will assist the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel in making recommendations to the Governing Body about whether to adopt the proposal.

8. There is a reputational risk that the feedback from the local board area is from a limited number 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.

9. Local boards can (if they wish) present their views to the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel on 13 June 2025. The Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel will consider board views and all public feedback before making recommendations to the Governing Body in June 2025. The Governing Body will make a final decision in mid-2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the public feedback from people in the local board area to the Governing Body proposal to amend the Auckland Council Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) and to revoke Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014 (Code) in the agenda report.

b) whakarato / provide its views on how the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria 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 Cemeteries and Crematoria 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

10. The local board in accordance with council’s collaborative governance model^{^[3]} now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel (Panel) should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal.

11. 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 13 June 2025.

12. 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).

The Bylaw and Code help to manage council cemeteries and crematoria

13. To help manage council cemeteries and crematoria, council uses the Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) and Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014 (Code).

14. The Bylaw and Code seek to minimise public safety risks, cemetery misuse, distress to families, obstruction, and damage to property, heritage and the environment at council cemeteries and crematoria (not for example, ash scattering in public places).

15. Council operates approximately 29 active (operational) and 26 inactive (no new plots for sale; no longer in regular use; function as local parks) cemeteries. This includes cemeteries with crematoria at Waikumete, Manukau Memorial Gardens and North Shore Memorial Park.

16. The Governing Body has delegated authority to make, amend and revoke the Code to the Regulatory and Safety Committee, and to administer the Bylaw and Code to cemetery and Aotea Great Barrier Island staff and the Waikumete Urupā Komiti.^{^[4]}

17. The Bylaw and Code form part of a wider regulatory and strategic framework including the:

· Burial and Cremation Act 1964 that enables council to provide cemetery services

· Cremation Regulations 1973 that regulates cremations

· Health (Burial) Regulations 1946 that regulates funeral directors, mortuaries, burials at sea, handling and transportation of dead bodies and approved disinfectants

· Burial and Cremation (Removal of Monuments and Tablets) Regulation 1967 that provides for the removal of dilapidated or neglected monuments and tablets

· Auckland Unitary Plan^{^[5]} that regulates activities at cemeteries to protect heritage^{^[6]}, meet the needs of the community, maintain or enhance the local environment and amenity values and to protect conservation values and natural qualities of open space conservation zones (which include non-operational cemeteries).

The Governing Body has proposed amending the Bylaw and revoking the Code

18. On 12 December 2024, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to amend the Bylaw and revoke the Code for public consultation (GB/2024/182). A Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel was appointed to consider all public feedback and make recommendations to the Governing Body before a final decision is made (RSCCC/2024/82).

19. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Bylaw and Code (see Figure below).

20. The proposal seeks to improve council’s administrative efficiency, and to better minimise public safety risks, cemetery misuse, obstruction, and damage to property, heritage and the environment through structural changes to the Bylaw and Code framework.

21. Main proposals in comparison to the current Bylaw and Code are outlined in the table below.

Main proposals
Use a bylaw to set cemetery rules in a way that allows cemetery staff to manage the daily operation of council cemeteries and crematoria, and to revoke the Code of Practice.
Clarify rules about when council approval is required and about adornments, maintenance, and preparing a casket for burial and cremation.
Update the bylaw structure, definitions, and wording for clarity.

22. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 20 January 2025 until 23 February 2025. Council received feedback from 31 people and two organisations (total of 32).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. One submitter from the Upper Harbour Local Board area provided feedback to the proposal.

24. There was majority support for Proposals 1 and 3, and most of Proposal 2 (clarify when council approval is required, rules about adornments, maintenance and preparing a casket or shroud for burial or cremation). The submitter did not provide a view on clarifying rules about monument work and physical works (Proposal 2E).

25. This is generally consistent with the Auckland-wide feedback where there was majority support for all three proposals.

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

Topic (Proposals P1 to P3)		Local board feedback		Auckland-wide feedback
Topic (Proposals P1 to P3)		Support	Opposition	Support	Opposition
P1	Use a bylaw to set cemetery rules and to revoke the Code of Practice	100 per cent	0 per cent	85 per cent	15 per cent
P2A	Clarify when council approval is required	100 per cent	0 per cent	85 per cent	4 per cent
P2B	Clarify rules about adornments	100 per cent	0 per cent	63 per cent	17 per cent
P2C	Clarify rules about maintenance	100 per cent	0 per cent	86 per cent	4 per cent
P2D	Clarify rules about preparing a casket or shroud for burial and cremation	100 per cent	0 per cent	96 per cent	0 percent
P2E	Clarify rules about monument work and physical works	0 per cent	0 per cent	79 per cent	7 per cent
P3	Update the bylaw structure, definitions, and wording for clarity	100 per cent	0 per cent	85 per cent	11 per cent

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

26. The proposal, proposed bylaw and current bylaw and code can be viewed in the links. A summary of all public feedback is in Attachment A to this report and a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area is in Attachment B to this report.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

27. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 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 13 June 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28. The proposal does not directly address the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. For example, the proposal focuses on ensuring that memorials do not cause safety risks and adornments do not obstruct maintenance, rather than regulating the climate impact of common practices. 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

29. The proposed changes impact the Cemetery Services and the Aotea Great Barrier Island service centre which provide council cemetery services.

30. Relevant staff input was sought to inform the statutory bylaw review, options and proposal, and staff are aware of the impacts of the changes and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. Based on the agreed principles and processes in the Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, views from interested local boards were sought on draft options and proposal.

32. In October and November 2024, 12 interested local boards provided formal views on draft options and a proposal. A summary of local board views can be viewed in the 3 December 2024 Regulatory and Safety Committee agenda (Attachment C to Item 10).

33. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. The proposal supports whanaungatanga, rangatiratanga, manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga in Houkura / the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by providing regulation that supports council services to meet social, cultural and physical needs, and supports the role of the Waikumete Urupā Komiti (Komiti) at Te Urupā o Waikumete (Waikumete Cemetery).^{^[7]}

35. 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.

36. Six per cent (two) of the total responders identified as Māori.

37. Both supported the proposal to amend the Bylaw, remove the Code, update the Bylaw structure, definitions and wording and to clarify rules about when council approval is required and about adornments, maintenance, and preparing a casket for burial and cremation.

38. One disagreed with clarifying the rules about monument and physical works, noting that other cultures may disagree with what is a culturally acceptable New Zealand monument and suggested that a maximum size be placed on monuments to ensure compliance.

39. Both commented on the adornments. One about the mess associated with plastic adornments, and the other about what are suitable materials to hold flowers.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. The cost of the public consultation and implementation of the proposal (if adopted) will be met within existing budgets.

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. On 13 June 2025 the Governing Body Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body in mid-2025. The Governing Body will make a final decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of public feedback to the proposed changes to the cemetery bylaw.	191
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in Upper Harbour Local Board area.	211

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Three new public road names, two new private road names, and the extension of one existing public road name at 23-27 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai (Stage 2A and 2B, Spedding Block Precinct)

File No.: CP2025/06335

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to name three new public roads and two new private roads being commonly owned access lots and use the existing name for the extension of one public road created by way of a subdivision development at 23-27 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai (Stage 2A and 2B, Spedding Block Precinct).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The developer and applicant, Spedding Land Company Limited, has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

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

5. The proposed names for the new public and private roads at 23-27 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai are:

	Applicant’s Preference	Alternatives
Public Road 1	John Hull Road	· Wai Te Puta Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane · Te Taunga Roa Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane · Wai Marino Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane · Te Okoriki Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane · Kahui Manu Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane
Public Road 2	Rawa Nui Crescent
Public Road 3	Industry Drive
Public Road 4	Spedding Road (extension of existing road)
Private Road 1	Wai Rahi Road
Private Road 2	Te Kokanga Lane

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the following names for the three new public roads and two new private roads created by way of subdivision undertaken by Spedding Land Company Limited at 23-27 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60430351, SUB60430353, road naming reference RDN90121856).

i) John Hull Road (Public Road 1)

ii) Rawa Nui Crescent (Public Road 2)

iii) Industry Drive (Public Road 3)

iv) Wai Rahi Road (Private Road 1)

v) Te Kokanga Lane (Private Road 2)

b) whakaae / approve the extension of the existing road ‘Spedding Road’ (Public Road 4) created by way of subdivision undertaken by Spedding Land Company Limited at 23-27 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60430351, SUB60430353, road naming reference RDN90121856).

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent reference BUN60430351 (subdivision reference number SUB60430353) was issued in August 2024 to subdivide two super lots and create 19 industrial lots and roading.

7. The scheme and location plans of the development can be found in Attachment A and B to this report.

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

9. Those roads requiring a name for the current stages of the subdivision (2A and 2B) are identified in Attachment A to this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

12. Theme: The proposed names reflect historical/ancestral linkages to the area and reflect the industrial identity of the development.

	Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Public Road 1	John Hull Road (applicant’s preference)	John Hull is the original farmer who owned the land previously, before the development/plan change. Gifted from John Hull’s sons
Public Road 2	Rawa Nui Crescent (applicant’s preference)	Means ‘Plentiful Resources’. This name refers to the large amount of resources and vegetation of the land that Whenuapai provided for people from the Te Kawerau ā Maki iwi. Gifted from Te Kawerau ā Maki
Public Road 3	Industry Drive (applicant’s preference)	The Spedding Industrial Precinct will cater to the additional growth currently underway in Whenuapai/North-West of Auckland by providing job opportunities for locals and significantly improving its surrounding transport infrastructure. The name recognises the future industrial hub that will be created at the Spedding Block Precinct, which will become the new centre of industry within Whenuapai.
Public Road 4	Spedding Road (applicant’s preference)	n/a – extension of an existing road.
Private Road 1	Wai Rahi Road (applicant’s preference)	Means ‘Large Water’. This name reflects and acknowledges the ancestral awa (river) that surround this particular area. Gifted from Te Kawerau ā Maki
Private Road 2	Te Kokanga Lane (applicant’s preference)	Means ‘The Planting of Corn’. The planting of corn refers to Te Kawerau ā Maki’s tupuna and their food source. This event took place opposite the Waionoke Stream. Gifted from Te Kawerau ā Maki
Alternative Name Options
All Roads	Wai Te Puta Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane (alternative)	Means ‘The Water Flowing Forth’. Wai Te Puta is a stream that flows into the west side headwaters of Brigham Creek. Gifted from Te Kawerau ā Maki
	Te Taunga Roa Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane (alternative)	Means ‘The Long Abiding’. A stream located on the West of Hobsonville. Gifted from Te Kawerau ā Maki
	Wai Marino Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane (alternative)	Means ‘Calm Waters’. This name refers to the original name of Whenuapai ‘Waimarie’ which translates to ‘Calm Waters’. This also has a connection to the surrounding ancestral awa in the area. Gifted from Te Kawerau ā Maki
	Te Okoriki Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane (alternative)	Means ‘Gradually wearing away’. A small headland west of Hobsonville (Onekiritea). Gifted from Te Kawerau ā Maki
	Kahui Manu Road/Crescent/Drive/Lane (alternative)	This name is in relation to ‘Tahinga Manu’ which translates to ‘Flock of Birds’ which is also the translation of ‘Kahui Manu’. This is located at the sandspit East of Hobsonville. Gifted from Te Kawerau ā Maki

13. Assessment: All the name options listed in the table above have been assessed by the council’s Subdivision Specialist team to ensure that they meet both the guidelines and the standards in respect of road naming. The technical standards are considered to have been met, and duplicate names are not located in close proximity. It is, therefore, for the local board to decide upon the suitability of the names within the local context and in accordance with the delegation.

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

15. Road Type: The road types ‘Road’, ‘Crescent’, ‘Drive’, and ‘Lane’ are acceptable for the respective roads, suiting their form and layout.

16. Consultation: Mana whenua were consulted in line with the processes and requirements described in the guidelines. Additional commentary is provided in the Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori section that follows.

17. In accordance with Technical Requirement (15) of the road naming guidelines, the sons of John Hull have provided their permission for the applicant to use their father’s name as a road name.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate local impact beyond those outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

22. On 24 July 2024, mana whenua were contacted by the applicant’s agent. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust)

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Maru (Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust)

· Ngāti Pāoa (Ngāti Paoa Trust Board)

· Ngāti Tamaterā (Ngāti Tamaterā Settlement Trust

· Ngāti Te Ata (Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua)

· Ngāti Whanaunga (Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated)

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

23. Ngāti Manuhiri was the only group to respond, deferring to Te Kawerau ā Maki.

24. Following the response from Ngāti Manuhiri, the applicant’s agent contacted Te Kawerau ā Maki directly and sought input into the road naming application. On 21 January 2025, Te Kawerau ā Maki suggested several names. Three of these names are proposed as preferred names, and five names have been proposed as alternatives.

25. No other responses, comments, or feedback have been received. Having received and adopted several names suggested by Te Kawerau ā Maki, the applicant now wishes to continue to a decision from the local board.

26. This site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. Approved road names are notified to LINZ which records them on its New Zealand wide land information database. LINZ provides all updated information to other users, including emergency services.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	23-27 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai Scheme Plan	225
b ⇩	23-27 Brigham Creek Road, Whenuapai Location Map	227

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Mira Narula - Consultant Planner

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

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

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

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

[4] Committee supporting Te Urupā o Waikumete (at Waikumete Cemetery) in partnership with council.

[5] D17 Historic Heritage Overlay; H7 Open Space Zones; H24 Special Purpose – Cemetery Zone, K Designations.

[6] For example, the works that impact historic memorials or places in Sch 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage or with designations.

[7] Committee has an advisory role for Te Urupā o Waikumete in partnership with council.

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

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